Talk:HD DVD/Archive 2

Triple layer HD DVD

See this article: http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/02/27/hddvd_51gb_disc/. It discusses Toshiba's recent development of a triple layer hd dvd. I don't know how to add citations to the page so I posted here so someone could take care of it for me. Thanks.

Patrick 2/27/2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Socer1104 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Its already in the article in the Ongoing Development section. --Ray andrew 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

How about showing some pictures of a HD-DVD package and disk ? Coinsidering that there are absolutely no pictures in the article except the logo.Sugreev2001 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Independent film, "One Six Right: The Romance of Flying"

After reading about the first independent film shot and released on HD under the section about released titles, what followed was a long synopsis about what the film was about, how it was shot, its technical and visual marvels, etc. This is completely unneccessary and I deleted it. If people want to learn more about the film, all they have to do is click on the link, that's what they're there for.

Squeaky17 02:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD / Blu-ray comparison

Hi. First of all, the numbers in the article is not up to date. Why don't u count them your self Ray? Second, these discs isn't representing all BD, and are therefor twisted facts, nether HD DVD. A better way to backup these numbers is to go to ex. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/ and count them there. The site listing ALL movies, and the size of the disc. This is not a forum for the format war so please keep wrong facts out of it. --85.228.237.186 09:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Added the source myself. --85.228.237.186 11:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

This user prefers HD DVD over Blu-ray Disc

I know this is a little off topic, but I created a userbox for those who prefer HD DVD over Blu-ray Disc: {{User:TJ Spyke/Userboxes/HD DVD}}, feel free to add it to your userpage (it will automatically put you in a category called Category:Wikipedians who use HD DVD). TJ Spyke 02:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to get rid of that silly sign, now that we know the better format won... --Blue-ray fanboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.18.42 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Please keep the format war out of here. Go to a forum! --(85.228.237.203 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

You should not delete others posts, I have reverted your deletion. --Ray andrew 03:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Anon removed the post again, which I have reverted. I will say that this is not the approrpriate place for advertising a userbox. The original poster may wish to retract his post. --StuffOfInterest 11:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please give me one good reson why there should be a Userbox in here? This is something for the format war, and not for this wiki. Please respect that! --(85.228.237.203 11:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

It might not hurt to read the page on Wikipedia vandalism. Specifically the section on talk page vandalism:

Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon.

If you think its that big of a deal, just look at the category the OP gave, as of now he is the only one using the template.--Ray andrew 13:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

This is a talk page, not a user template, please, someone take this page out of Category:User templates -PatPeter 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

done and done Teque5 17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV / Accuracy

It would be nice if whoever added both the NPOV and accuracy tags on this article could explain their dispute. If not they will be removed. --Ray andrew 02:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to remove it as nobody is fessing up to it. --Ray andrew 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiny Lead Section

The lead section is a single sentence. According to Wikipedia:Lead Section "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." The lead-in should be three or four paragraphs for a long article such as this, according to the guidelines. The lead section used to be longer, but it was gutted in mid-January. Spiel496 20:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

New Compare table discussion

Hi all. We are discussing a new Compare table. Please come in and leave your opinion on the new tables here. --StarChild74 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wal-mart HD-DVD rumor

Gizmodo cites a forum post that cites two pages written in Chinese claiming that a company called Fuh Yuan will produce 20M HD-DVD players for Wal-Mart. Various sources including Engadget suggest this might be a mistranslation and the article may be talking about Blu-ray or a dual-format player, or may be unclear.

Via Google News I found blog posts (but not proper news stories) at Wired News and PC World which clarify nothing.

None of this seems reliable enough to put in the article. At best, if someone can read Chinese, if one of those Chinese pages is an unambiguous report from an authoritative source saying what format's involved, and if untangling all that doesn't count as original research, maybe there's an edit to be made. Mainly I post so that nobody has to repeat the exact same digging I just did.

(One more note: the forum post says Fuh Yuan's Chinese site mentions the deal, but I couldn't find indications of that by using Google Translate or eyeballing the site.)

67.180.140.96 05:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia does subliminal advertising?

Under "xbox 360":

combined with a software that supports playing HD DVDs (such as Cyberlink PowerDVD Ultra or WinDVD 8)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.30.218.110 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

As far as I know, those two are the *only* available software players, at least for Windows (mplayer, and vlc are still trying to get it working) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.100.65 (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Encryption key

Why was the encryption key section removed? It was well cited, factual, and relevant? Xrobau 13:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It would likely be a violation of the USA's DMCA to post this information as it would aid in circumventing the DRM. --Ray andrew 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn't there still be some info about the encryption key leak? We don't necessarily need to include the actual key. Zillionaire 17:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I think information about it should be posted, but there's no need to post the actual key (it's all over the place anyway). --CCFreak2K 23:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A number can NEVER be covered by the DMCA. If the number represented in itself creative intellectual content, then it would be source-code. But it's not. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 00:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The DMCA doesn't cover numbers like that. It's illegal to use it, yes, but to censor it on the internet is a violation of fundamental freedoms and something the DMCA cannot do. If anything, a section about it is needed as today has seen a huge movement of the preservation of rights based on this hexadecimal number. Soccernamlak 01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the key should be noted. [deleted] has quickly spread around the Internet as a form of rebellion. There are now well over 300,000 results when a Google search for said key is done. Also, a look at any technology news website will find that the key has been placed there as well. Digg.com, right now, is a massive clusterfuck of this key being spammed. The Pirate Bay has said key on its main page. YTMND's front page has it now, and even the epidemic Wikipedia is facing with this key further contributes to its notability. Xizer 01:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I agree with this. There is no way the key isn't major, major news right now. As such it should be on Wikipedia. And it isn't illegal; it's just a number. This is something Wikipedia needs to stand up for: freedom of speech. --Jackson 04:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This entire situation is not only incredibly ridiculous, but is undermining Wikipedia as a neutral source of information. There *at least* needs to be a section noting the release of this encryption key, which now can't be added because of the protection- and there's no time in the near future where the protection could be removed "safely". If wikipedia can allow the use of copyrighted screenshots as "'believed' fair use", then why not a series of hexidecimal numbers. One day someone has to stand up for these rights. Kyelewis 03:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just to add something above about a number being covered under the DMCA... Numbers cannot be patented, trademarked, or considered trade secrets. For further information, look at why Intel moved from 286, 386, 486 into Pentium. The US Courts said (and I think it went to the Supreme Court) that a number can't be legally protected. Intel couldn't patent the 3-digit number 586, so they went to Pentium (which is pretty close to the Latin translation for 5). The more you know, yadda yadda yadda. Ghostalker 03:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Using numbers for brand names falls under trademarks, not patents. —tregoweth (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A fact cannot be copyrighted, but a creative expression can be. But any creative expression can be coded as a number. Don't focus too much on the "number" bit because it will get you nowhere. --Yesno 04:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a creative expression. It was almost certainly generated as randomly as possible, which is about as far opposite of "random" as you can get. EvanED 06:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be posted as people might not know what the number is and search for encyclopedic information on it when they see it. There are for examples articles on Wikipedia for the number Pi and E. So is there anyone who still does not want it on this page. Lonjers 05:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I can understand Wikipedia's reluctance to dive into this fray, but they're pretty much as wrong as the company causing this ruckus about the legality of the number as either a trademark or a patent, or any other such thing. Abercrombie & Fitch tried to fight for a number copyright and lost, they went far and they still lost. its simple, numbers don't copyright, trademark, or any other such thing, and enough companies have fought and lost to leave a trail of court paperwork anyone with half a mind and a google button could find. simply? wikipedia: pony up, drop the number, explain the controversy, but (this is key) don't explain how to use the number. -- Tkilljoy 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A number isn't illegal. It's how you use it. I mean, if that would be the case, wouldn't that also mean that Wikipedia talking about the parts of a nuke can mean bad business. We're just saying that that the hex code can shit your HD-DVD, not saying what to do with your shit. I know, the Nuke thing was a weak analogy, but you get the idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zero R (talk • contribs) 11:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

key censoring

This key?

• I'm not sure if that's the number in question. A citation would need to be found from a reliable source to confirm that the string of characters you've listed corresponds to the one we're discussing. Otherwise, it might as well be this string: — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-02 01:10Z

Well, for one thing, "S" isn't a valid hexadecimal digit. However, I'm sure we could post and cite the fact that the code has been leaked without posting the actual code, right? I mean, this is an important fact about HDDVD.

It's not code. It's a string. Nothing original or unique has been leaked, and the number is not illegal to display or disseminate; it only becomes illegal when you use the number to copy DVDs. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-02 03:49Z

This was exactly the reason I was visiting this wikipedia page was to determine if this a hoax or the genuine story! At the very least it seems to be generating some kind of buzz, so I think omitting mention of it entirely is a little misleading.

The key is for those who missed it.

