Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DivX;), The MPAA, The Future And The Past

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the much-better-use-of-hard-drive-space dept.

News 172

Stibanater writes: "The second part of a 2-parter on Salon about DivX seems to hint at MPAA tolerance of DivX as a good distribution format. Granted, this comes from the mouth of a DivX Network's exec, so salt to taste. Still, the tasty part is the insinuation that the MPAA has learned from Napster, and will move to quickly embrace online distribution instead of 'suing it out of existence.' The first part is an explanation of DivX for the layman and a little bit about the DeCSS case." On a related note, Dan Marlin writes: "Looks like the "Internet Archive" http://www.archive.org has decided to add the DivX MPEG-4 format to it's entire movie collection. This is huge in the way of mass acceptance for the DivX ;-). It looks like they are still in the encoding process as most of movies are still only available in MPEG-2. But after scanning the collection the past few days, it looks like they are adding more daily."

cancel ×

172 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not so fast 36hours to encode (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#353633)

best CPU for MPEG-4 [tomshardware.com] and check this out too MPEG-4 DVD to CD-ROM [tomshardware.com] The masses won't be using this anytime soon. Just to decode the thing it takes 80% of your CPU with a Pentium 450Mhz. To Encode it it'll take 36 hours. Although they said an Athlon 1.1GHz can do it in like 6 to 10 hours.

So in a year or two years when my grandma has a P500 or above..only then will I convert all my mini-DV homevideo tapes to Divx and pass them around like candy. Bottomline though..is it's coming..just a matter of time..Right now it's just for new unreleased movies not out on DVD yet.

Re:Let's hope the world doesn't accept DivX (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#353634)

Actually, I agree with you that we should support open formats. But MPEG-4 will NOT be an open standart at all! If you read about it, it will be proprietary.

I'm sorry to say that I know of no open standard video compression formats out there. We need to back something like ogg vorbis for video, which doesn't exist yet. Someone needs to get the ball rolling on this. Start something up under the BSD or LGPL license and put it up on sourceforge and go.

confusion of codecs (1)

gavinhall (33) | more than 13 years ago | (#353637)

Posted by rakerman:

Can someone explain the differences between the competing codecs - original DivX, "open" DivX, DivX Deux, OpenCodex.com, 3ivx... Are any of them any better/faster, more cross-platform etc.? The Archive.org files that have been converted so far are in original DivX.

I guess not everyone has the equipment yet, but there are lots of ways to turn (legal) MPEG-2 and DivX from Archive.org into video in another format: video card with composite video out to VCR, convert to DV stream and record over FireWire to DV camcorder, make into a VideoCD using e.g. Nero, or make into a DVD (using Apple's iDVD).

Oh please... (2)

gavinhall (33) | more than 13 years ago | (#353639)

Posted by Lee Thompson:

DivX;-) is just some hacked codec to begin with so I, for one, will never support it. If the "makers" of DivX (which is technically Microsoft so I should say the "hackers that distribute DivX") really want to do something clever; they should write their own code. (Don't get me wrong; I think a cross platform MPEG-4 codec is a wonderful thing but let's make one without just hacking someone else's -- and yes; I know there are a couple in development.) As for the MPAA, I seriously doubt the MPAA is going to embrace a hacked codec in which illegal screener copies of currently running films are distributed over the internet.

Re:Movies are different than music singles (1)

Eccles (932) | more than 13 years ago | (#353640)

Rest assured that computer -> svideo (or better) of decent quality will become a popular item

Decent wireless transmitters would also be a possibility. But really, if there's a stock format, a reasonably low-cost player will soon follow. If I can cut a CD-R on my PC and then play it on the standalone player, I'm happy.

Also, Pioneer's DVD-writer is ~$1000 today. I remember working with an $8,000 CD writer back in 1995, that wasn't as good as today's $150 machines. You should be able to get a DVD writer for $200 by, say, January 2003.

good distribution format... (2)

pb (1020) | more than 13 years ago | (#353641)

Yes, DivX is a good distribution format, just like mp3 is a good distribution format.

The technology is here, the tools are here, the performance gains are substantial, people like it, and people are using it...

the only thing that hasn't caught up yet are the legal implications of using this technology, because of the restrictions that companies and our legal system place on it. Just like mp3.

