Talk:UltraViolet (website)

UltraViolet is not a DRM
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)


 * "Jim Taylor is Head of Technology and Product Development for UltraViolet/DECE, the online entertainment equivalent to DVD and Blu-ray." Shill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.128.195 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I looked at the BIO closer and he's a big time Microsoft shill. This explains why he compared up-to-date Linux to Mozilla 1.0 and Amiga.  Neutral POV is going to be hard to maintain here, if he's editing this article then I should be free to put my original research on Sony and the like below in as well.  Click my link and then the UltraViolet tag at the bottom of the article - it can get messy fast if both factions apply their bias.  Pecosdave (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a lot of this happening. Especially on pages regarding copyright, file sharing, and systems to combat questionable file sharing. There needs to be real and effective action to maintain neutrality from the top (I mean a WikiProject or something). We don't need this PR crap, but sometimes the fact of the matter is, the PR people sometimes get meaningful facts into the article. So maybe more checking needs to be done. Since Wikipedia still hasn't caught up the fact that blogs can (sometimes, in large numbers) be a reliable indicator of what happens in the world, maybe action needs to be taken so that the press can report on this as well (anti-PR :P) but that's a lot of effort. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, get real. Check LinkedIn or other sources and you'll discover that the corrections I made to this article were done before I joined the DECE staff. Still, that's all by the by. NPOV doesn't require that editors have no connection to the topic of the article they edit. That would be absurd, since it would disqualify most of the expert editors. NPOV is about being, well, neutral. I've been editing Wikipedia for over 9 years, so it's not like I'm some PR flack who jumped on here to puff things up. Check the facts and the edits you'll see that everything I've done is neutral and fact-based. JimTheFrog (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is speculation that Blu-Ray discs that come with Ultraviolet digital copies may no longer play on computer software players; only the Ultraviolet digital copy will play. That could very well mean that Blu-Ray decryption software (AnyDVD, DVDFab) will no longer be able to decrypt the regular Blu-Ray discs that are packaged with Ultraviolet Digital Copies. If that's true, then it does put Ultraviolet into DRM territory, even though Ultraviolet itself is not just a DRM. -Artificial Silence (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You'll be glad to know that this is actually not the case, Artificial Silence. There is no plan to disable Blu-ray disc playback in any devices.  Studios are using UltraViolet as a transition between packaged goods and digital distribution.  Knowing that consumers aren't ready to abandon physical media, this is one way to bridge the gap.  It's no secret that actual movie sales are dropping very quickly and studios aren't going to do anything to hasten the decline of sales -- especially not to disable the functionality.Zuppdog (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You mention "Knowing that consumers aren't ready to abandon physical media". We don't know this. Speaking as a consumer, I am completely ready to abandon physical media, but I don't have viable options (except for piracy). This is OR, true, but consumers "not being ready to abandon physical media" is a common MPAA bullshit cliché. Just like confusing "copying" and "stealing". Or labelling copyright infringers by the same name that murdering and pillaging outlaws at sea are known by. (to be honest, that last bit actually makes it sound pretty cool).


 * I'm not planning on holding an anti-MPAA rally, but at the very least, refrain from using biased/NPOV words or clichés. Also, if you make claims like "consumers aren't ready to abandon physical media" I would appreciate it if you source it. Even on the talk page. Because I call bullshit. 83.84.253.178 (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2012 (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
 * The issue is that saying something like "Ultraviolet is a DRM system" is an over-simplification, sure, DRM is an important part of the system, but DRM is also incorporated in DVD players, Blu-ray player, the PS3, however, just saying they are "DRM systems" is an over-simplification, as that is not the main point of the devices. --SF007 (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll sound in with this. I bought titles under various, including UltraViolet schemes thinking I could watch the videos that I purchased on my laptop. One problem, I was forward deployed and could not, as we had zero connectivity downrange. Without online Herr Fuhrer permission, I had vaporware. I, nor could any of our men, bring a Blu Ray player and television downrange. We had a sparse few personal laptops. It's DRM in spades. It's rights of the owner over the rights of the purchaser. There'll be glaciers in hell before I buy another title with that tripe included if I want it on my computer. I'll pirate it on R&R if I want it or do without totally.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