Why is it bad to list illegal keys here but on illegal number it's OK? Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 03:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding illegal number, it should be noted that the question, "is the number itself illegal?" has never been tested in court, and it is possible that the number itself and its possession would be found to be legal, but not a particular interpretation of it." Pizzachicken 05:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But this is a number too... Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 05:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it comes from the doom9 fourms.Brianherman 03:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC) [1] Brianherman 04:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it (more than) a bit disconcerting that as a person outside the reach of US law, what I read (or can write) is being affected by US law. Is this a consequence of all Wikipedia's servers being in the US, or is it a case of a small number of administrators taking the law into their own hands and censoring Wikipedia for a perceived risk (if so those administrators should be censured by the community)? On whose authority is this information being removed please? John Dalton 05:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we're subject to the DMCA, as our primary servers are located in Florida, USA. Sorry. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is "we" please? And do "we" have the authority to make such a decision? John Dalton 05:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

With context clues, I can determine that We refers to the Wikipedia group itself, and all the staff related to it. Given that they don't want to get sued or spammed out, they are exercising their rights as admins to control the content on the site they are responsible for - it is THEIR butts on the line, after all, and not yours. Or are you all more interested in making Wikipedia like Digg is right now? ZekeSulastin 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get to an answer, not a guess. There is no need assume that I am not acting in good faith. I'm merely asking questions, as I have yet to see one of the owners of Wikipedia's current servers stand up and say "We are banning this fact and here is the reason why". Digg illustrates why my questions are in good faith. Censorship has damaged Digg's credibility. Will the loss of credibility be fatal to Digg? Who knows. In good faith I am trying to look out for Wikipedia's interests and avoid Wikipedia suffering the same fate. John Dalton 06:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting serious. It's hitting the media that Wikipedia is a bastion of censorship (wired). The wired story has hit Digg, who are now publishing the key, under the title Wikipedia Locks Out "the numbers". No doubt the mainstream media is going to pick up on it soon. The combination of Wikipedia and censorship will be irresistible.

The admins who are blocking the key, without good reason, are in the process of shredding Wikipedia's reputation. Someone from the top of the organisation needs to know about what is going on here and its consequences and then make a decision. In my opinion the admins are out of their depth. John Dalton 07:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer is staring at you. so lets cover some finer points you're skipping over in order to fight over a footnote to an easily forgotten format war. 1. Florida is in the United States. 2. United States has the DMCA. 3. The DMCA answers the questions.

Playing with the debate; as said earlier, number strings arent trademarked, copyrighted, etc.. people have tried (intel, abercrombie, etc) and universally failed. Thats no reason for Wikipedia to stop "censoring" a silly strong of numbers for a few people from the hpvac scene who've jaded their sense of freedom and rights into a big mush of incomprehensible arguments over number strings. (we had this number string war about.. 6-7 years ago, for ye forgetful person. but thats a poitn i'll touch later.) Yes, Wikipedia's in legal right ultimately to post this string and why its controversial (but not how to use it, that'd be illegal). No, Wikipedia doesn't have to do it, and no one has the right to tell them what they should/shouldn't post (or censor, to use your quaint terms that forget we are, inherently, dealing with a US Corporation that does not have to honor freedom of speech on its property, inclusive of digital space.)

Why should wikipedia NOT post this? because it isn't safe for them, yet. In time it will be, but unless someone wants to pony up and make a written guarantee of paying the legal bills for Wikipedia to be the one fighting this ridiculous battle (and don't hold your breath on the EFF, they're not about to.) I'd say let the code sit off site until cooler heads (and sensible interpretation and application of laws) prevail, then post this moment in history where it belongs.

This is, ultimately, a moot battle. We're quick to forget we've been here before, especially in format wars and protection goodies (i repoint the t-shirts of code from some years ago.) There's little reason Wikipedia, long term, will be harmed by censoring this (and i know that because its happened on other articles and you don't seem to have any knowledge of this information with held.) even permanently (aside the obvious inconvenience of article protection)

Finally, seriously. footnote to a format war that's gonna be brief (blueray and hddvd's replacement tech will hit the shelf before the end of '07) ..really a reason to ruffle ourselves? -- Tkilljoy 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not going to hit my head against a wall or contradict your reasons. I do want to make sure that it's not just a small number of people holding out. I've pointed out this discussion at the Village Pump in an attempt to get more people involved and get a representative decision (which could well be what you have said). I've also requested that someone who does have authority over the servers weigh in so we are not second guessing their intentions. John Dalton 07:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree an official weigh in would be nice, but we can fairly well use insight and common sense to divine the reasoning since it's being actively discussed all over the place right now. I like factoids and the little things of history (this almost seems like nifty Trivia fodder for ten years later.) but right now its a controversy that Wikipedia is not as readily aligned to tackle as places like Digg would be (they're inherently different in the means of information dissemination, and Digg is in a position where a sensible stand can be made excusable, Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, is only a place to blandly observe it, not participate.) -- Tkilljoy 07:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The key will soon be expired [2] and replaced.Tyro 08:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The way it's going the controversy will soon be worthy of its own article. Gizmodo is calling the Digg events "a watermark in social media"[3]. John Dalton 12:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever happend to "Wikipedia is not censored"? -Towel401 11:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to "The internet is a place for Freedom of Speech?" -decrease789 12:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A sad day in the history of wikipedia by the looks of it -Towel401 13:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

why? it's not our job to contain instructions on how to bypass the encryption. the number is not illegal; mentioning that the system can be bypassed is not illegal; mentioning that the number can be used to bypass the system might be.

the article does not require any mention of the cracking/phenomena NOW, so we can wait for legal feedback, no?

anyhoo, the number and the fact it can be used to circumvent the encryption is pretty much in the public domain now, so i suspect wp will eventually end up with an article on the events, or the number itself. can't see it being illegal to mention a fact that is freely available and widely known --Dak 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It _is_ our job to remain free from censorship. I couldn't care less about the number, but I care about my rights to discuss it, name it, mention it or do whatever the hell I feel like with it. Perhaps the servers should be moved to a free country. --MarSch 14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The country does not matter. How many times do people have to be explained that you only have freedom of speech in PUBLIC places. Private institutions or websites can censor anything you say, it is their prerogative and no Constitution has ever infringed on the right for private places or websites to decide to do things their way. 128.227.69.35 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the delusion that the idea to censor originated from wikipedia. I remind you that it is wikipedia policy not to censor. The idea to censor originated from the DMCA and was overapplied by some of our overzealous admins. Therefore it does make sense to move to somewhere free so people don't have to get all excited over some numbers. --MarSch 10:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a petition located here.  Tcrow777  talk  22:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Change to semiprotection

I originally protected this page, but have changed to semiprotection. Until a decision has been reached about the copyright status of the number, DO NOT POST IT. You will be blocked. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, I'm just wondering - what policy are you using as justification for the blocking? Is this an OFFICE action? --Philosophus ^T 04:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The posting of copyrighted content is never permitted. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. Until clarified, it makes no difference that the content in this case is a hexadecimal number. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A randomly-generated number can not be copyrighted, of course; it is not a creative work. Cjbprime 04:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is it claimed that the number is copyrighted? I haven't heard anyone state that (not even AACS, I believe), and can't see how the policy you are quoting applies. --Philosophus ^T 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The number cannot be copyrighted. That's like saying the number 42 is copyrighted and no one can use it without consent. My question is, what grounds are you using for copyright status of the number? Essentially, how is it disputable? Because DMCA says so? The clarification you are going to get is that the number is just that: a number. To be anything but is just violating the Constitution. Soccernamlak 04:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, even if it's perfectly legal to include, there's no real reason to. This is supposed to be a general encyclopedia article about HD DVD, not an in-depth technical paper. —tregoweth (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's now part of the social history of the HD DVD format. --Yesno 04:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC) (refactored by Philosophus, sorry)

I don't think the number needs to be included either, or even particularly merits inclusion, but I would like to know what policy justification can be given for immediately blocking those who add it in a non-vandal-like way. --Philosophus ^T 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason the number should be included is that the attempts to censor the number are gaining signifigant notability. The number itself wasn't notable before, but the attempts to conceal it changed that. Monty845 04:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give reliable sources to support that claim? If not, it isn't notable in the eyes of Wikipedia policy. --Philosophus ^T 04:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See either, [4], [5] (Slashdot and Digg), both news outlets/aggregators. Digg, a major Web 2.0 company, is in a state of meltdown after user revolt over this same censorship issue. The story itself is rapidly spreading over the internet, and I'm sure it will be in the mainstream media at some point in the next 2-3 days. That Wikipedia isn't (at the very least) covering it is a shame. --Jackson 05:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to add emphasis to this, by the account of a number of Digg and Slashdot posts, including for instance the summary of [6], the original story on Digg.com had between fifteen and sixteen thousand "diggs" when it was deleted, which would make it the second or third most popular story in the past year [7] EvanED 05:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also see: [8], [9], [10]. I don't see how this isn't news. --Jackson 05:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason it's not really news is because THEY ARE TAKING ACTION AGAINST IT! Although, by now there's no way they can stop the spread of the number; it's everywhere. --Notmyhandle 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Digg has now reversed its position and is no longer deleting them. (See blog.digg.com) And I would argue that it's indirectly the fact that they were taking action. It was classic Streisand effect (and mention of this probably shouldn't have been removed from that page either); that's *WHY* it's everywhere. The number has been known for a couple months; the reason you're hearing about it now is because of Digg. It's also a demonstration of a possible abuse of the DMCA, and could probably fit in a section on that. EvanED 06:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That 'THEY ARE TAKING ACTION AGAINST IT' is itself news. Not to mention the response it has provoked - which has demonstrated user power on democratic websites. --Jackson 06:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As of now, the story has been picked up by Wired News, CNet, Forbes, the Guardian, and the Register, among others. [11]. So I'd say it's clearly 'notable'. --24.58.3.248 15:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

...