Therefore, I predict much controversy, and widespread use, and no one getting killed.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu] .

Acceptance of a hacked MS-MPEG4 codec is good? (4)

Ethan Butterfield (7481) | more than 13 years ago | (#353648)

I'm not particularly sure if widespread acceptance of what is essentially a hacked version of the MS-MPEG4 codec should be considered a Good Thing(tm). This is not to slight Gej for his work, or his work on Project Mayo (http://www.projectmayo.com [projectmayo.com] ), which is working on a true open source video codec. M$ has already shown that it'll go after folks hosting the original DivX ;) codec.

Seems to me that we should be helping Project Mayo get its codec solid and stable and using that, instead of the DivX ;) hack.

Re:It's not the format, it's the use (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 13 years ago | (#353649)

I'd hate to be the admin on a mail server with users passing around 700mb files via email. Most of the trading is done on IRC, usenet, and P2P applications...

Re:Movies are different than music singles (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 13 years ago | (#353650)

Some of us have larger monitors than TV sets.

Re:The Difference between DiVX and MP3 (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 13 years ago | (#353651)

Quality has a bigger role than obscurity. The qaulity of the average DivX release is pretty bad compared to a DVD. Some of this is due to a lack of experience on the part of the person encoding the DVD but the fact remains that squeezing a DVD down to 700mb with DivX reduces the quality to the point where it can be easily pointed out...

I fully expect the quality problem to be fixed but distribution won't be fixed. Who wants to download 700mb to find that the movie freezes, the voices are not synced properly, etc. I for one would gladly pay $5 for a decent release from a studio that was in a better format than DivX ;).

Re:Bandwidth?? (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 13 years ago | (#353652)

The studios probably don't think it is too soon to avoid an mp3 like onslaught of their market. Obviously the number of users would be low compared to theatre/tape rentals but that is perfect - a tech savvy market to start the project with... I'd be happy to buy downloadable releases that were compressed to the size of an 80m CD with quality that is almost, if not as good, as DVD. And I would want to pay about the cost of going to the movies - the cost saving should be passed on to the consumer... With DVD and CD the end user never saw the cost savings of the new medium. Maybe the threat of piracy will make the cost of downloadable movies reasonable!

Re:Not so fast 36hours to encode (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 13 years ago | (#353653)

If a commercially backed standard emerges you'll be able to buy PCI boards that can decode the output with minimal (1-3%) load on the cpu. See the Hollywood+ DVD decoder board for an example of what can be done...

Re:Oh please... (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 13 years ago | (#353654)

They are writing their own code (or at least working on other peoples code, see other posts on the topic). Here is the OpenDivX ;) project's home page:

ProjectMayo.com [projectmayo.com]

Re:Napster? (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 13 years ago | (#353655)

That going in to the fight with a "fuck you" attitude might not be the best approach? I don't think they had many other options but the outcome was obvious to all the bystanders.

Re:good distribution format... (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 13 years ago | (#353656)

P2P file sharing services, usenet (aka netnews), IRC, etc...

Personally I'd recommend the P2P file sharing services. Just search for "divx", "dvd", "avi", etc...

Re:It's not the format, it's the use (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 13 years ago | (#353657)

I make no assumptions on /. :).

Re:Movies are different than music singles (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 13 years ago | (#353658)

Personally I don't:
a) have the fridge next to the computer
b) use bad printouts as toilet paper
c) have wireless keyboards nor mice
d) fall asleep at the computer

Television is basically full of crap unless you subscribe to cable and then you get even more crap with at least some decent content. My TV is 13", my monitor 19".

It sounds like your friend had a shitty TV-out device... You can have you movies accessabled over the lan (what? you don't have a linux-based samba server?).

Going to the movies here is about $8-$10 bucks (Chicago).

Re:good distribution format... (4)

cymen (8178) | more than 13 years ago | (#353659)

DivX ;) has nothing to do with the old Circuit City DivX "buy and watch once in 24hr, pay to watch again"* system. DivX ;) is a hack of a Microsoft codec that makes it possible to compress a DVD down to about the size of a 80m CD (700mb) with semi-decent quality and the size of two 80m CDs with great quality.

