This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
UltraViolet (website) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UltraViolet is many things, including an entitlements clearinghouse with a common file format that uses standard DRMs, but it's not a DRM. Unless there are substantive objections I will change the title and change the link. JimTheFrog ( talk) 07:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, it does seem like DRM to me. It is a digital service for digital media. It manages your right to view the content (via 12 devices only, use of an account), it manages or restricts your ability to view the content to how Ultraviolet wants you to. This management is done to protect the IP rights of the supplied media. The Steam gaming service is less restrictive than this and no one argues that is DRM. I mean really you would have to prove this isn't a digital media service, or it doesn't manage (aka restrict) your ability to access digital media, or prove this service isn't done to protect IP rights. 58.167.232.23 ( talk) 05:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)LogiC
Jim, you assert that UltraViolet is not a DRM; I think you are too close to the subject to see that you are making a very specialised technical distinction, & that application of logical definitions &, dare I say it, slightly more human-readable semantics, leads us to the conclusion that (to use your words) an "entitlements clearing house... that uses standard DRMs" is actually a sort of uber-DRM, in that (by your definition) it manages the consumer's access to content by tracking the yes/no status of the applied DRMs.
in fact, the whole article is in need of some editing to make it more useful to the man-in-the-street. I sense, as a thirty-odd-year broadcast tech with a lot of experience of the format wars, that once again the various manufacturers & standards-bodies are obfuscating.
duncanrmi (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 13:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Here is a quote from Mark Teitell, general manager and executive director of the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem, the consortium behind UltraViolet “Consortium members have agreed to offer the content for unlimited streaming and downloading from the cloud for at least a year (Warner Bros. is offering it for three years), but after that time studios reserve the right to levy additional service fees” from the Reuters article "Cloud format debut with 'Horrible Bosses,' 'Green Lantern'" at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/12/us-media-ultraviolet-idUSTRE79B0C520111012 This should be discussed in the article as it seems that the eventual goal is to charge most likely a monthly fee or a pay per view fee on content the user has already purchased that is being managed by UltraViolet.
Faronw ( talk) 02:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
At least is isn't to all providers. Sony in particular forbids open-source operating systems from even logging into their version of the Ultra Violet website. This is original research by me, so I don't want to include it in the main article, however I have taken screen shots and contacted Sony. Sony gave me a generic non-answer that didn't even mention the issues I brought up.
Here's a short post with screen shots of the issue: http://pecosdave.livejournal.com/320150.html
Here's my big long post detailing Sony issuing numeric codes without actually stating they are not platform agnostic:
http://pecosdave.livejournal.com/319895.html
Windows is listed as the system requirements for playing back their movies, but it's not just a suggested requirement, it's a heavily policed requirement where they've purposely plugged all the holes included using fake user agent strings.
I am willing to work with other researchers to make a change official, but I do know there's rules about original research I do not wish to break.
Pecosdave ( talk) 14:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Since the last POV on this article was removed, I think I'll start the debate here, if we don't mind. This article does not contain cited criticism of the system, or even the philosophy that the system uses. It also does not contain detailed and cited information about the deployment, save for the ever-in-the-spotlight United States of America where the developers of the system are based and where it is first being used. And even then, only beta-testing info has been given, and not the actual deployment date. In addition, I have found conflicting information on the 'net about the release date of the system for the UK, over here: http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/sony-pictures-will-introduce-ultraviolet-enabled-discs-to-uk-in-june/ . I do see this as a POV issue, as the US is given more attention, in a system which would (I suspect) be deployed internationally. 86.5.226.63 ( talk) 02:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree in that there NEEDS to be a section on the widespread criticism against UV. many people have posted over the internet in backlash against UV, especially the UV films that exclude an iTunes option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.209.195 ( talk) 00:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
There was recently some vandalism on this page, which had a link pointing to this site: http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/original-thinking/an-open-letter-to-warner-brothers-fixster-and-ultraviolet-drm-49897 On the same domain name, I also found this: http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/original-thinking/ultraviolet-drm-are-you-serious-49840 I wouldn't put it past the Internet to have more pages like this, personal blogs openly criticizing UltraViolet. It would be nice to incorporate some of this criticism into the article (difficult setup, fragmented registration system, requirement of Internet connection which reminds one of infamous game DRMs, requirement of personal information, which can be seen as payment for the use of the system), but I don't think personal blogs count as a real reliable source. -- 86.5.226.63 ( talk) 14:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The article just starts talking about DECE with no explanation of what it stands for or what DECE is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.251.126 ( talk) 14:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
recent reports in trade mags suggest that disney's own "keychest" system is history, & that bskyb in the UK are not ready to go with UV just yet. the latter is, of course, probably not appropriate content for the article, but the references to disney should be adjusted, no? duncanrmi ( talk)
I would suggest including something on this page to link to other uses of the word ultraviolet. I was looking in Google for information on ultraviolet light radiation, and was directed to this page as the first relevant link, with no other way of finding information on other usages of the word... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.141.19 ( talk) 05:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Pbarnes I was notified that you had reverted the addition of the streaming providers that UltraViolet does not support that Disney Movies Anywhere does, and I was hoping to get some background regarding that change. The table for comparison purposes had a check-mark under the Disney Movies Anywhere column to represent the streaming providers that it supports and does not support. For a fair representation, I added rows that include (arguably) the most relevant providers and tried to represent which are supported by both entitlement lockers. Could we please have a discussion about why you reverted those changes? Lkarayan ( talk) 02:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Pbarnes I'm assuming what your concern was and am attempting to make another change that might address your objections. Lkarayan ( talk) 06:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Update: Requested
third opinion to help resolve this dispute. Here is the table in question:
UltraViolet_(system)#Comparison_of_streaming_providers
Pbarnes (
talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
A Third Opinion has been requested. Please clarify concisely exactly what the question is. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request ( Whether information on providers not supported by Ultraviolet should be included ): |
Reviewing both the discussion above and the section of the article in question, my opinion is that the information which does not directly relate to Ultraviolet is extraneous, and inclusion here is undue. I support the removal. Additionally, I hold the same opinion on the contents of the Player support of streaming providers and Streaming Providers Availability by Country tables, and would support their removal. I recommend that the information on systems & providers which are supported be included, as text. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC) |
In an attempt to avoid an edit war, I opened this talk section.