This is a very interesting social phenomenon... --Remi 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The key, even if copyrighted, is being posted legally. Fair use, educational value, necessary for academic discussion, etc. The issue might be that it violates the DMCA. To apply the DMCA in this case would likely be unconstitutional. The only "decision" that could settle this is a court decision. In the meantime, Wikipedia and its user base need to have some cojones, and users ought not act as the content industry's thought police. Just because someone important-looking says something is illegal does not make it so. --Yesno 04:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

All together now: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not the place to be taking stands; it's an encyclopedia. —tregoweth (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and this is content that belongs on the encyclopedia. It is relevant historically and technically. Those who say that it cannot be posted are wrong. The debate ought to be whether it should be in the article. I think it should be. But whether or not it belongs here, it is not illegal for it to be here. --Yesno 04:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yesno, you seem to be rather new here. Please read the core policies of Wikipedia before trying to get into a debate like this, or you will be smashed by more experienced editors, and will just waste time and resources. Also, please use a less disruptive method of signing; for example, most people end comments like this: --Philosophus ^T 04:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You're right, I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia policy. But the question as to whether posting the key is legal is a question of law, not of Wikipedia policy. --Yesno 05:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that posting a number is a question of law is stupidity. Or the alternative is we have lost our free speech rights entirely because when somebody's feathers get ruffled and whines "DMCA" Wikipedia has to cave in. Let me explain it simply. This number does not decode HD DVDs. It's a long country mile and a whole bunch more programming before that even starts to happen. Therefore it in no way violates the DMCA. I can't hand you a piece of paper with this number on it and the DVD will mystically start playing. Not with the physics I learned about in college. It's truly unfortunate that the editors of Wikipedia who try to promote a veneer of intelligence instead find themselves parroting the nonsense of the MPAA and give them a pass. But yet other "controversial" topics are defended fiercely. Nodekeeper 05:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it is legal. Saying that something is legal does not make the issue not a "question of law." The Constitution is just law, too.--Yesno 05:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal or not, how does including the actual code improve the article? Posting it here makes as much sense as posting someone's Social Security Number in their biography. —tregoweth (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not everybody's social security number has been leaked over the Internet and on Digg :b --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Bill Gates' SSN in his article, and his number (or a purported one) is pretty easy to find. —tregoweth (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It improves the article in the same way that putting 3.14159... into an article about Pi does. It's a concrete example. There's no reason the Pi article couldn't use the Pi symbol everywhere and never show the decimal representation, but the decimal representation has some utility. So does the Hex number. As far as whether it's copyrightable or not, IANAL but it's surely scenes a faire material. See The Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries Ltd., the I.A.2.f paragraph. Now, it may be illegal to post this number for other reasons (DMCA 1201 (17 USC 1201(a)(2) and 17 USC 1201(b)(1)), but that's a legal question not related to Wikipedia's copyright policy. --kop 05:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't follow the link, "scenes a faire" material is not copyrightable. --kop 05:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember that there were over 8500 diggs on the cracked code. This is pretty notable and is all over the Internet. If anything this should be discussed with a link to a page containing the code. Also, Yesno is correct in that putting the code on Wikipedia is not illegal. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus that kinda sounded like a personal attack just saying.Lonjers 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Volume_license_key#FCKGW another certain notable key for xp. --x1987x^(talk) 14:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Legality of the number

This section is for discussing the legality of posting the number. A relevant article: Illegal prime Whether it should be included or not is for another section, not this one. Pizzachicken 05:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It certainly seems to me that if Wikipedia isn't opposed to publishing the two numbers in the Illegal prime article, then there is no reason to be legally opposed to publishing this key. In the case of the illegal primes, there is potentially enough information in that article to reconstruct the DeCSS program from just the article contents and a standard installation of gzip. In this particular case, it's just a key; the actual algorithm appears neither in the HD-DVD article nor the AACS article. EvanED 05:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully, the illegal prime page reproduces the first illegal prime, without legal consequences. I think there has been some knee-jerk reactions all around, but even Wired has published the number(The New HD-DVD/Blu-ray Hack: What It Might Mean For Us - Tuesday, February 13, 2007).

If a publication that carries adverstising from the HD-DVD consortium dares to publish it, why can't wikipedia? is just a number, and intent is everything in copyright law. I believe we are covered under fair use as we are reporting on a current event that has entered the public record. Wikipedia is covered under fair use like a paper encyclopedia or the press.--Cerejota 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how having this number on an article could or should be illegal. It's a trade secret - a fact, like someone's password, the confidentiality of which is protected by contracts. Once it's out in the open, that's that. Use of said fact may be illegal depending on the use, but not all uses are illegal. GreenReaper 06:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is legal. The key itself is not copyrighted. In the US, you cannot copyright a random or semi-random alphanumeric string. It was a trade secret, which was not leaked, but lawfully reverse engineered. The only question of legality comes from whether it is a circumvention device under the DMCA and WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act. However, this is just an alphanumeric string, not a circumvention device. Actually circumventing the DRM is much more involved and requires other components. Even if it were the only factor involved, a relatively short alphanumeric sequence would likely not stand up in court because it is simply a set of hex numbers which can be interconverted between other forms such as hex color codes, words, ASCII, binary, etc. Also keep in mind the now defunct key is on ~10,000 web pages currently, a number that is growing exponentially. Tyro 06:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this the right place

Since controversy around posting the number is popping up all over wikipedia, is there a place this discussion can be better channelled. I think both vandals and overzealous admins are dominating the agenda right now and we need to come up with a solution.--Cerejota 06:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a shame the article doesn't even mention this topic even without mentioning the number. Amazing that on wikipedia both the number or a summary are banned. Most sites at least allow discussion, and wikipedia is usually right there with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Augustz (talk • contribs) 06:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

I think that a mention of the key would be appropriate in this article (without publishing the key, it's kind of pointless here anyway), but a discussion on the internal workings belongs somewhere else. Leave a link to the illegal primes. That's my suggestion. Maybe as the story develops, have a "controversy" section Nodekeeper 08:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't own a number, man.M. Luke Myers 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional sourcing for the key issues

At present, the key issues have a fair bit of original research and other issues. I need to go to bed now, but it looks like [12], [13] and [14] would be good reliable sources to use in this case. The first one in particular is a reliable source attributing the key leak to the doom9 forum. The Digg founder's blog also contains a comment by the Digg founders in regard to the matter http://blog.digg.com/?p=74. JoshuaZ 06:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol you looking at the Digg page ;)--Cerejota 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Which raises an interesting question: is an alleged key illegal, as opposed to a verified key? Have the guardians of HD-DVDs come out and confirmed that the alleged key is genuine? In the absence of official verification are all keys alleged? Is to record the fact of an allegation illegal (in that the allegation itself is notable) and would such a fact be removed from a Wikipedia article by an enthusiastic administrator? How do we know that the number really is the key or just a number that happens to act as a valid key for a limited number of test cases? John Dalton 06:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Link to the censored hd dvd key The HD DVD Key —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jusore (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

According to the Chilling Effects website, the ASSociation has sent hundreds of Cease and Desist letters, including to Google and to Digg. This is tartamount to admission of the key being valid. You don't pay lawyers to protect bullshit.--Cerejota 06:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

More important and much bigger is the specific notice to GOOGLE. --Notmyhandle 09:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Justification For Protection

Would somebody please cite the exact policy under which this page has been protected?

I understand that the AACS key keeps getting posted here, but as has been discussed earlier this key is probably not subject to copyright, and to my knowledge Wikipedia hasn't received a DMCA takedown request. The key is also useless without instructions on how to apply it. It really doesn't seem any different than illegal prime.

Regardless of whether or not this is notable enough for inclusion here, I don't see the justification in protecting this page. According to the page history there's no edit war going on. This just seems rather arbitrary. --Tjohns ✎ 06:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The number is like a name, and now the string has become quite famous, i.e. identifiable. --Notmyhandle 06:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:PROT, that's not justification for protection. If it were, all articles about historical figures would be protected. --Tjohns ✎ 06:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this number is ALL OVER the net. On google it has more than 250,000 hits as of May 1st. This is knowledge that cant be held back Teque5 07:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cory Doctorow's blog received a DMCA takedown notice for the key [15], so it's not unreasonable to assume that other sites that post the key may receive a DMCA takedown notice as well. --Interiot 06:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It could also be seen as unreasonable to refrain from doing something because of what might happen. At the most someone in the Wikipedia organisation will get a take down notice. At that point the organisation can hand it over to a real lawyer to deal with. There's just as much chance the lawyer will die of laughing. If the lawyer doesn't die of laughing then he or she, as someone with authority, can ask for it to be removed with no consequences. John Dalton

Even so, I don't believe that there's any legal obligation to follow a DMCA takedown request sent to somebody else. --Tjohns ✎ 06:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Wikipedia doesn't try to act as close to the edge of the law as possible... our goal is to be a good encyclopedia, and that's it. In my opinion, it's sufficient to detail the release of the key, who/what/why/how, and the response to its release, and link indirectly to the key (the source that was just added links to the doom9 page). It's not clear to me why listing the key out explicitely here helps us in our goal of being encyclopedic. --Interiot 06:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we remove the examples from the illegal primes page then, considering that they should be closer to the edge? EvanED 06:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If the illegal prime articles does, in fact, contain said illegal primes, then why is this wrong? Or, for that matter, posting a link to the number? --Mr. Vernon 06:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can we unprotect the article already? CyberLink is incorrectly capitalized in the article. It is spelled as Cyberlink. The 'l' is supposed to be capitalized. It's really bugging me. Xizer 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the capitalization per {{editprotected}}. Regarding protection, I think it would be reasonable to lower it to sprotection, to bring it in line with all the other articles that have been protected in response to the key being posted. --Interiot 06:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also support such a move. JoshuaZ 07:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have requested that the article be unprotected, as currently its protection violates wikipedia policy. --Rodzilla (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And I have commented in support of sprotection but not complete unprotect. You must be disingeneous to think this page will not become vandal bait the minute protection is lifted.--Cerejota 07:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I wouldn't be surprised, but from the semi-protection wikipedia policy: "Semi-protection should not be used: As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred." I don't see any vandalism in the page's history... --Rodzilla (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