Open DivX ;) (with some other crap attached to the name, go check it out to find out the details) is a open source version of a new DivX ;) protocol which is incompatible with the old one - basically the DivX codec released before and in widespread use is an illegal binary hack of the Microsoft codec so even if the DivX group wanted to release the code they could not as they don't have the code.

projectmayo.com [projectmayo.com]
mydivx.com [mydivx.com] etc...

Let's hope the world doesn't accept DivX (3)

Dino (9081) | more than 13 years ago | (#353661)

DivX is not a good format. It encodes dark values all wrong (hint: they eye does not detect values linearly). The data rate tracking is terrible. It relies on the .avi file architecture (better the .asf but still a dog in the industry). DivX IS NOT MPEG4!!! It is simply MicroSoft's copy of an old MPEG4 spec.

So what do we need? We need a video file format with BETTER compression. We need to move away from Microsoft file formats and support open standards (for example, MPEG4). And that brings us to the last point, wait for MPEG4 compliant codecs. MPEG4 gives you many advantages over DivX. Look them up for yourself if you want to find them. Better file format, better scalability, even some better compression.

I understand that DivX was simply at the right place at the right time. But here's to hoping that the format does not become another .GIF. Closed, unexpandable and bad. At least it's not patented (but it's hardly even legal!)
---------------------------

MPAA support MPEG-4 not so far-fetched (2)

RayChuang (10181) | more than 13 years ago | (#353662)

I in a way am not surprised that the MPAA has not tried to squash the MPEG-4 format.

The reason is simple: with the addition of some form of digital rights management, MPEG-4 will allow the movie companies to distribute movies extremely cheaply. It may not have all the fancy menus and extra features of DVD, but an MPEG-4 formatted movie disc does not require the far more expensive mastering equipment used on mastering DVD's--it can be mastered using current audio CD mastering equipment. This could allow for very cheap duplication of movies, since packaging costs for a CD nowadays is likely going to be less than that of a VHS tape, and with proper handling they'll last a long time, too.

Essentially we'll end up with DVD's for the high-end market and MPEG-4 encoded discs for the low cost market. We'll have a case where DVD's sell for around US$25-$30 and MPEG-4 encoded discs go for US$10-$15.

Re:Movies are different than music singles (2)

RayChuang (10181) | more than 13 years ago | (#353663)

The most expensive part about producing a stand-alone player that can decode an MPEG-4 encoded disc is the decoding circuitry itself.

However, given the dirt-cheap costs of creating quite complex ASIC custom chips nowadays, once production starts a single chip that can decode MPEG-4 in real time should be pretty reasonable to start with. And because MPEG-4 discs doesn't require the tolerances of DVD drives (it can use standard CD-ROM drives), the total cost of a player could be way, way below that of a DVD console player.

Indeed, I can foresee players for these new MPEG-4 encoded discs going for as little as US$80 because you can use current CD transports.

One thing though, I think the MPAA may ask that the resolution of these discs be limited to around 330 lines of resolution, unlike the 500+ lines of resolution of DVD discs. However, given the limits of most TV monitors nowadays, that still will be far superior to standard VHS tapes.

Re:Sure! It worked soooo well for audio CDs. (2)

RayChuang (10181) | more than 13 years ago | (#353664)

I'll ask you this: how much does it cost to master a DVD video disc? It's still pretty expensive, especially for those who have to add in all the extra features out the wazoo.

Because MPEG-4 discs are going to be like regular VHS tapes, they will lack the extra features of DVD discs, which means mastering costs are going to be way lower. That means the studio can sell it at US$10-$15 per disc and still make a very tidy profit from it.

Re:MPAA support MPEG-4 not so far-fetched (2)

RayChuang (10181) | more than 13 years ago | (#353665)

zhensel,

I do agree that for now, decoding MPEG-4 files are still fairly expensive, but you are forgetting that modern ASIC chip design can very likely get the entire decoding circuitry for MPEG-4 files into a single ASIC chip pretty soon.

Given that MPEG-4 files will probably require at most a 24X speed standard CD-ROM drive, that means a player could be built at very low cost--US$80 or less. Right now if you want a decent DVD player they start at around US$160 and go way up from there to over US$1,000 for the best models.

Re:It's not the format, it's the use (1)

cloudmaster (10662) | more than 13 years ago | (#353668)

I forgot the smilie after my statement. At first, I assumed that the insanity of passing around 40MB+ files via email would be obvious, but then, after hitting submit, I thought that a smilie was in order. Eh. Live 'n learn.