Echopulse, the release for the announcement states:
Flixster Video, the home entertainment and digital video redemption service, is not included in the transaction, but is expected to transition its users to Fandango’s new video on-demand service later this year, and will sunset thereafter.
— Rotten Tomatoes, Fandango, Flixster Press Release
With support for Xbox and Roku already being pulled, it's only a matter of time. I don't see the point in waiting to remove Flixster Video from the tables.
Pbarnes ( talk) 23:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
This article used to include a section titled "Drawbacks" but it was gradually shortened [1] and eventually removed [2]. (As you may have noticed from the discussions above people got annoyed about the article including too much information about other tangential technologies but the lack of involvement of Disney and their pushing their own systems was significant, IMO. The inconsistencies of what UV actually offered was also important.)
After the demise of Ultraviolet this section needed a rewrite but it goes to show the some of the problems with the system and the limited implementation and interoperability. This encyclopedia article would be better and more insightful if some of this could be salvaged and point out that even at the time the system was flawed and with hindsight the flaws are even more apparent. -- 109.78.192.128 ( talk) 07:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
UltraViolet (website) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UltraViolet is many things, including an entitlements clearinghouse with a common file format that uses standard DRMs, but it's not a DRM. Unless there are substantive objections I will change the title and change the link. JimTheFrog ( talk) 07:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, it does seem like DRM to me. It is a digital service for digital media. It manages your right to view the content (via 12 devices only, use of an account), it manages or restricts your ability to view the content to how Ultraviolet wants you to. This management is done to protect the IP rights of the supplied media. The Steam gaming service is less restrictive than this and no one argues that is DRM. I mean really you would have to prove this isn't a digital media service, or it doesn't manage (aka restrict) your ability to access digital media, or prove this service isn't done to protect IP rights. 58.167.232.23 ( talk) 05:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)LogiC
Jim, you assert that UltraViolet is not a DRM; I think you are too close to the subject to see that you are making a very specialised technical distinction, & that application of logical definitions &, dare I say it, slightly more human-readable semantics, leads us to the conclusion that (to use your words) an "entitlements clearing house... that uses standard DRMs" is actually a sort of uber-DRM, in that (by your definition) it manages the consumer's access to content by tracking the yes/no status of the applied DRMs.
in fact, the whole article is in need of some editing to make it more useful to the man-in-the-street. I sense, as a thirty-odd-year broadcast tech with a lot of experience of the format wars, that once again the various manufacturers & standards-bodies are obfuscating.
duncanrmi (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 13:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Here is a quote from Mark Teitell, general manager and executive director of the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem, the consortium behind UltraViolet “Consortium members have agreed to offer the content for unlimited streaming and downloading from the cloud for at least a year (Warner Bros. is offering it for three years), but after that time studios reserve the right to levy additional service fees” from the Reuters article "Cloud format debut with 'Horrible Bosses,' 'Green Lantern'" at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/12/us-media-ultraviolet-idUSTRE79B0C520111012 This should be discussed in the article as it seems that the eventual goal is to charge most likely a monthly fee or a pay per view fee on content the user has already purchased that is being managed by UltraViolet.
Faronw ( talk) 02:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
At least is isn't to all providers. Sony in particular forbids open-source operating systems from even logging into their version of the Ultra Violet website. This is original research by me, so I don't want to include it in the main article, however I have taken screen shots and contacted Sony. Sony gave me a generic non-answer that didn't even mention the issues I brought up.