resource

 * Wal-Mart close to signing with UltraViolet by Greg Sandoval CNET News 21.September.2011 7:22 AM PDT 99.181.129.46 (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * UltraViolet Demystified A simple explanation of all of the moving parts of UltraViolet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.244.142 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional Charge Discussion
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)
 * I agree. Maybe under a ==Future== section. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ultra Violet is NOT platform agnostic.
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)


 * I don't doubt the research, but implementers of UltraViolet-compatible websites are free to do whatever they want. That's the point of an open system. The Sony Pictures website probably also doesn't support Blackbery phones or WebTVs or the original Mozilla 1.0 browser or the Commodore 64 computer. If Comcast, for example, started making UltraViolet movies available on their cable system would you complain that they didn't support Charter or Time-Warner or Rogers boxes? It costs Sony Pictures money to implement and test on multiple platforms. It's impossible for anyone to be truly platform agnostic on the Internet. JimTheFrog (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It costs more to actively block Linux users, than to just not support it. It would cost them less money to list "Windows" as required prerequisite, not care who connects and shrug if a Linux user complains. Your argument is invalid. 83.84.253.178 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I am annoyed that you would compare something as modern and widely used as Linux to obsolete, outdated and barely-anymore-if-at-all-used systems like Commodore64, Mozilla 1.0 and Blackberries. 83.84.253.178 (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am and always will be a multi-platform person. I have Solaris running, Linux running, *BSD running, Windows running and OSX running. Each on its own machine. That said, send a note to the title owner that you refused to purchase their garbage, as it was unavailable on your platform. EVERY time a new title comes up. Eventually, the bean counters will show enough lost revenue to consider fixing that which is broken.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory POV discussion
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)
 * See also above discussions about the neutrality of one of the editors of the article, and proposed solutions. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add criticism. (You're welcome to borrow it from my UltraViolet Demystified FAQ, since I can't post it here due it being my own work.) Lack of criticism does not mean there's a POV issue. And the fact that a system that launched first in the US was given more attention first in the US should not be a surprise to anyone, and is a bizarre point to raise in a POV discussion. UltraViolet launched in the UK 26-Dec-2011. It's a simple fact. There's no meaningful conflicting information about that. There have been recent press articles about UltraViolet moving to Canada this year, then Australia, New Zealand, Germany, and France next year (http://www.homemediamagazine.com/digital-copy/ultraviolet-launches-canada-bbc-announces-first-uk-uv-titles-28535). I looked for "proposed solutions" to the alleged POV issue but didn't see any, other than some non-sequiters about posting original research and creating a project to deal with nonexistent "PR" threats. Given no substantive discussion about POV on this talk page for many months, I am removing the banner. JimTheFrog (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nine months is not many, and I see this problem is still unresolved. You saying that other parties in a debate are lying is evidence to this fact. Nine months or 5 years, it should be resolved first. We should wait until proposed solutions appear, or look for them ourselves (thanks for pasting that one). There are so many articles pertaining to record companies (and other companies and business, mind you, not just those in the music industry) which have very large POV issues (like Alternative Distribution Alliance). I'd rather not resolve to edit warring (I am the same person as 86.5.226.63), so I'll just leave this alone, it's too big to solve by myself. It's also evident to me now that I also have a non-neutral point of view (against the general state of 'Hollywood', against major record labels, for non-DRM media, and for independent artists who utilize direct, digital distribution, and for systems which trust the end user to pay for what worth they actually see in the content like Bandcamp). I'll look at the information in the first link. Afterwards, I'll request WP:RfC or WP:DISPUTE or something along those lines. After that process is over (should be relatively quick), we can start working some of that information into the article, if it deems to be a reliable source.
 * It's not that I don't like Ultraviolet's goals (I think it's useful in the combat against illegal distribution, for one, by providing a convenient legal alternative, a kind of Steam for movies) but I don't like the way it is being deployed, and how it restricts users, despite attempting to be convenient (it is nowhere near a Steam for movies yet). I think the ways it restricts users have already been mentioned on this page. My feelings are strong, so I feel it would be difficult for me to add criticism to the article without risking its neutral point of view.
 * On the UK launch date, I see now that the article only gives information pertaining to Sony's media publishing and distribution network, and the initial launch of UltraViolet could have happened earlier. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2013 (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)