It's not the format, it's the use (3)

cloudmaster (10662) | more than 13 years ago | (#353669)

So they approve of the format. Whee. I think that the disapproval of mp3 isn't disapproval of the format, it's disapproval of the use. Kinda like, guns are OK but shooting people isn't - DivX;-) is OK, but using it to pass around movies via email isn't. I guess that it's suprising to see logical things out of the MPAA - but nothing more...

That said, this is still news for nerds & stuff that matters. :)

I don't believe it (1)

Ravenscall (12240) | more than 13 years ago | (#353670)

It sounds too farfetched.

A major cabal of multi-million dollar corporations doing something that just plain makes sense?

I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:Wrong point (1)

Aggrazel (13616) | more than 13 years ago | (#353671)

Most video cards have a TV out these days, not so hard to run a cable from the PC to the TV if you want to watch a movie.

Or you could just have them there on your hard drive to queue up in half screen or 1/4th screen mode when you're doing something else...

The possibilities are endless...

Re:Movies are different than music singles (5)

Aggrazel (13616) | more than 13 years ago | (#353672)

You know, back when I had a 386 with a 150 meg hard drive and a 2400 baud modem, I would have thought that mp3 was pretty useless, since it would take hours to download one song, and then you'd have to decompress it ahead of time, and really, who'd want to store all that data for casual use?

Remember, it is not about what is, it's about what will be.

Re:Movies are different than music singles (2)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 13 years ago | (#353673)

Rest assured that computer -> svideo (or better) of decent quality will become a popular item, and there will be much more selection as this grows in popularity, just as there are a zillion mp3 devices you can get nowadays.

I know people that have high-quality tv-out boards that only cost them a few hundred bucks (no different than, say, a good 3d card for gaming)

Re:Movies are different than music singles (1)

willki (20190) | more than 13 years ago | (#353674)

While I do agre that most people do not have the setup for watching DivX ;-) Movies. I disagree that themovies are only playable from the Moitor. I have a TV out card, and When I watch the DivX movies I have, I've ofund that using the TVout, and watching the movies on my TV is very nice, with the exception of the lack of a remote control (most likely going to be fixed when I get a wireless keyboard). Otherwise, things are pretty much the same as far as seating goes (the couch in my dorm room), and with compression. I've gotten several Long movies compressed to sizes that give better than VHS quality video and sound, and also fit onto CD-R's. This brings me to my next point. They do have CD-Players that Play MP3s now. What about the concept of a Set-top DivX box? in theory, this could work, and it might work very nicely, if done properly.

-Willki

From the Ogg project -- Ogg Tarkin (5)

austad (22163) | more than 13 years ago | (#353675)

http://www.xiph.org/ogg/index.html [xiph.org]

Here's a link to a page with some info (not much) on the Ogg Tarking video codec. You can view the mailing list archives. From the looks of it, they are going to be using a codec based on wavelets. Support this, not DivX. DivX is good for now, but in the long run we need something free and open, and I don't think DivX qualifies.

Re:Movies are different than music singles (1)

lameland (23851) | more than 13 years ago | (#353676)

But more and more video cards are coming with RCA and/or Svideo out. I know, this does require that your computer be near your TV, but it is one solution.

Also, as DVD-RAM becomes available to the general public, you'll probably see people converting movies back to a DVD-player accessible format (like the mp3->CD conversion)

Divx usability.. (1)

Colin Winters (24529) | more than 13 years ago | (#353677)

Look, Divx isn't that great. I've used it-mpeg2 is far superior. Why is this? Because the size of files isn't important any more. People have 30 gig hard drives, and broadband connections. Who cares if the file size is bigger? Mpeg-2 will play on machines all the way down to my parents' Pentium 120. But for Divx, you need a good computer to play the movies. I can't play them very well on my K6-2 300. It's all well and good that some people's computers are fast enough for Divx, but mpeg-2 is and should be the standard. So stop saying how great Divx is-it's not that great.

Colin Winters

Re:ProjectMayo not GPL'd (2)

powerlord (28156) | more than 13 years ago | (#353679)

The "open source" licence is not GPL - it requires you to do stuff like adding some kind of "made with divxnetwork" header to your movies.

