Single-play DVDs a Hoax 227
psy writes "Ed Bott's blog states that in relation to a previously posted slashdot story "a hoax can spread just as fast as a genuine news story. That's the lesson from the bogus story published in an obscure UK business magazine yesterday that claimed Microsoft is about to unleash a new single-play DVD format.
Paul Thurrott reprinted the story without giving credit to the original source. Bink.nu picked up the story from Paul and reprinted it verbatim.
Techdirt commented on the original story, with attribution but without any fact-checking. So did John Walkenbach.
The funny part? There's no truth to the story. None whatsoever. In fact, the original story sparked a flurry of e-mails around Microsoft as people in different groups tried to figure out where on earth this story came from. After the head-scratching stopped, a spokesmen told me, they concluded that the story was not true. "It appears to be confusing an existing feature within Windows Media DRM that allows for single-play of promotional digital material. This has been an option for content owners to use for some time for the Windows Media format - it does not apply to MPEG2 content found on DVDs."
Not quite a hoax (Score:4, Funny)
How do we know Ed Bott's comment is not a hoax too? He just said a MS spokesman told him so, but where's the source?
I believe the real story is, MS did invent this Play-Once DVD, however due to huge amount of negative comments from Slashdot [slashdot.org], they pulled a PR spin, and instructed that spokesman to tell Ed that it's a hoax.
Re:Not quite a hoax (Score:2, Funny)
You may want to consider the use of the sarcasm tag....please be sure to use it in the future so that people don't think you are serious.
Re:Not quite a hoax (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not quite a hoax (Score:5, Funny)
Ears perking up (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ears perking up (Score:5, Funny)
just make really, really, really crappy movies.
Re:Ears perking up (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ears perking up (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not quite a hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_balloon [wikipedia.org]
They send out a press release with plausible deniability to see how their PR would suffer or improve if they took a certain action. Now they know it's a bad idea, and they don't have to go through the trouble of sticking their necks out, too. Politicians do this all the time.
It's a shame really. The single-use DVD merely gives people an additional option. You can buy the DVD for $20, or buy it for a single use for $3. All those who would pay $3 for a single use but not $20 for the full DVD now suffer, and those who buy normal DVD's are unaffected.
Good job guys.
Re:Not quite a hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a break. Thumbs down to you.
Re:Not quite a hoax (Score:2)
garbage disposal.
Perhaps. But does that make it any more responsible to waste that capacity when there's no need to artificially limit the usefulness of an item that doesn't biodegrade? Yes, decay is slowed in a landfill environment -- but plastic (most plastic) will never decay, or at least for such a long time that it's just about the same thing as "never".
Regarding p
Re:Not quite a hoax (Score:3, Informative)
That's not even arguing by anlogy, it's a strawman bullshit point.
Re:Not quite a hoax (Score:2)
Re:Not quite a hoax (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not quite a hoax (Score:2, Funny)
As oppose to the usual MS bashing that happens daily in /.?
Which planet did you come from...
Hey, we all watched Mission Impossible. We know this has to be true!
Haha Slashdot got suckered! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Haha Slashdot got suckered! (Score:2)
That's like stealing candy from a baby! (Score:2)
However, the main point is whether or not this **really** was a hoax. Leaking a "hoax" is a great way to judge user feedback etc without getting egg on your face.
Re:Haha Slashdot got suckered! (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone should check the credibility of what they read, for sure. A good friend of mine wrote a comical story on her blog at the beginning of this year about macintoshes getting intel upgrades [danaquarium.com]. Remember this was before steve jobs let out the big news. Then in June when steve admitted it was true, someone submitted the story to slashdot [slashdot.org]. Then the world picked it up, and it was featured on engadget, the inquirer, hundreds of blogs, and within two weeks had made it to two US radio station broadcasts and was printed as a center piece in one Australian nationwide newspaper. The journalist at The Australian lost his job over it and a california radio news guy only just escaped with his.
The kicker was nobody wrote to her to check the origins of the story, not one solitary person until Media Watch [abc.net.au], an Australian media watchdog television show contacted her to find out the reality behind the story in The Australian.
Tens of news sites blindly followed one another and printed what everyone else was printing. All the while many regular joes picked out it was meant for a laugh immediately.