Here's a short post with screen shots of the issue: http://pecosdave.livejournal.com/320150.html
Here's my big long post detailing Sony issuing numeric codes without actually stating they are not platform agnostic:
http://pecosdave.livejournal.com/319895.html
Windows is listed as the system requirements for playing back their movies, but it's not just a suggested requirement, it's a heavily policed requirement where they've purposely plugged all the holes included using fake user agent strings.
I am willing to work with other researchers to make a change official, but I do know there's rules about original research I do not wish to break.
Pecosdave ( talk) 14:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Since the last POV on this article was removed, I think I'll start the debate here, if we don't mind. This article does not contain cited criticism of the system, or even the philosophy that the system uses. It also does not contain detailed and cited information about the deployment, save for the ever-in-the-spotlight United States of America where the developers of the system are based and where it is first being used. And even then, only beta-testing info has been given, and not the actual deployment date. In addition, I have found conflicting information on the 'net about the release date of the system for the UK, over here: http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/sony-pictures-will-introduce-ultraviolet-enabled-discs-to-uk-in-june/ . I do see this as a POV issue, as the US is given more attention, in a system which would (I suspect) be deployed internationally. 86.5.226.63 ( talk) 02:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree in that there NEEDS to be a section on the widespread criticism against UV. many people have posted over the internet in backlash against UV, especially the UV films that exclude an iTunes option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.209.195 ( talk) 00:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
There was recently some vandalism on this page, which had a link pointing to this site: http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/original-thinking/an-open-letter-to-warner-brothers-fixster-and-ultraviolet-drm-49897 On the same domain name, I also found this: http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/original-thinking/ultraviolet-drm-are-you-serious-49840 I wouldn't put it past the Internet to have more pages like this, personal blogs openly criticizing UltraViolet. It would be nice to incorporate some of this criticism into the article (difficult setup, fragmented registration system, requirement of Internet connection which reminds one of infamous game DRMs, requirement of personal information, which can be seen as payment for the use of the system), but I don't think personal blogs count as a real reliable source. -- 86.5.226.63 ( talk) 14:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The article just starts talking about DECE with no explanation of what it stands for or what DECE is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.251.126 ( talk) 14:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
recent reports in trade mags suggest that disney's own "keychest" system is history, & that bskyb in the UK are not ready to go with UV just yet. the latter is, of course, probably not appropriate content for the article, but the references to disney should be adjusted, no? duncanrmi ( talk)
I would suggest including something on this page to link to other uses of the word ultraviolet. I was looking in Google for information on ultraviolet light radiation, and was directed to this page as the first relevant link, with no other way of finding information on other usages of the word... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.141.19 ( talk) 05:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Pbarnes I was notified that you had reverted the addition of the streaming providers that UltraViolet does not support that Disney Movies Anywhere does, and I was hoping to get some background regarding that change. The table for comparison purposes had a check-mark under the Disney Movies Anywhere column to represent the streaming providers that it supports and does not support. For a fair representation, I added rows that include (arguably) the most relevant providers and tried to represent which are supported by both entitlement lockers. Could we please have a discussion about why you reverted those changes? Lkarayan ( talk) 02:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Pbarnes I'm assuming what your concern was and am attempting to make another change that might address your objections. Lkarayan ( talk) 06:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Update: Requested
third opinion to help resolve this dispute. Here is the table in question:
UltraViolet_(system)#Comparison_of_streaming_providers
Pbarnes (
talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
A Third Opinion has been requested. Please clarify concisely exactly what the question is. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request ( Whether information on providers not supported by Ultraviolet should be included ): |
Reviewing both the discussion above and the section of the article in question, my opinion is that the information which does not directly relate to Ultraviolet is extraneous, and inclusion here is undue. I support the removal. Additionally, I hold the same opinion on the contents of the Player support of streaming providers and Streaming Providers Availability by Country tables, and would support their removal. I recommend that the information on systems & providers which are supported be included, as text. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC) |
In an attempt to avoid an edit war, I opened this talk section.
Echopulse, the release for the announcement states:
Flixster Video, the home entertainment and digital video redemption service, is not included in the transaction, but is expected to transition its users to Fandango’s new video on-demand service later this year, and will sunset thereafter.
— Rotten Tomatoes, Fandango, Flixster Press Release
With support for Xbox and Roku already being pulled, it's only a matter of time. I don't see the point in waiting to remove Flixster Video from the tables.
Pbarnes ( talk) 23:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
This article used to include a section titled "Drawbacks" but it was gradually shortened [1] and eventually removed [2]. (As you may have noticed from the discussions above people got annoyed about the article including too much information about other tangential technologies but the lack of involvement of Disney and their pushing their own systems was significant, IMO. The inconsistencies of what UV actually offered was also important.)
After the demise of Ultraviolet this section needed a rewrite but it goes to show the some of the problems with the system and the limited implementation and interoperability. This encyclopedia article would be better and more insightful if some of this could be salvaged and point out that even at the time the system was flawed and with hindsight the flaws are even more apparent. -- 109.78.192.128 ( talk) 07:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)