So its like the old BSD license that required your program to mention the source when the program starts up? Not a major issue, if thats the only one.

Re:Acceptance of a hacked MS-MPEG4 codec is good? (2)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 13 years ago | (#353685)

Not exactly all theirs. It's the MoMuSys MPEG-4 implementation with a slightly hacked (S-L-O-W) encoder and a fast decoder. I don't know whey they chose AVI rather than Quicktime or MPEG-4 file format - I guess they don't care about A/V sync. Oh, well.

Re: divxnetworks.com (3)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 13 years ago | (#353688)

divxnetworks.com is the company behind "Project Mayo" and "OpenDivX".

Check out the flames forum at:

Project Mayo [projectmayo.com] (aka divxnetworks.com).

OpenDivX is [u]incompatible[/u] with DivX.

DivX is the hacked Microsoft CODEC.

OpenDivX is based on the MoMuSys source, claims to be MPEG-4 compliant (aside from using an AVI vs MPEG-4 transport), and is incompatible with DivX.

I just got a /. article rejected today where I explained all this plus gave links to all the free MPEG-4 implementations and the Sorenson MPEG-4 press release.

*sigh*

ProjectMayo not GPL'd (3)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 13 years ago | (#353689)

ProjectMayo is a scam. It's not a real open source project, but rather an open source freeloader poroject run by the commercial enterprise divxnetworks.com, with $100M of backing.

http://www.divxnetworks.com/aboutus.html

The "open source" licence is not GPL - it requires you to do stuff like adding some kind of "made with divxnetwork" header to your movies.

Re:DivX or DivX ;-) (2)

yomahz (35486) | more than 13 years ago | (#353691)

Windows Media Player does not use DivX. MS has their own custom mpeg4 codec ( WM 8 Beta [microsoft.com] knocks the socks off of any divx I've seen).
--

A mind is a terrible thing to taste.

Napster? (1)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 13 years ago | (#353694)

What is there to learn from the Napster case? Napster lost.
--
Patrick Doyle

divx and the law (2)

wiredog (43288) | more than 13 years ago | (#353695)

Re-reading Secrets and Lies (great read) and Schneier points out, as have others, that legislatures don't move at "internet speed". Which is why the napster problems happened. Hopefully the movie industry HAS learned from napster.

BTW, did you see the 60 Minutes piece on Tivo last night? Nothing new for us, but a good explanation of the technology and some of the legal issues for the layman.

Wrong point (1)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 13 years ago | (#353696)


I'm not saying if its technically possible, I'm saying that its more of a physical limitation.

People have their computers set up so only one person can use it, at a small distance. Not the optimal way to watch a motion picture.

Re:Not quite true... (1)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 13 years ago | (#353697)

1. How did an AC get automaticly modded to -1?
2. VCD are MPEG format. So its not DivX;) anymore.
3. There are disavantages to hooking up a computer to a TV. The main on is that its too hard for the average person.

Re:Not quite true... (1)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 13 years ago | (#353698)


Thats a good nick. Caught me there :)

DivX can be changed to Mpeg but with loss of video and sound quality and a huge increase of size. I think you would need 2 CDs for one movie.

Its enough to make a person say "VHS/DVD is easier"

Movies are different than music singles (3)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 13 years ago | (#353701)


I really like how they intend to distribute movies on line. But how much good will this do?

The movie will be 2 hours long and only playable on your computer monitor. The average person doesn't have a good enough setup (monitor size, seating) for it to compete with you tv in front of the couch.

MP3/music is different. Its short ( 5minutes for a song) and you can burn a CD and them play it anywhere you would a normal CD.

Not so with full length movies.

Re:It's not the format, it's the use (2)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 13 years ago | (#353702)

>I'd hate to be the admin on a mail server with users passing around 700mb files via email. Most of the trading is done on IRC, usenet, and P2P applications...

I dunno, being a USENET admin where they're posting 700M files isn't much fun either ;-)

Re:Movies are different than music singles (2)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 13 years ago | (#353703)

> [MP3s were useless on a 386 with a 150M hard drive ...] Remember, it is not about what is, it's about what will be.

Yep. Great example for the "where's the innovation" article.

DivX ;-) is another bit of "evolution" - but it (and MPEG-2, and MPEG-1 before it) had to wait until CPUs were fast enough to decode the compressed video on-the-fly.