Re:Haha Slashdot got suckered! (Score:4, Interesting)
"Don't you all feel bright now for bashing Microsoft?"
Actually, I was most amused by the report that even Microsoft got fooled. Instead of thinking 'That's bullsh*t - we would never do that!' they ran around trying to find out whose business group was responsible for it. Only when they couldn't get anyone to corroborate did they decide that it was untrue.
Apparently even Microsoft thinks this is the kind of thing Microsoft would do. 8^)
Re:Haha Slashdot got suckered! (Score:2)
It i
The best results.. (Score:2)
Basically change must be incremental for it too succeed in a garbage can.
Re:Haha Slashdot got suckered! (Score:2)
It was probably modded down.
Re:Haha Slashdot got suckered! (Score:2)
Oh, wait [slashdot.org]...
Ummm.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ummm.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've written like a journal and several journal posts and main page posts all asserting numerous facts, and even with fact checking (which i normally skip) i got loads of stuff wrong
All the more reason to check sources (Score:5, Insightful)
You're just realizing it now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike engineering or medicine, for instance, there is no penalty for those journalists who fail to do their job properly. The complete lack of accountability had resulted in most mainstream newspapers, magazines and television news programs being nothing but farcery.
There are still reputable journalists (Score:5, Insightful)
The New York Times [nytimes.com] has had its problems, but their reporters are some of the best in the business, and while there is an editorial slant, it isn't extreme. The Atlantic [theatlantic.com] provides good monthly material, and The Economist [economist.com] does so on a weekly basis. Those are my picks for daily, weekly, and monthly news, but there are other sources. The Christian Science Monitor [csmonitor.com] is a great daily paper, for example. You may agree or disagree with my picks, but the profession of journalism isn't dead, and good sources of news are available.
I would also advance the notion that just because the editorial bias of a newspaper is disagreeable to you doesn't mean that the organization is corrupt. Newspapers are run by people, and people sometimes make mistakes. Note that during the runup to the Iraq invasion, The Atlantic provided excellent coverage and made many warnings that the Administration's plans were misguided. To me that is proof that following only one news source is a bad idea. You have to read from more than one source, whose biases you know, and make your own assessments from there.
I realize that it's de rigeur to bash on the news media, whether you're attacking from the Right or the Left, but the media is a business, and it gives people what they want. Americans need to take responsibility for at least some of the sorry state of our media. We have consistently voted in politicians who allowed the media conglomerates more and more power. We watch trash like Fox News. We read USA Today. That's not proof of a lack of credible journalism. It's proof that we're lazy.
Re:There are still reputable journalists (Score:2)
Wasn't the Times one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion and the WMD nonsense? We've had so many amazing journalistic failures during the past eight years, even from the Times, that it is really hard to believe that the journalists anywhere are doing their job correctly enough. Especially with the lack of any real public accountability for t
You're just realizing it recently? (Score:2)
There is a penalty for journalists who fail to do their job properly. It's called a 'pulitzer' (take that hearst)
But you can't blame them. They're not content to sit on the sidelines and tell people things they didn't know. (unless they're reporting about starving people or something) They want to be part of the story. Just watch a pres
Re:You're just realizing it now? (Score:2)
Re:You're just realizing it now? (Score:2)
Re:All the more reason to check sources (Score:2)
Shhhh! We don't talk about those things here!
Re:All the more reason to check sources (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't believe that he not only heard about this and didn't laugh so hard that he couldn't see through the tears, but he also repeated obvious hoax as serious business.
The overwhelming majority of people will not purchase a concrete item that expires after one use especially when it comes to the Almighty Idiot Box. (think 'my precious, my precious' and what behavioral changes happen to most people when the remote control doesn't work)
Even if they might possibly fall for that on Planet Stupid, it's not likely that they'd buy a second DVD player as well just to have compatibility for those self-destructing DVDs.
Another example of journalist's DOOPPPP (Score:5, Funny)
Having said all that, do you think it is "real" this time?!? ;-) [komar.org]
phew (Score:4, Insightful)
In Soviet Russia, hoax spread you!
Re:phew (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:phew (Score:2)
Also, Don't believe everything you think.