DRM, MPAA, Kevin Rose and Jay Adelson have already been vandalized and semi'ed, it's not remotely a hypothetical that this article will receive vandalism. On top of that, the story just showed up at the very top of Drudge: [16] [17]. --Interiot 08:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to grandparent, it's preemptive, so it's against policy. Not that I'm arguing either way; I'm just making a point. --CCFreak2K 08:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just fully-protected it for 24 hours. Far as I can see, we have an obligation to make best effort to not publish the code and pending a response from OFFICE, I'd rather not take the chance here. I'll take the rap for this one but if you want to dispute it, prolly post your rationale to WP:RPP and another admin can review. Ok - 3am here. Gotta run - Alison ☺ 09:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely we can just semi-protect it. The code itself is well and truly out of the bag [18], and no harm will result to anyone if and when it gets added to the article. It's really not that big a deal. Stevage 10:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, and it's not too hard to find the code in Wikipedia [19]

well and truly [20] they have implementations for OSX now. decrease789 10:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't see any vandalism in the history, because it was rolled back. But trust me there was plenty of vandalism before it was fully protected. --Ray andrew 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the User:Alison's decision to do full protection to this article for potential legal issues (pending WP:OFFICE response). I have also full protected the redirect at HD-DVD, which was also subjected to vandalism.--Alabamaboy 16:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Censoring content because it might be deleted or changed under WP:OFFICE is absurd and could create a chilling effect throughout wikipedia, not to mention the extensive damage it is already causing to Wikipedia's reputation and reliability. If anything is removed under WP:OFFICE then that's that, but assuming or guessing that it will be, and essentially placing prior restraint on information under a guess or an assumption is absurd. --Rodzilla (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not worth opening Wikipedia up to the legal liability. As others have said, publishing this info on the site could have major repercussions for WP while the benefit gained by publishing the info is slim to nothing. That said, if WP:OFFICE, the WP Foundation, or even general consensus on WP decides that its ok to publish the info, then that's what we'll do. Until then, we should play it safe.--Alabamaboy 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What legal liability? Or is it the 'fantasy' of legal liability that has everyone shaking in their shoes. I personally do not think the process key should be placed in this article. But there is absolutely no harm in discussing it. Putting protection on this article is foolish. There is always people who are going to want to censor Wikipedia for one reason or another and maybe get an attorney involved. This is not the first, nor will it be the last. But I have to agree, putting protection on this article because of what might happen is downright lame. It really makes me wonder if some of the Wikipedia editors aren't paid MPAA shills, because another explanation escapes me. Nodekeeper 22:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Has any one actually made a request to the office for their stance on the issue? Lonjers 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD encryption key controversy

There should probably be a link to HD DVD encryption key controversy in the article. Also, BBC news article on the entire issue. Pizzachicken 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems absurd that there's a whole article devoted to this subject, but it's not linked to from this page. EvanED 18:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I added an edit protect request. Could an admin add

{{main|HD DVD encryption key controversy}}

Under the "Muslix64's exploit" section, and change that section's title to "HD DVD decryption" or similar. Or we can resist the banality of evil and unprotect it. Gracenotes^T § 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done --  Netsnipe  ►  19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That should work for now; of course, we'll have to unprotect it later to update it with new information. Gracenotes^T § 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, but would you mind changing the section title? Gracenotes^T § 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To what? --  Netsnipe  ►  19:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There was this guy who said and change that section's title to "HD DVD decryption" or similar.. Gracenotes^T § 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, {{Optical disc authoring}} is kind of getting in the way of the table of contents for me. Would you mind putting it below the history section title? Gracenotes^T § 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thank you. Uh... there's still the section title, but I guess I was not clear (my fault). No matter, I'll take care of it later. Gracenotes^T § 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

EFF on legality of key

The EFF 09 9f article gives a very good background of what the implied legal situation surrounding the pocessing key is. While publishing the key itself may be troublesome, I see no reason why it could not be referred to as the "09 f9 key" Nodekeeper 08:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Any binary file can be represenented by a number, doesn't mean you can copy it as you wish. For example a program can be represented as a huge string of bytes. It is a 16 byte key, with 3.4 * 10^38 combinations. In other words there would need to be 5.4*10^39 bits of data in the world before someone would randomly have this exact sequence of bytes. Thats about 675,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 terabytes of data! The "you can't copyright a number" is complete bullocks. Any court would argue it is unique enough to be copyright. If I wrote a book which was nothing but one big number, it would still be copyright. And anyway they aren't even claiming copyright so its a mute point.--Dacium 21:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

actualy, it has always been said that in books that are a colleciton information, all you are copywriting is the PRESENTAION STYLE of said information, not the information itself. --Alphamone 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's factual, however opinions are opinions; if you quote someone's words, it's plagerism, but not copyright infringement. --Notmyhandle 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

your should also remove all the factors of this key, like 2^6 and 5 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpicyDragonZ (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Dacium: to gain copyright protection usually requires some form of creativity, not mere uniqueness (see copyright). A number with a function but no meaning therefore cannot be copyrighted. – Smyth\^talk 10:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt at summarizing the DRM-section

I've made a second attempt to summarize and shorten the DRM section. Compare this to the previous version. ICT, audio watermarking and AnyDVD are detailed in the AACS article. "muslix64's exploit" is covered in both AACS and the controversy article. I want to try and avoid unnecessary duplication of content... (compare AACS_encryption_key_controversy#History_of_AACS_cracking with this section of the previous version of the HD DVD article). I find them quite similar... I mean this article is supposed to be about the HD DVD format. Details on exactly when a certain hacker added feature XYZ to his decryption program is just too nitty-gritty to be included here IMHO :)

I admit that the region code-sentence is a bit of an orphan... not sure where that fits. — Ksero 03:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Region free?

From what I can tell from this page, HD DVD and HD DVD movies are region free, meaning your aunt in japan can send you a copy of a HD movie and a British guy drinking tea in Britain can import Australia indie HD movies and import American HD movies before they are released in his country? I may be looking at it wrong, as region free seems well, amazing, for a DVD format. So, is that true? And if it is true, then it definately deserves a more prominent section of this page JayKeaton 21:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep its completely region free. You can do everything mentioned above. --Ray andrew 00:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst everything released so far is region-free, this is aploy to aid adoption. The HD DVD format itsef supports region coding, in the same way Blu-ray does. Don't be fooled into thinking HD DVD's will never be region coded, as if the format survives, region coding will come along.

However I have been advised direct by Toshiba that the HD DVD players sold in every country will be region locked to only play DVDs from the DVD region for that country. The information on this page about backwards compatibility is completely incorrect. You will need to keep a separate DVD player to play your DVDs. I edited it yesterday to make it honest but it was changed back. I have just edited it again. I have read posts on forums by people who believed the misinformation being spread on this and other sites and who sold their DVD players when they bought their HD DVD player. They now have to buy new DVD players. Having this misinformation on the site can only cause financial loss to consumers. Ionlyhaveonename 12:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You realize that region free DVD players are technically illegal (although popular), I don't think you can say that it not having this illegal feature constitutes a lack of backwards compatibility. Maybe all a note where ever its mentioned that HD DVD's are region free, but thats all. --Ray andrew 13:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

hi, this sentence "Backward compatibility will be available with all HD DVD players, allowing users to have a single player in their homes to play all types of HD DVD, DVD and CD discs." now implies, that I can put in my dvds of all types. and that is unfortunally not true, so the previous version was better, because it made it clear, that you still have to check, whether or not you are using this hd-dvd player with dvds of the specified region you bought it. right now, i can't play my code 2 dvds with hd-dvd players bought in region 1. this has to be readded into the textpassage. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 13:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, some countries such as Australia are not too fond of region coding, so calling the feature illegal is a strong word to use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_region_code#Legal_concerns Peter Torr (MSFT) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ray Andrew - I was not aware that it is illegal for a DVD player not to be region coded. Can you please tell me the name of the legislation that makes it illegal as I would like to look it up. Do you know if the government is planning to update the law to make region free HD DVDs illegal too? Whether or not region free DVD players are illegal, I still think it is immoral (and it is also illegal under trade practices legislation) to lie to consumers and say the HD DVD players will be able to play all their DVDs when that is not the case. It is very regrettable that wikipedia has to publish these lies. If it is legally compulsory to have region coding, why lie about it? Ionlyhaveonename 10:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not compulsory to have region coding, but if its there in the united states its a violation of the DMCA to bypass it. Many other countries have similar laws. Furthermore the manufacture of a region free DVD player (in any country) is in violation of their license to manufacture. I agree that its immoral and in violation of some free trade agreements, but thats irrelevant to the legality. --Ray andrew 17:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the "DMCA". I haven't read it thoroughly yet, but at a quick glance it appears to be about copyright protection and prevention of illegal copying. I can't see how that makes it illegal for me to buy a legitimate copy of a movie or program from a legitimate retailer in another country and play it on my DVD player. I will look up the Act when I have more time. However, my main concern in this discussion is that Wiki and many other sites are publishing lies by HD DVD player manufacturers that their players will play all DVDs when that is not the case, but every time I change the site to make it correct, someone changes it back again. Are the publishers of the site not concerned about this? Does anyone know if there any way to ensure that blatantly misleading and deceptive information is able to be permanently removed? Ionlyhaveonename 09:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