Just like (early Microsoft .AVI formats) we had to wait for I/O channels to handle the bandwidth of 160x100 uncompressed video.

I look back at my '286 with the 40M hard drive, and realize I have individual songs that exceed that drive's capacity.

(To say nothing of my Apple ][ and its 128K of RAM, 64K of which could be accessed at once by bank-switching... ah, 143K on a 5.25" diskette! For only $7.00 per disk!)

Re:Still-born (2)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 13 years ago | (#353704)

> How the hell they can form a company, get $5.6 million in venture funding, and still keep the hacker kiddie name I just don't get.

I think you've got it backwards.

1) The "hacker-kiddies" ain't gonna sue for trademark infringement, and more importantly:

2) Without the name-recognition of the geek set, where are you gonna generate the "buzz" required for a successful financing?

Very cool (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 13 years ago | (#353705)

Pretty cool, if it didn't play like crap (2fps) on a Mac. You can export to .mov file, but it's sloooow and extremely buggy. Unstable player, too.

Re:WHY IS EVERYONE WINKING AT ME? (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 13 years ago | (#353706)

yes, its to differenciate from the Divx standard that Circuit City tried to push on everybody

Re:Wrong point (2)

Cplus (79286) | more than 13 years ago | (#353708)

lol, my computer monitor is way bigger than the tv at my house and the position that it's in on my desk takes only a quick swing and it's very convenient for watching from the couch. I had the keyboard over there with the mouse on the coffee table, but I was getting way too lazy.

Divx != DivX ;) (1)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 13 years ago | (#353709)

DivX ;) is a hacked version of microsoft's mpeg 4 codec. Divx was a pay-per-play DVD type medium for movies.

They are completely different and are not related.

Yay! (3)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 13 years ago | (#353712)

Another patent encumbered compression format.

I'll just hang out for a while and see what the Ogg Vorbis people come up with...

CPU Power or hardware decoders? (2)

Nonesuch (90847) | more than 13 years ago | (#353714)

Watching DVDs while using the PC for other tasks is possible, with a good hardware decoder card that handles the heavy-duty work.

In theory, once there is a true MPEG4 standard, hardware decoders should not be far behind.

It's about time... (2)

1skywalker1 (101848) | more than 13 years ago | (#353715)

I got involved with DivX ;) when it was still "underground". It's amazing how far they've come. I can remember the first few trailers over at http://divx.ctw.cc/ [divx.ctw.cc] that blew my mind (sure beat the crap out of vivo's that everyone was using). I think it is SO important to support this format and keep it going because it is a real life example of the "little guys" making it. They've had to fight against microsoft, realplayer, and the government. A lot of "purists" are still whining about the loss in quality... give me a break. These things are excellent. Most people don't have 10mb lines to leech 2 gig avi's anyway.

So do what you can to support them and we'll be one step closer to an internet that truly is multimedia compatible.

--

Why the geeks matter... COLLEGE (2)

alexhmit01 (104757) | more than 13 years ago | (#353716)

The reason the RIAA freaked out about Napster, and the MPAA will be uncomfortable with this stuff, is the college market. After internal MP3 sharing (pre-Napster getting big, but people would run each other's MP3s over the network) was bringing my college fraternity (at MIT, so YMMV) old 10baseT network to a crawl. We couldn't rewire (the old buildings are a mess), so we brought switches to a at least have 100Megabit backbone and 10Megabit down.

Good thing two, because the following year (about 1.5 years ago), a freshman with a hobby for trading movies showed up. He managed to gather dozens of movies over our school provided T1, and he would share them across the house.

Forget that he would get them, it isn't worth it for most people to get them. But if one person acquires the movies (and keeps the archive on CDs to loan out) and makes them available to 40 friends... well...

Now make these 40 people all college kids with disposable income, and you've hit the target market. That's why they hate this. College kids are a big part of their market. High school kids are as well, and they are the most likely to get a DSL connection at home AND have lots of spare time.

Alex

Now if only this was happening with vorbis (2)

donglekey (124433) | more than 13 years ago | (#353722)

I guess it is kind of unfair to compare the two because vorbis isnt' really out of beta yet, but I hope there is this kind of dynamic conversion associated with Vorbis. I know I am going to rip CD's to no end once vorbis support compression of the redundancy between audio channels, just so I can distribute it out to get a little more ogg action out there.