Re:phew (Score:2)
Re:phew (Score:2)
The mentality that "if its biodegradable it's ok" is a fallacy, as the current landfill strategy (here in the US anyways) is to pack tightly and bury it. NOTHING biodegrades in those conditions (insufficent oxygen and water); they've dug up bananna peels from the 70's. Plastics do degrade though, just not by microbes. All it takes is some concentrated
Re:phew (Score:2)
Sure, the chemicals / heavy metals can be a bitch when the landfill leaches into groundwater, but if that doesn't happen you can still enjoy your new hill.
Only sort of a hoax (Score:2)
MPEG2 streams cannot self-destruct in this way, but the option has been available for quite some time for material encoded in windows media, which just so happens to be the format for HD-DVD. So, while self-destructing DVDs are a hoax, self-destructing HD-DVDs are part of the design specification, whether it is marketed that way or not.
The problem with this? Now that
That Paul Thurrott... (Score:2)
In part 2 of my comparison of Windows Vista Beta 1 and Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger," I will examine the security, networking and power management features of the two operating systems.
Well, I'm curious about that! I hope he didn't just forget about it...
Anyway, on topic, I don't see any mention of this story on his site [winsupersite.com] anymore, so he
Re:That Paul Thurrott... (Score:2, Funny)
If he keeps pulling scoops like this, perhaps he should consider changing his first name to Deep.../*DUCKS*/
Behavior Pattern? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Behavior Pattern? (Score:2)
Re:Behavior Pattern? (Score:2)
It'll rear its ugly head again (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It'll rear its ugly head again (Score:2)
Re:It'll rear its ugly head again (Score:2)
If it didn't require extra equipment or any kind of "call home" and if the disks were environmentally friendly (or, easier - had a deposit to encourage people to recycle them properly) and the price were right, yes, I'd like to see that.
Why? Because I don't like having to remember to return things and I don't like feeling like I'm under any time pressure at all (even if it is something "gentle" like "Keep it as long as you want") to watch recreational
Re:It'll rear its ugly head again (Score:2)
Ummm.... (Score:2, Funny)
Seriously though, think about it. It is.
So what we've learned is (Score:2, Insightful)
Got it now.
Monopoly Money (Score:3, Funny)
Hoax and profit (Score:3, Interesting)
Not a hoax - just misinformation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Crap Journalism (Score:2)
I have lost a lot of respect for Paul Thurrott (did I have any?). I read his article, and he never names a source... never says how he came to this information. Did he have inside information from a source at Microsoft? It s
Re:Crap Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Crap Journalism (Score:2)
The Real Truth For Sure (Score:5, Funny)
Counter PR? (Score:2)
Since MS has such a good PR team, would it be so hard to imagine that people are initiating some Counter PR (read: pure lies) in order to try to generate some negative press about MS (like they need the help)?
I mean, just LOOK at all the negative comments they've received and how many websites picked this up. Real
Will the madness ever cease? (Score:2, Funny)
Bullshit (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
"What is DHMO?
Dihydrogen Monoxide, or DHMO, is a colorless and odorless chemical that kills or maims thousands each year, primarily through accidental inhalation."
Brilliant.
I, for one... (Score:2, Funny)
So wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Where's the Slashdot retraction or apology? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't matter, (Score:3, Interesting)
Hollywood+Microsoft == you don't decide on how to view/listen to what you legally purchased/downloaded. You can't transfer your media to another non-MS device. Why do you Windows users still insist on using the Windows Media Player(TM) format?
For the slow thinkers. What do you think the "existing feature within Windows Media DRM" option does?
Just curious...
Enjoy,
Actually, it's only a PARTIAL hoax. (Score:4, Interesting)
Since then, Flexplay has used similar technology to discolor DVDs 48 hours after the case is open. In this case, the disc is sealed in an airtight container. When it comes in contact with oxygen, is begins the discoloration process to where it's unreadable in about 48 hours. Disney released several movies under the "EZ-D" label using this technology. It's the Circuit City DIVX scam in a new package.
I don't know if Flexplay is still pursuing the single-play DVD concept, but since they bought SpectraDisc they obviously have all of the research that SpectraDisc might have already done.