 * I was also surprised the article didn't include any analysis. I searched and easily found a review of UltraViolet on CNET and the reviewer was critical of the inconsistencies of the system, that it failed to even deliver what little it had promised.
 * At the very least there should be some dry analysis of the system (even if editors insist on leaving out opinions that the whole system is flawed to begin with). With no analysis at all the article ends up giving undue weight to the claims made by the publicity material. -- 93.107.190.142 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional information (another point of view on the system)
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)

No explanation of DECE
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)

Disney
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)

Disambiguation
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)

Fair comparison of streaming providers and Disney Movies Anywhere
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)


 * User:Lkarayan There is no reason to include Disney Movies Anywhere information on this page. If you'd like, you can add a small sentence saying "Amazon, iTunes... are not compatible with Ultraviolet". But the addition to the table is excessive and unnecessary. If people want to know what streaming providers are compatible with DMA, they can go to the DMA article. Pbarnes (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Pbarnes Thanks for the response.  I can understand that perspective.   The reference was already on the table, I simply added the additional providers to clarify the comparison, otherwise it's incomplete. Lkarayan (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Lkarayan - If we include iTunes and Amazon on the table, despite not being compatible with Ultraviolet, why don't we include Netflix and Hulu? We could include ALL streaming providers.... how complete do you want it? This could be a never ending process if our definition of "complete" is every streaming provider under the sun. I define "complete" as containing all notable streaming providers compatible with Ultraviolet. This is why Nook Video, M-GO, Verizon FIOS On Demand, and Nolim Films are left out of the table. Pbarnes (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Pbarnes Thanks for responding. We don't include Netflix and Hulu because they don't extend digital rights to the viewer beyond the stream.  The whole idea of UltraViolet (system) is that I own the movie not just during the time I pay for access or the streaming providor has it up.   So to be clear, it shouldn't be streaming providers it should be places I can go to watch (or get) my entitlement.  I would also expect Video On Demand providers not being listed here unless there was some sort of integration with one of the two options.   I would really appreciate it if you left the changes until we finish the discussion. Could you please share with me what your concerns are, because I don't see why you would be so interested in taking it off if that was your only concern considering those are the most notable digital copy vendors.  Lkarayan (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: Requested third opinion to help resolve this dispute. Here is the table in question: UltraViolet_(system) Pbarnes (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * echopulse This article is about the Ultraviolet system, not digital rights lockers in general, so streaming providers that support DMA should not be included. We do list streaming providers that support both, but listing iTunes, Amazon and Google Play in the chart is unneccesary. They are listed as supporting DMA in separate sections. I recommend removing them from the chart.

Third Opinion
A Third Opinion has been requested. Please clarify concisely exactly what the question is. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Pbarnes I'll go with the third opinion, even through I strongly disagree.  I've also removed the reference to Disney Movies Anywehere from that table.   echopulse & Pbarnes, even though it's not a page about digital rights lockers in general, there are only two, and I don't see how you can be informed about one if you're not informed about the other.   Not too mention Disney Movies Anywehere is all over the page, so the distinction in this small context is un-explainable to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkarayan (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Closing of Flixster Video
In an attempt to avoid an edit war, I opened this talk section.

Echopulse, the |press 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)

Drawbacks
This article used to include a section titled "Drawbacks" but it was gradually shortened and eventually removed. (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)