{{09F9-notice}} TfD

Someone has requested that template {{09F9-notice}} be deleted. Please give your opinion in the appropiate page. I already did!--Cerejota 01:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD means HD DVD

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10760819&&#post10760819

This is an offical representative for the format speaking in an authorized capacity. HD apparently doesn't mean high definition or high density.65.13.151.42 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

PC Drive availability

The section on PC drives is pretty fluffy, with press releases etc but quite frankly stepping around the fact that the only way to get a drive for your PC is to buy a PC with an exclusive OEM already built into it - or to go for the external option. So I added the paragraph saying that the xbox 360 drive is the only one available in retail channels for home builders. If anyone actually eyeballs an internal (oem) drive that _is orderable_, please update the section. As for hurting the uptake, I for one am only waiting for an internal drive to come out and then I'll start buying discs. Am disappointed with the fact that the industry is so slow to move on this one. Funkdancer 05:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Only problem is that what you wrote if false. There are other HD DVD drives out there, just not many. Furthermore you may think it sounds fluffy but others would call it Nutral Point of View. Finally, please make new topics at the bottom of talk pages. --Ray andrew 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for putting the topic at the top; appreciate the correction. Ok, with fluffy I meant - referring to statements made by companies that are now way out of date and have not actually eventuated. Regardless, will RTFWMs properly before attempting another edit. The product you link to is (very) interesting, however it is another external drive. My point is that for HTPC builders, there is currently zero available alternatives for building an integrated (i.e. using the internal drive enclosure) system. I'd like to see the article reflect facts first, then promises of this and that second. --Funkdancer 10:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

HD-DVD Burner availability

"However, no HD DVD recorders are currently for sale." I believe they are, the Toshiba Qosmio has one. Also Nero now supports burning of HD-DVD and BlueRay.

Technical Specifics?

I understand how Bluray discs achieve a greater per-layer density than DVDs (they use a higher frequency laser, and the shorter wavelength corresponds with a smaller area), but how does HD-DVD achieve it? This isn't about "advanced codecs" or any such thing--it's about 15 gigs (or more) vs. 4.7 gigs per layer. How does the HD-DVD cram more than 3x the data into the same physical space? The article doesn't appear to say. --Lode Runner 03:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD uses the exact same kind of laser as Blu-ray... --Ray andrew 18:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Err, really now? Got a source for that? I was under impression that the patented "blue" laser used by Blu-ray was licensed exclusively by Blu-ray. Perhaps the patent holders licensed it for both formats, but I can't fathom why--I'm sure companies like Sony would've gladly paid tons more for exclusivity.

Accepting for a moment that what you say is true, my question then becomes: Why is HD-DVD's per-layer capacity significantly smaller than that of Blu-ray's? Same surface area, same laser wavelength (or so you claim)--why such a large disparity in the quantity of stored bits? --Lode Runner 09:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

--- Im no genius but I believe the difference is the Numerical aperture and how close to the surface the writable portion is.. though I could be wrong `Tracer9999 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Both use blue lasers, (DVDs use red lasers) just Google it...

Paramount Deal

PC World just interviewed Paramount's CTO here. The last question is:

PCW: Will this exclusive period extend for a limited time, or is this an indefinite arrangement?

Bell: At this moment in time, it's an indefinite commitment. The core of this announcement comes from our experience, and what our consumers are looking for. We hope this will influence consumers' choices.

I would think that he is a more reliable source then the anonymous source in the NYT article. What do you all think? --Ray andrew 01:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC) --

whats paramount going to say? Yes .. we shamefully took a 150 million dollar bribe in exchange for limiting consumer choice for the next two holiday seasons? btw.. isn't intel being sued for similar kickbacks in an antitrust case?.. I guess intel was a bit worse but still.. very sad for paramount I think.. If they think its the better tech.. go for it.. but for a bribe? ahhh.. Id say go with the anonymous source.. they don't have the PR machine in full effect. -Tracer9999 04:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC) --

is it just me or did he just contradict himself?: "and what our consumers are looking for. We hope this will influence consumers' choices." i.e. BluRay is winning, outselling at a rate of 2:1 therefore we need to convince them otherwise.--Kibbled bits 17:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Will anyone PLEASE comment on the issue at hand. Specifically, who is a more reliable source, the CTO of paramount, an annonomus source at Viacom (owner of paramount), or neither. I would say since they are both mildly reliable sources but they are not in agreement then we should mention both sides in the article. --Ray andrew 12:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

-- ray, If youd like I suggest using both.. hoever the kickback need to be in the article and I say use his answer from the pcworld interview where he contridicts himself saying he knows what his customer wants and he hopes this will influence them.. I know I love when people think they know know whats best for ME.. people see right through that. but the new york times is not a fly by night operation. Im sure there source is close to the deal and not some homeless guy they found in times square. -Tracer9999 15:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Format Porn Edits

Please take a moment to view the discussion taking place regarding the addition of pornography industry statistics and its effect on vhs and betamax format war and subsequently the HD format war on pretty much every article related to the HD format war. It is my position that since both formats have stated on the record that they both ALLOW porn, it is a moot point. the fact that porn is allowed is all that needs to be posted. there is no controversy and therefore no comparison to the betamax era nor to the porn industry in 1998 or 2001 when the referenced article was posted. The submission makes guesses as to the cause of the downfall of a 30 year old technology and if anything confuses the reader as to the relevence of porn in the current climate. The editor wants to debunk the myth porn had anything to do with betamax losing to vhs. as this does not apply to the current situation I feel this material should be added to the betamax, vhs, sony, or one of those relevent articles. rather then repeat everything (I might have already though..lol). feel free to look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats

In order to avoid an edit war I will honor whatever the consensus is. after a resonable amount of time to get responses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tracer9999 (talk • contribs) 01:17, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

(1) Tracer you are in violation of wiki rules which specifically state do NOT delete other people's contributions. Wiki rules state you may reword, rewrite, add citations, but you are NOT to delete whole paragraphs just because you "felt like it". "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate [such as the Forbes.com paragraph], improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

(2) As for the comparison about porn, I agree beta/vhs is irrelevant, but I like the Bluray/HD-DVD comparison and information from forbes.com. I vote to leave it there. It answers the question "What if a major adult studio (like playboy) chose one format over the other?" Could a major studio affect the outcome? I like the answer Forbes gives us. Theaveng 09:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Disc cost difference

The quoted figures about disc manufacturing prices are misleading, as they are for single layer disks only. While double layer HD DVD's are the norm and only cost less then $0.25 more, Blu-ray disc's are still significantly more as their yields are so low and there are only two places in the world that make them. I think the article needs some rewording. --Ray andrew 16:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) The wiki entry about costs doesn't say how many layers the discs have. You've made a poor assumption that the cost are for single-layer discs. (2) I notice you did not include any kind of PROOF to backup your claim that "double layer HDs only cost 0.25 more" and "blu-ray...still signifigantly more". If you could provide a citation, I'd have no objections to adding a second paragraph comparing DL-HD v. DL-BD costs. 162.58.0.64 12:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not a poor assumption, but the article that was the source was poorly written and does not even mention what they are quoting prices for. But... if you actualy go out and look at replication prices (just google it) it will confirm that these are for SL and you will see that DL HD-DVD's are about a quarter more and DL Blu-ray discs are nowhere to be found. --Ray andrew 18:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bay

Can somebody put down anything about Michael Bay's reaction to the Paramount and Universal loyalty. I heard mentions of it on TV, but don't know what happened. BTW, even though my username has playstation in it doesn't mean I am not neutral.--Playstationdude 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He retracted his statement the next day:

"Last night at dinner I was having dinner with three blu-ray owners, they were pissed about no Transformers Blu-ray and I drank the kool aid hook line and sinker. So at 1:30 in the morning I posted - nothing good ever comes out of early am posts mind you - I over reacted. I heard where Paramount is coming from and the future of HD and players that will be close to the $200 mark which is the magic number. I like what I heard.

As a director, I'm all about people seeing films in the best quality possible, and I saw and heard firsthand people upset about a corporate decision.

So today I saw 300 on HD, it rocks!

So I think I might be back on to do Transformers 2!"

You can get the whole story here. --Ray andrew 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

51GB/Triple layer disc approved?

http://www.screendigest.com/online_services/intelligence/video_and_dvd/updates/vi-060907-ec3/show "The DVD Forum, the international DVD standards authority, has approved a 51 GB single-sided triple-layer HD DVD disc for production. Extension to the HD DVD standard, which was submitted by Toshiba in April, received approval on 31 August 2007. Other recent developments include:

• A single-sided triple-layer HD DVD/DVD hybrid (combi) disc, the DVD layer of which would be playable by legacy DVD players, is expected to be approved before the year end.
• The Forum has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China's Optical Memory National Engineering Research Centre (OMNERC) regarding licensing of the HD DVD-ROM China (formerly HD DVD-ROM China-only) format, specification for which was approved earlier this year. The only difference between the latter and the standard HD DVD format is the modulation scheme: the optical pickup in HD DVD China player will be able to play standard HD DVD discs, although Chinese discs will not be playable in standard HD DVD drives. According to the Forum, the Chinese government is keen to introduce the format domestically before the Olympic Games in August 2008. Large-scale integrates (LSIs) are already under development by manufacturers and use of AACS for the format is currently under negotiation."