I'll bite (1)

yerricde (125198) | more than 13 years ago | (#353724)

So if I download a Divx:-0 movie and burn it to a CD, it'll play on my DIVX player

Completely separate technology. Circuit City DIVX uses MPEG2 compression (as does DVD), whereas DivX ;-) uses something more akin to MPEG4. MPEG2 players can't interpret MPEG4 usefully.


All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.

Consumers would confuse DivX ;-) with DIVX (1)

yerricde (125198) | more than 13 years ago | (#353725)

What about the concept of a Set-top DivX box? in theory, this could work, and it might work very nicely, if done properly.

In practice, you better change the name. The name "DivX ;-)" is too close to "DIVX", a word associated in consumer minds with "hassle."


All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.

Re:Movies are different than music singles (1)

RobL3 (126711) | more than 13 years ago | (#353730)

Sigh... My extremly rare (sarcasm) Dell C600 notebook that I am looking at right this second has a S-Video out. It's a two second job to plug it into my AV setup. What we need is some kind of /. natural selection, to kill off the "too stupid to post" crowd.

Why not: (4)

SpanishInquisition (127269) | more than 13 years ago | (#353731)

Asciimation [asciimation.co.nz] , it's a better distribution medium since it consumes far less bandwith.
--

DivX or DivX ;-) (1)

ahknight (128958) | more than 13 years ago | (#353733)

Which one is getting the "standard" rating on archive.org? The Windows Media Player version or the open-source version? I assume that all talk of DivX these days is the open source version?

Or am I confused with 3vix?

Re:Movies are different than music singles (1)

ahknight (128958) | more than 13 years ago | (#353734)

It's the same people that use bad printouts as toilet paper, their computer audio system as their main home stereo, have the fridge next to the computer and sleep by falling out of their chair and into bed ... with a wireless keyboard and pointing device.

For the rest of us with 27"+ televisions and < 21" monitors, this is not the best idea. I've seen someone with a dedicated DivX box next to the television and an S-Video out and all, and it's really kudgy at the moment. You have to go find the media in Explorer (in 640x480) then play it and go to fullscreen such and the quality really sucks compared even to VHS.

The real idea would be to hook broadband up to a Tivoish device and have it work that way. Even put removable storage a la Jaz on the Tivo to keep downloaded movies. That would be the way to go, and would be exceptionally nice if the video could be accessed over a LAN... I would not mind paying $5 for a movie at all if I could own it like that. Heck, I might even pay $10 a pop for that. Then it's legit and convenient.

My take on the whole online video thing (4)

starseeker (141897) | more than 13 years ago | (#353739)

As near as I can tell, the format of a movie is ultimately going to make no difference as to whether or not it is pirated. Ultimately, if nothing else, people can just get a video camera and copy it that way. Rest assured, someone will. There are always people who will do that, if for no other reason than to spite the corporations. I think the MPAA needs to consider the fact that most people still prefer to watch a movie on a TV screen, not seated at a computer. I know I would't want to watch a movie at my computer. Stop worrying about the geeks - there's always a few. Just make sure that it is always worth people's while to get off the computer for a few hours (gasp) and watch the movie on hardware designed for that purpose. My computer has enough trouble with a desktop, never mind movies, and I know I'm not the only one.

I sort of suspect that the real reason there is so much noise about this is for the same reason napster got hit so hard - to prevent the establishment of a system through which independant artists can reach a large market. Control is everything. The MPAA probably is not keen on the idea of a worldwide team forming to do a movie across the internet, or any other challenge to their rule. Formats are merely a minor part of this fight, and to my mind not a terribly important one. Copy protection can't come from formats as long as they are eventually displayed in a form the human eye can observe. So develop new business models or remember that computers weren't designed for movie watching. These guys aren't stupid - I'm sure they've already spent far more protecting their copyrights online than they could have hoped to have gained from forcing a few geeks to pay for their movies. They're after something else. That's what worries me.

Re:good distribution format... (1)

caduguid (152224) | more than 13 years ago | (#353740)

I'm thinking this is a troll, but I'll bite. Guess I'm bored.