Re:Actually, it's only a PARTIAL hoax. (Score:2)
that is actually a great marketing idea, and a good use for single play DVDs.
Yes, some people will rip it, but those are in the minority. It would be a way to sell DVDs.
They call this a tech-news site? (Score:4, Informative)
wired news, 2003 [wired.com]
I saw these for sale in a convinience store (Circle-K) TWO YEARS AGO. I haven't seen (noticed?) them lately, so they certainly didn't blow up in sales, but for heaven's sake: what are all of you smoking! Doesn't anybody read? (I'm not even talking about the article, I'm talking about tech news in general!) You guys call yourselves nerds? I can't believe all of these people are "up in arms" about a product that's been around and already failed in the marketplace. The only "hoax" is the idea that it was Microsoft; in fact, it was the arguably equally evil Disney that came up with this one.
Paul Thurrott reprinted the story without giving.. (Score:2)
WTF?
Paul, please slap yourself for me. Now don't steal others' work again. Thanks.
Re:Paul Thurrott reprinted the story without givin (Score:2)
Why is this a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this a surprse to anyone? All of the major news media got most of the facts wrong on the Superdome incident after the Katrina hurricane. And that was a story that really mattered!
And anyone that takes what is published on
Ask anyone that has direct first hand information on a news story that has been reported on just how many facts on their incident were reported correctly. I doubt that any story is ever reported 100% correctly.
And what is the deal with newscasters becoming part of the story instead of just reporting what is going on? News on TV has become nothing more than another entertainment show. "If it bleeds it leads!" The talking heads are full of themselves making important sounding noises, rolling their eyes, and making incredulous sounds on stories they obviously have strong opinions on. Add that to them only reporting the portions of a story they agree with or make people they don't like look bad, why do so many people believe them still? And they get to do this with no over sight. So Dan Rather retired a little early over that misunderstanding. The other talking heads have picked up the slack.
And while we are at it what the hell is the deal with Major League Baseball? Why they hell can't they set a no tolerance policy for steroid/drug use? One time and that player is banned. Why do they try these half measures giving they multiple times to try to get around the rules? [sorry, that last part just slipped out...]
we had a bunch of tin-star sheriffs try it once (Score:5, Informative)
Uh-huh (Score:4, Funny)
Assistant: "Uh...they laughed, Sir."
Balmer: "Oh!...Ummm...Okay...well...uh...let's play it as a hoax."
Assistant: "Yes, Sir. New chair, Sir?"
Balmer: "That would be nice, and some decaf!"
Windows Vista will be far away (Score:4, Interesting)
"In fact, the original story sparked a flurry of e-mails around Microsoft as people in different groups tried to figure out where on earth this story came from. After the head-scratching stopped, a spokesmen told me, they concluded that the story was not true."
If it takes this much effort for one of the largest companies to come up with an answer to a seemingly simple question (let alone an IT company which sells software to orgnise information), it should cause us to re-think how we all organise business information. They should have had an answer in a few minutes (not) what seems to be several hours of communication between middle and upper management. Microsoft is not alone. I've worked for several large companies (one of which is a major market leader). Each time a "policy" or "product" question came up it would take hours or days to find out. Microsoft is not immune to this.
You've never worked with people, have you? (Score:2)
Without defending any particular company, in general, if "Bob from company X said Blah"... how long do you think it should take company X to confirm or deny it?
a) if company X has 10 employees?
b) if company X has 100 employees?
c) if company X has 1000 employees?
d) if company MSFT has 61000 employees?
If it takes this much effort for one of the largest companies to come up with an answer to a seemingly simple question...
Of cou
How you know it's a hoax (Score:3, Funny)
My sincere hope... (Score:2)
I was a victim of this sort of wildfire... (Score:4, Interesting)
Somehow some idiot journalist did not see this, however. Through seemingly selective reporting and creative "quoting", I was somehow a bad guy. That story was then copied verbatim across many internet and print news outlets and it was even interpretted and "built on" by other idiot or perhaps dishonest journalists.
I no longer have any respect at all for the average journalist. They very rarely understand the issues they are reporting and sensationalize to the point of out-and-out lie. They do no favours to the subjects of their stories (except for the subjects who may be rich affiliates of course) and no favours to the general public who believe their lies.