--TonyFreakinAlmeida 23:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets let a few more sources confirm this, but it looks like this thing is for real.. --Ray andrew 03:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know if the new triple layer discs are compatible with current hardware? Im assuming that it must be or HD DVD just got placed into a worse position then all of blu-ray profile mandates.. If it requires new hardware and 51gb discs take off.. it could be a huge issue of obselete players. The story should reflect either way so people know. -Tracer9999 18:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The rumors are that they work on all players, with the possible exception of the LG dual player (technical not even a HD DVD player, hence no logo). But the whole thing is in the rumor bin as far as I am concerned until there is a press release or some type of official confirmation. --Ray andrew 18:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If the discs worked in existing HD DVD drives, we wouldn't have just rumors; Toshiba would be shouting it from the rooftops. Or at least mention it on their website. Perhaps with a firmware upgrade, though... Spiel496 04:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a short newsbit post from DVDTown

http://www.dvdtown.com/news/51gb-hd-dvd-approved-for-production/4731 From what I've read, they will work with all current players through a firmware update, maybe even the LG Dual Player as well, just by only being able to play the feature film as those current players do. TonyFreakinAlmeida 15:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

An even better source.

http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9776981-1.html TonyFreakinAlmeida 21:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and from DVD Forum themselves. http://www.dvdforum.org/39scmtg-resolution.htm TonyFreakinAlmeida 23:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Heres the super official confirmation: http://www.dvdforum.org/39scmtg-resolution.htm

Approval of DVD Specifications for High Density Read-Only Disc [HD DVD-ROM (51G)] Part 1 Physical Specifications, Version 1.9

and also

Approval of Optional Specifications for HD DVD-ROM Physical Specifications Version 1.2: Triple Layer Twin format, Revision 1.0

So its official. --Ray andrew 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hybrid player technology" section needs update

According to the Blu-ray Disc article, LG has already introduced a dual-format player (mentioned just before the quote from the Sony CEO). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Triple Layer Unapprooved (Preliminary Specs approved), according to betanews

According to http://www.betanews.com/article/Toshiba_DVD_Forum_Hasnt_Yet_Approved_Final_51_GB_HD_DVD_After_All/1189716943 It does not make sense

Toshiba: DVD Forum Hasn't Yet Approved Final 51 GB HD DVD After All By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews September 13, 2007, 4:55 PM

In a statement to BetaNews this afternoon, a Toshiba spokesperson said that only a preliminary version of Toshiba's 51 GB three-layer, single-sided HD DVD format had been approved by the DVD Forum, caretaker of HD DVD.

As it turned out, and as Toshiba's spokespersons may have only just now realized, the DVD Forum signed off on a preliminary specification, which may have been confused for the final specification because its version number is 1.9.

"We understand that the preliminary version (1.9) of the physical specifications for the triple-layer 51 GB HD DVD-ROM disc has been approved," said Toshiba's spokesperson today.

The spokesperson then added that it has not yet been determined whether current HD DVD players or recorders will be able to use the new format, which the headline of an official Toshiba statement given to BetaNews today is now calling "Trip-Layer." "Toshiba will study the performance of current HD DVD player/recorders with the disc after the standard receives final approval by the DVD Forum."

That last part is a pretty clear indication that final approval was not granted, contrary to our earlier report based on industry news that cited sources with a stake in the format.

The formal Toshiba statement reads as follows: "We welcome the DVD Forum Steering Committee's decision to approve the preliminary version (Version 1.9) of the physical specifications for the triple-layer 51 GB HD DVD-ROM disc. This decision reinforces the fact that HD DVD is capable of offering a range of capacities due to the flexible nature of the format and provides studios with even greater options for creating high definition content. With extended capacities, studios can meet their future needs for releases that may require more storage."

Toshiba's admission today is the first genuine admission from the company that work on engineering the final "Trip-Layer" format has actually not been completed, as was previously believed.

--w_tanoto 09:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Official testing still needs to be done, but unofficially all the testing has already been done (and it works on all players). Regardless of weather or not it is officially compatible yet with existing players, it is now part of the specification (preliminary specs, just means they might change it) and anyone could make a 51GB disc and put the HD DVD logo on it. --Ray andrew 13:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, but regarding the last sentence (I bolded it now), we should give the details of this status somewhere in the article.--w_tanoto 14:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof it works in all players. The link supplied is an engineer stating it's plausible that it will work in all players 65.13.151.42 14:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

- This article needs to be changed until alot of issues are resolved such as compatibility and the final spec... preliminary means not done yet... lets not jump the gun. no movies are coming out on the "preliminary" spec so lets wait until its finalized. -Tracer9999 12:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

as no one do it, it seems that I have to do it. according to the fact from that mentioned article, I am going to remove all triple layer-related from the table, and replace it with writing within the article of HD DVD, Blu-ray, and the comparison--w_tanoto 12:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

just to put this to bed for now... according to xbitlabs.com which I find very reliable..

"51GB HD DVD Standard Not Final – Media. Improved HD DVD Slips Into 2008 or 2009

Category: Storage

by Anton Shilov

[ 09/17/2007 | 11:45 PM ]

Despite of reports regarding finalization of triple-layer HD DVD media with DVD Forum, there are also claims that contradict this information and state that the “approved” standard is “preliminary”. Therefore, commercial introduction of 51GB HD DVD media slips into late 2008 if not 2009.

The single-sided triple-layer 51GB HD DVD disc that was reportedly approved by the DVD Forum is just a preliminary version (version 1.9) rather than a final one, according to “industry sources in Taiwan”, reports DigiTimes web-site. Earlier this month it was revealed that Toshiba-developed 51GB HD DVD had been ratified by DVD Forum organization, however, this may not be true.

It is also reported that even if the final version of the triple-layer HD DVD standard comes out “soon”, it would take one to three quarters before the start of production of corresponding consumer electronics hardware, implying that currently available HD DVD players and drives may not be able to playback or read the new discs with 51GB capacity.

The new 51GB HD DVD ROM disc has a three-layer structure with each layer storing 17GB of data, which is an advancement in capacity over current ROM discs, which hold 15GB of data in each layer of a single-sided disc. Continued improvement in disc mastering technology has achieved further minimization in the recording pit, supporting a further boost in capacity to 17GB in single layer and a full 51GB on a single-sided triple-layer disc. Toshiba has confirmed the disc structure and its successful operation earlier this year.

Official comments from DVD Forum were not available at press time."

-Tracer9999 07:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Corporate and Industry Support Section is too Cluttered

The "Corporate and Industry Support Section" of the HD DVD Page I believe is too Cluttered. Currently our sectiom goes like this:

HD DVD Promotion Group Member List contains the main promoters of HD DVD, namely Toshiba, HP, NEC, Sanyo, Microsoft, RCA, Kenwood, Intel, and Memory-Tech Corporation. The HD DVD format is also non-exclusively supported by Hitachi Maxell, LG, Lite On, Onkyo, Meridan, Samsung,[36] and Alpine.

In terms of major studios in North America, HD DVD is currently exclusively backed by Universal Studios (including subsidiaries Focus Features and Rogue Pictures), Paramount Pictures (including Paramount Vantage, Nickelodeon Movies, MTV Films, DreamWorks Pictures and DreamWorks Animation), The Weinstein Company (including Dimension Films), and First Look Studios.

The format is non-exclusively backed by Universal Music Group ,Warner Bros. Pictures (it should be noted that a number of Warner's titles—Batman Begins, Constantine, Troy (excluding Troy: Director's Cut), V for Vendetta, The Perfect Storm, Poseidon, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, The Matrix Trilogy—are HD DVD exclusive at the present), Warner Music Group, New Line Cinema (it should be noted that some of New Line Cinema titles, the first being Hairspray, are announced as Blu-ray exclusive for limited time due to lack of region coding in HD DVD[37] [38] [39]. All catalog titles will be released simultaneously in both formats), HBO, Studio Canal, and Image Entertainment (including the Discovery Channel),[40] Magnolia Pictures,[41] Brentwood Home Video, Ryko, Koch/Goldhil Entertainment.[42] HD DVD does have more studio support than Blu-ray in Europe. HD DVD is currently exclusively backed by several adult-movie/pornography studios/publishers, including Wicked Pictures, Pink Visual, Bang Bros, Digital Playground Inc. and ClubJenna Inc. (which on 22 June 2006 was acquired by Playboy Enterprises), and HD DVD is also non-exclusively backed by Vivid Entertainment.

It has been reported (in PCworld, Arstechnica, on CNN, et al) that Blu-ray bans pornography and that this may have an effect on which format is successful.[43] However, this is inaccurate, as both formats have said they fully support all material, including porn, and have no control over what companies release with their license.[44]

Beginning July 2007, Blockbuster Video[45] will be carrying Blu-ray Disc in 1,450 stores, in addition to the original 250 that carried both HD DVD and Blu-ray. Online they will still be offering both formats.[46] Blockbuster will continue to offer both formats at its initial 250 stores that currently carry both high-definition formats.[47]

On August 20, 2007, Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks Pictures, and DreamWorks Animation announced their exclusive support for the HD DVD format citing its cost benefits and superior features. All future Paramount/Dreamworks titles are to be released exclusively in HD DVD, beginning with Blades of Glory, Shrek the Third, and Transformers.[48] As of the announcement, Shrek the Third and Transformers were ranked second and third in 2007 domestic box office grosses and are poised to be top sellers during the 2007 holiday season. Together, Paramount and DreamWorks are the 2007 domestic box office leaders.[49] Films directed by Steven Spielberg are excluded from this announcement as he controls the rights to his own works.[50] The New York Times reported, citing sources close to the deal, that in exchange for 150 million dollars in financial incentives Paramount/Dreamworks will be exclusive for at least the next 18 months, covering the next two holiday seasons.[50]

I have bolded the parts, which in my opinion need serious editing pit in italics the ones that should be removed.