No harm done to Microsoft... (Score:2)
I'm sure we all know that Microsoft will do just about anything to dominate a market.
The fact that so many people believed it, without question, goes to show what people really think of Microsoft.
Well, come on (Score:4, Interesting)
There was a bar that I used to drink in, back in my student days, which had a juke box. An NSM Prestige 160 if you care about these things; a lot like a Seeburg inside. It cost 10 pence a record {remember records?} and it was always playing. Once a fortnight, the amusement machine company came out to change the records. Well, one time, not only did they put in a whole load of new records, they also cranked up the price from 10p to 20p. And from that day on, the bar was like a Wetherspoons.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if DVDs cost £3 each instead of £20, then more people would be more prepared to buy them; and they'd actually sell enough copies to make more of a profit. Instead of waiting to see if one of my friends bought a movie I would like to watch {in a kind of "chicken" game, where the loser is the one who actually buys the disc and then has either to lend it out to everyone else, thereby risking the disc becoming trashed; or invite them over for a viewing, thereby risking an enormous cost in drink, drugs, broken furniture and freaked-out neighbours} we could all just buy our own copy of the disc, and not have to worry about the intricate politics of the situation. Likewise, there would be next to no market in "piracy", since the margins involved would be ridiculously small. Back in 1998-99, a "pirated" music CD cost £3 {handwritten track listing, labelled with indelible marker} or £4 {inkjet printed cover artwork and label}. Writers were rare, not much faster than 4* or 8* and hardly anybody had ADSL. As a cottage industry, it was fine for awhile but it soon became unsustainable.
Oh, *PLEASE* (Score:3, Interesting)
What nobody bothered to do (EDITORS) was check up on the story. The fact is, another company (can't remember whom) tried this same thing. Guess what? It DIDN'T WORK. The mass market said "NO" and with that simple bit of info from the past, why would Microsoft try doing it again? Hell, even they should know if it can be read once from a DVD, it could be copied ONCE, burned ONCE onto another disc and WATCHED FOREVER.
What we have here is a serious problem with Slashdot editors not checking up on stories, like REAL EDITORS DO. (Minus Fox News, which is FAR from 'Fair and Balanced.')
Give me a break, Slashdot. Your moderators mod me as a troll but your own editors can't even spot this simple fake? Yes, even I responded to the last story about this horse-hockey, and all I did was mention the above tactic of read/rip once, burn once, play forever. As a matter of fact, someone else in the comments before this story posted that IT WAS BULLSHIT. After being so thoroughly debunked by a simple (and unmodded) commentator, why the hell is this news to begin with? Play once DVD? *Penn and Teller Quote* BULL-SHIT.
Nothing for you to see here, move along. You should've all had the brains to figure this one out.
The latest conspiracy theory (Score:2)
My reaction would be good if the a choice in formats was made available with an appropriate difference in price. Say $2 for a single play dvd for something I know I only want to see once.
However there would be the environmental cost of throwing single play DVDs in
Within large corporations... (Score:2)
Hoax squared (Score:2)
from the no-shit-sherlock dept. (Score:2)
Yeah. Duh. I knew this lesson regarding hoaxes already. Why the fuck is it that so few people in the general news media and populace seem to understand this though? That's the part that bugs me.
CLUE: Whatever you do, never trust information that comes from only one source if t
Re:Shock (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Shock (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shock (Score:2)
"Do you honestly think that Microsoft cares what Slashdot says?"
Given the depth of the astroturf and the number of banner ads they place here, I'd have to answer yes. 8^)
Re:Shock (Score:3, Informative)
they got the feature in
Re:Hoax? I think not (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hoax? I think not (Score:2)
sheesh, they don't care about slashdot.
Re:Hoax? I think not (Score:2)
No, I can't. I was joking. Instead it looks like I got some mods who had their sense of humour surgically removed.
PLAGIARISM (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What a shock (Score:2, Insightful)
Only someone who reads slashdot every other day would say that. The rest of us know it's much more common than that.
Humor Nazi (Score:2)
you know what would ahve made the a great punch line? leaving of the second sentence off. Never explain your joke unless asked*. Plus, only the intelligent moderators would mod you funny..oh wait.
Not to be confused with magic tricks.