1) This part is a complete mess, it has companies just thrown in for the sake of it, it does not also use proper paragraphing to seperate different points, it is all mucked up and jammed together for the sake of it.
We need to make it more organized and properly structured,

2) We should not have this is the HD DVD place, that is strictly to do with the Blu Ray Disc and nothing to do with HD DVDs Industry support. This should belong in the Blu Ray Page or the HD Comparisions Page, not the HD DVD Page

3) As per above this is a business desicion to do with BD and has nothing much to do with HD DVD.

4) This is too long, while we should have a statement stating that Viacom decided to HD DVD exclusive, we do not need all the material about Paramount being the box office leaders. I reckon that it should be summarised as something like this:

On August 20, 2007, Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks Pictures, and DreamWorks Animation announced their exclusive support for the HD DVD format citing its cost benefits and superior features. However, in contrast to this the New York Times reported, citing two Viacom executives that a payoff had occured for a sum of $150 million for a period of 18 months exclusivity. Paramount has neither denied or confirmed this, however Paramount's CTO Alan Bell said it was an indefinite commitment. Both Microsoft and Toshiba have denied that such a payoff occured.

Umbreon Evolution 13:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite. It is indeed noteworthy and fascinating that the various sides are bribing various people to support their format 'exclusively', but this isn't the place for it, beyond saying that it has happened and is not in the consumer's interest. Lovingboth (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

Two people seem insistent on inserting the claim that 51GB HD DVD disks don't work on current players: "It has been confirmed that it will not be compatible with current players" . The only source is in Japanese and the Google translation does not seem to say this. --Ray andrew 19:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like its total FUD [21] --Ray andrew 20:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Are they editing the article? Swisspass 11:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind I read everything and caught up. The information is incorrect, I'll monitor the revisions and revert back any more vandalism. Swisspass 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, my reading of the Google translation (here) leads me to believe that, at the very least, the third layer may not be compatible with existing players. I'd hardly call this vandalism BTW, please assume good faith. Most vandals don't bother trying to source their edits... As an aside, I'd put the credibility of a poorly translated media page over anything off of AVS. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would call this worse then vandalism, vandalism can be easily identified, here you have people claiming that this reference supports the FUD that they are trying to push and its hard to disprove given the language difference. At least on AVS people post translations, so you can argue the accuracy of the translation. Here some people just make the claim that its supported by something in the reference, with out providing a translation of the relevant portion that can be verified. --Ray andrew 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ray, please keep your cool, edit summaries like this do nothing to keep the situation from getting worse. Please assume good faith. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. honestly I misread it. HD DVD TL compatibility is not known as of now, but HD DVD DL/DVD SL or HD DVD SL/DVD DL is definitely incompatible due to BCA. I deleted the dispute tag and the part that I wrote regarding HD DVD TL incompatibility.--w_tanoto 11:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No. You have made a jump. BCA is not required for the DVD layer so there is no problem just not having a BCA for the DVD layer. Actually if you read all the slides, you see that the final 2.0 spec will be approved by the end of the year, finalizing both of these disk types (thus there must not be much of a problem ;) ). --Ray andrew 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read about spec 2.0, but I just did a quick read (one of the reason I made that mistake). Haven't read the whole article yet. Been busy this weekend, so thanks for further explanation of spec 2.0 (final). And oops... I seem to forgot removing the last bit of that mistake. Thanks for removing it--w_tanoto 23:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just wait until Toshiba makes an official announcement after their North American group meets this week? What is the rush? I still dispute the information or the accuracy of it. I don't think it's been ascertained the specific information. It's very uncertainty and could perpatuate misinformation. It's simply not needed. Swisspass 07:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, here it is: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents (the link still works as of the time on my sig). I will abstain from editing it myself, as I often misread this kind of article (I'm okay with press releases, but not this), but I suggest wait for Toshiba's/DVD forums announcement. --w_tanoto 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Still counts as rumor ("industry sources are telling us"), and thus I think we should pass. Besides, Bill Hunt (owner of the site) has a pretty poor track record as far as HD DVD rumors go. --Ray andrew 03:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hardware section looks nothing like an advertisement.

The Hardware section of the article was marked for speedy deletion, simply because whoever contributed to it decided to inform everyone about all HD DVD player models and their prices. While the person(s) who marked this page for speedy deletion may believe that this paragraph of the article reads as a blatant advertisement which flagrantly promotes HD DVD over Blu-ray disc format, I do not, as it looks to me like the author's original intent was to let everyone know what HD DVD player models are available, and how much they should expect to pay at retailers.Adg2k7 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is fine to list the few models available. It isn't as though 50 units exists which would bombard the article. It should remain with that information. I just contested the request to delete.Swisspass 16:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Corporate Support Section (needs trimming)

Rather then listing the thousands of porn producers and what company is producing on what format.. maybe another article could be created (the porn format wars) or something otherwise this article is going to get very large and some of the names are not really going to be acceptable.. both formats have porn producers... porn companies are in it for one thing,, cash.. they will support whoever wins. But if we must keep a running tally of the vast amount of porn producers.. I suggest a seperate article linked from both format pages and a source for each producer stating wether they are exclusive or release in both formats. as it stands now. some of the producers listed only offer downloadable porn and don't even sell dvd's or HD DVD's... and just posting producers with no source is pointless... Someone could just grab a domain list and say supports blu-ray for instance.. then tag on source required whereit will stay till someone says gee lets take it off.... then it gets added again with "source needed..relevant" and we keep possible inaccurate info up permanently... what do you guys think -Tracer9999 20:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You list all the other Companies. Why be exclusionary based upon the content they publish? Next you'll want to exclude a studio like "Cloud Ten" because they publish Christian content. Or maybe exclude Mel Gibson movies, because you don't like his views about Semites. ----- IMHO an encyclopedia should not be exclusionary, just because the content might be objectionable. It should be blind in regards to the content.

List HD DVD exclusives only

Actually if you want to trim something, I'd like to remove the "these companies support both HD and Blu-ray" list. I don't see any reason to list companies that are non-exclusive (support both sides) in an HD DVD article. That information ought to be moved to the HD/Blu-ray combo article, and reserve the HD DVD article *just* for studios that only support HD DVD. - Theaveng 21:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On your later point, perhaps a better way to trim would be to just list the studios that support each format and not reference the other, and then support can be compared in the comparison article. What do you think. --Ray andrew 22:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be okay, but it won't achieve the goal (make it shorter). It will still be a long, hard-to-read list of companies that seem to go on forever. I think it wiser to take a page from the Gaming world, and only list the exclusives. (The non-exclusives can be listed elsewhere.)- Theaveng 12:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, most of the length is because of the constant distinction between exclusive and non exclusive. Just listing the companies that support each format (active support that is) does not take much space. --Ray andrew 21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it, and we'll see how it looks. - Theaveng 15:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Actual disc capacity

We should correct the capacity of the "30GB" dual layer disc to more accurately reflect its capacity. According to this FAQ DL discs have a capacity of 33,393,473,536 bytes (ie, about 33.4GB). Anyone have any objections? --Ray andrew 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you need a better source than a FAQ off the internet. But regardless, I suggest taking a hint from how the DVD article is written, specify both the full size in bytes, as well as the size in GB as well as GiB. (Note the table near the top of DVD). But I really would like another source for this, as I find it difficult to believe everyone that has referred to them as 30 GB discs all this time (even Toshiba/Microsoft/etc) have had it wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your revert: Counter to your assertions the source I cited actually does cite many references itself, take a look: http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11639 I would say its the best technical FAQ out there for both HD DVD and Blu-ray. --Ray andrew 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Splendid, now which one of those has these capacities in it, and how do you explain why everyone else has said 15/30 GB all this time (even Toshiba/Microsoft/Universal/etc)? 3 GB is a pretty big difference. I'm going to re-revert you until you have more to go on than this FAQ and an endless list of references (half of which seem to be in Japanese). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I am in the right here. This is the only source available on the web with exact values (down to the byte) for the capacities of each format. It is a well referenced and respected FAQ, please state what Wikipedia policy gives you the right to say that this source is not worthy? --Ray andrew 14:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: Im sure this reference has the capacities, "DVD Forum. DVD Specifications for High Density Read-Only Disc, Part 1: Physical Specifications." Feel free to go double check them now. --Ray andrew 15:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ray, this is not quite how it works here on Wikipedia: when someone challenges your claim, you need to provide a reliable source, and a FAQ by itself, without a specific reference, is not very reliable. Now if you want to provide a specific document (specify page number if a book) or web page (besides this FAQ), then by all means, do so. Please read up on WP:V as well and think about how verifiable Wikipedia would be if everything was sourced from internet FAQs. I'll also reiterate that you need to explain the discrepancy between what Toshiba/Microsoft/etc all advertise HD DVDs capacity as and what you're trying to put into all these articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You went too far. I said before that you can add it to table because it contains the more specific specification, but not to the article. I strongly disagree to change any 15/30/25/50GB capacity to the actual capacity in the article. Agreeeing with Locke Cole--w_tanoto 09:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How did I do to far? If the disk is actually closer to 33GB why should we refer to it as 30GB? --Ray andrew 14:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add this to the comparison table, not to the article, along with DVD and BD actual capacity (50.05 GB??). General public will normally recognise it as 15 and 30GB (25 and 50GB in BD case). Make sure you made note, it is "unformatted" capacity. --w_tanoto 09:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm siding with Locke Cole. We need a better citation than some guy's personal website. EVERY OTHER SOURCE INCLUDING THE DVD CONSORTIUM says that it is 15 and 30 gigabytes, and thus I am inclined to believe their official figures. ---- It's similar to how we describe 3.5" floppies as 1.4 MB (formatted), not their unformatted capacity. - Theaveng 13:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not "some guy's personal website", furthermore no other source has published actual disc capacities (in bytes or sectors) all that has been published on other sites is that they are "about 30GB" And lets not forget your policy on reliable sources: "Baloney. It's not our job to decide how "reliable" a source it is; only to report what it says. Let the reader decide whether he/she believes what she reads." --Ray andrew 22:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find another source for this other than this FAQ, that's all the more reason to view it with skepticism and wait for another more reliable source before making changes to all these related articles. As for Theaveng's personal policy on reliable sources, let's stick with what actually matters here, and that's Wikipedia's thoughts on reliable sources and verifiability. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again I am in 100% agreement with Locke. (Reminds me of the guy from Final Fantasy 6. Or was it 4?) - Theaveng 20:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold

Compare this version to the previous one. I've summarized the "HD DVD standalone players"-, "standalone combo players"- and the "Computer drives"-sections into a List of HD DVD devices. I made the History section sound more like a history than an introduction, and added the Overview section. I would like to just delete the entire Xbox section, but I'm not quite bold enough to do it ;). As I wrote in the comment, it's way too long and contains too much detail. — Ksero 08:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome --Ray andrew 12:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A/an European, AKA the worst edit war ever

European starts with a consonant sound, hence "a European" is correct.

Don't believe me? Ask Google: "a european": 33 million hits. "an european": 1 million hits. As for a/an historian, "a historian" is more common but both are acceptable. Please stop reverting this. Oren0 22:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

More on a/an historian if you're interested here. Oren0 22:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

100GB BD discs missing from comparison section

In the "HD DVD / Blu-ray disc comparison" section, it is stated that currently, Blu-ray has the size advantage, but that the larger 51GB HD-DVD format is on its way, implying that the situation will be reversed. If including future versions of the discs for comparison, it's only fair to mention the upcoming 100GB Blu-ray format, as well (which was announced just days later, in fact). See http://www.physorg.com/news9683.html or Google "blu-ray 100-gb". Only a firmware update is needed to existing players in order to support the expanded format (http://www.techspot.com/news/27341-hitachi-develops-100gb-bluray-disc-supports-existing-drives.html). Manganeez 15:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the spec yet, while TL51 already in the preliminary spec.--w_tanoto 15:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to move more comparison info to the "Comparison" page

In an effort to reduce duplication of effort, I am proposing to move much of the comparison and history information about BD and HD DVD to the "Comparison" page. If you have ideas / concerns, please comment on the thread at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats#Making_better_use_of_this_page Thanks Peter Torr (MSFT) 17:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. the comparison info is very important to the article.. people generally want as much info in their article without having to jump from page to page.. they want to just look up blu ray or hd dvd.. see what it is and how its different, where it is in the format war. I think it should be a major part of the individual articles.. not to mention it will get updated more as a part of the articles rather then some other page that people are too lazy to click on. -Tracer9999 19:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved. At the moment, (probably) the same table is in three articles. (I say 'probably', because I can't be bothered to check that it is consistent between them.) The list of devices should also be hived off into a separate article, or ditched: in a couple of years, this is either going to be much longer or irrelevant (there's no list of Betamax devices, is there?) Lovingboth (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Blowout holiday specials

I noticed walmart has a great deal tomorrow on the soon to be discontinued HD-A2 (not knocking it..I might try to get one if I can get to the front of the line).. but that leads me to question about holiday blow out sales and how we are going to list them.. frequently during the holidays most stores have 3 or 4 item blowout sales (like walmart) with extreme discounts (almost to the point of a loss) in order to get people in to shop and hopefully buy regular priced items too.. however these sales generally start at 8am and are sold out by 8:05am due to a rush of demand and very little quanity on hand. my concern, is how we keep this accurate, make sure these "blowout" sale prices don't stay on the articles for days or weeks when there was 1 or 2 items per store and the item was sold out when doors opened. Because leaving up an edit that says walmart sells HD-A2 (or in this case it said HD DVD player.. non model specific) for 97.00 for instance would be wrong when at 8:05 it was sold out. even keeping it for the ad week would be inaccruate because it was sold out for 6d 23h 55min of the week. and does listing "certain" stores special prices move us to the point of advertising for the stores rather then keeping an update on the format. I mean a drop in MSRP is one thing but scouring the flyers every sunday morning to keep a running price of all the specials is another.. any suggestions or thoughts? -Tracer9999 14:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that we need not list every sale and blowout. However I think there might be some historical value to noting that walmart did sell a limited quantity* of these things for $98 in their attempt to have an early black friday. *Not that limited, even my store out in the middle of nowhere has 50 of em, and stores in larger cities reportedly have 100's --Ray andrew 14:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you list that after the fact though? As prior to the sale that would be advertising for a specific company and prob should be reverted (though they can always look on the talk page and see this). and would the early black friday post not be more appropriate as a walmart history rather than a specific product's history? Its a really great price though so I hate to revert it. but its prob what should be done in this case. what does everyone think? -Tracer9999 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove it for now but add it in after the fact for historical value... sounds good to me.--Ray andrew 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course this is from someone who is a Blu-ray supporter, wanting to omit it. However tomorrow works to add it. Swisspass 01:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

not everyone is fanboy swiss.. we are not an advertising service -Tracer9999 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read from some people that this isn't just some sale and the $100 tag might stick farther than Black Friday. TonyFreakinAlmeida 18:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem is the A3 is already out. this is more of a dump the inventory sale to make room.. not many places even have stock anymore I don't think. and Im not so sure toshiba is still taking orders for new deliveries. best buy told me they have none in stock and none on order which the clerk told me 99% of the time means its discontinued and unavailable. -Tracer9999 19:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm just saying, I've got friends in retail who have friends with Toshiba suppliers and apparently this isn't the end of the HD-A2, it's mainly a big promotional sale that ended up getting really wild. TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

from bestbuy letter to customers advising them backorder a2's were relaced with a3's..so my guess is its not a longer sale.

"You are receiving this email because you recently ordered a Toshiba HD DVD Player (model # HD-A2) from www.bestbuy.com and your order was placed in a backorder status while we awaited additional inventory. Unfortunately, the manufacturer has discontinued this item and we are not anticipating receiving any more inventory." -Tracer9999 16:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

51GB gets final approval

At the 40th Steering Committee Meeting (Nov. 15, 2007) [22]:

"Approval of DVD Specifications for High Density Read-Only Disc [HD DVD-ROM (51G)] Part 1 Physical Specifications, Version 2.0"

--Ray andrew 00:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Beat you to it. I've added those yesterday. Not sure if this is the fnal profile though, so I just put "Specification 2.0 Part 1 (Physical Specification) Specification" --w_tanoto 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

HD_DVD#List_of_HD_DVD_devices: strange list

The list mixes devices that consumers cannot buy with devices that can only be bought by ODMs or in the case of SD-L902A is only used by Toshiba in their notebooks. Following this line of reasoning we could as well add HD DVD ics to this list. However, I prefer to confine this list to items that can be bought by consumers or at least make a clear distinction between what can and cannot be bought by consumers. Andries 19:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality Comparison

Greetings all. I found it difficult to judge the difference in quality between HD DVD and Bluray in this article. There are a lot of technical specs and terms that are a bit confusing to me, and perhaps to others as well. Is there any way to address which format provides better quality video so that the average Joe could understand a bit better?

Video quality is the same. Only HD DVD-R recording quality is worse than the blu ray recordable. Andries (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm, ok. And what retail product are you judging HD DVD-R on? (didn't think any existed yet) --Ray andrew (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The Toshiba SD-L902A HD DVD-R for notebooks is not meant for consumers, but it was tested none the less. Andries (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So you claim. - Theaveng (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am only repeating what I read in c't magazine which is a serious computer magazine, but dedicated to the European market and so, may not present a world wide view. I can translate upon request. Andries (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Testing pre-release product that clearly was not up to snuff. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is some truth in what you say, but the not for retail SD-L902A is already used in the Toshiba Qosmio line that is on the market. And besides the HD DVD-R was already presented in 2005 as coming soon to the market. Andries (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In digital video there are too many variables to say which is better. However if you make a few of those variables constant, such as comparing only VC1-encoded HD DVD vs. VC1-encoded Blu-ray (same codec), and that the content is identical, then Blu-ray will have an advantage, because it has a faster datastream. More data per second yields more pixels to be displayed on the screen, and fewer losses (artifacts). - Theaveng (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the responses. I gather from what has been said that I will not be disappointed if I were to get an HD DVD player. Perhaps in the future this article might have a section directed more towards those of us without the technical expertise to understand such terminology. I would do it myself, but have no experience with HD DVD or Bluray....yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.101.237 (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The question you asked (which has better quality video) has a complicated answer (it depends). There's no way to answer it without going into technical data. It's not like in the olds days where you could say, "Betamax has 250 lines and VHS has 240 lines resolution". The answer is far more complicated then that. - Theaveng (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Linux in players

The A3 player uses Windows CE so I have modified the section that says Toshiba players all use Linux since it is incorrect. [23]. --MagicMoose (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)