DIVX that you refer to is of couse universally hated. It's also long dead.

DivX ;-) is different kettle of fish. It started as a hacked mpeg-4 format, but has been open sourced and gone 'legit'. (maybe also renamed to DivX? OpenDivX?)

I suspect most /.ers are fine with the encoding format.
(Call it a hunch.)

Re:ProjectMayo not GPL'd (1)

shepd (155729) | more than 13 years ago | (#353741)

>The "open source" licence is not GPL - it requires you to do stuff like adding some kind of "made with divxnetwork" header to your movies.

Yeah, I mean, you wouldn't want to give the authors credit for their hard work or anything.

I think it's a _really_ small "price" to pay. And a price that any goodhearted citizen should be willing to pay.

Here's the sections of the license [projectmayo.com] I think you're talking about:

2a: In each instance in which you attribute ownership or authorship of the Codec you will include an acknowledgement in a location viewable to users of the Codec as follows: "This product includes software developed by or derived from software developed by Project Mayo." In any event, the origin of the Codec must not be misrepresented; you must not claim sole authorship in the Codec.

3b: You include an acknowledgement in a location viewable to users of a distribution of a Larger Work as follows: "This product includes software developed by or derived from software developed by Project Mayo."


Viewable doesn't mean it has to be pasted over your movie; It means your helpfiles/license/credits/manuals should show that text. Whoopty, it'll add seconds to your average 300 baud download... And besides, it's like "We Used Panavision Lenses" in movie credits. It makes your software cooooler!

7: For Encoded Content used for a commercial purpose, you must prominently display the "Encoded in DivX" logo on the package of any Encoded Content in a manner immediately visible to viewers and you must include the "Encoded in DivX" video logo at the beginning of any Encoded Content when the means for such display are reasonably available.

This is somewhat more forceful, but if you are going to benefit from the developer's work (remember, if you are coding, you aren't making content, this is for the actual moviemakers themselves), well, I think this isn't a big price to pay either. Again, it is just like the "Filmed with Kodachrome film" you see in movie credits.

If you ask me, sections 5-7 are the most annoying, and they certainly wouldn't put me off developing for it. It ain't GPL, but if you ask me, it is open.

Re:The Difference between DiVX and MP3 (1)

shepd (155729) | more than 13 years ago | (#353742)

>even installing the codec can be too technical for most people

If these people can buy and install a software package from their local computer store, DivX is EASY!

DivX [original] now comes in a simple setup file. Just click and unwrap, so to speak. It is easier than installing WinAmp, if you ask me (less questions) ;-)

>With DiVX, you play the movie and all things are on hold while you're watching it.

You haven't timeshifted music videos with it yet... Trust me, MP3s are going to be old stuff once this becomes hot! But otherwise you are right.

Re:MPAA support MPEG-4 not so far-fetched (1)

shepd (155729) | more than 13 years ago | (#353743)

Assuming you want to fit an entire 2 hour movie on an 80 minute CD (the biggest I've seen), you actually need a (2/3)x CD drive. Even your old POS 1x Mitsumi drive will work... sorry to pick... it really doesn't matter.

So we are looking at what will likely be the world's cheapest video platform. Imagince, once 5" colour LCDs cost $50, you'll be able to watch movies on the go for less than $100, instead of the $1,000 those players are now! Wow! :-)

I hope this is why the MPAA is supporting DiVX. This idea would really kick ass!

Re:Still-born (1)

Gonarat (177568) | more than 13 years ago | (#353747)

You are thinking of Circuit City's DIVX no-return CD "rental" system that died a quick death.

The current DiVX was named such as a sarcastic nod to CC-DIVX (or rather the death thereof).

Re:Sure! It worked soooo well for audio CDs. (1)

Gonarat (177568) | more than 13 years ago | (#353748)

Well pardon my FUCKING cynicism, but why should I expect this trick to pan out for video any more than it did for audio?

In general, VHS Movie Prices have been more fair than music prices. One can buy several year old movies new for under $10 at WallyworldMart and like stores, or purchase Previewed videos for a similar price. Try and find music (original albums) that is only a few years old (nevermind the '70s or '80s) for under $10 retail.

I'm not saying the the MPAA is less evil than the RIAA (just look at the DeCSS mess), just that perhaps they are a little more consumer friendly. The RIAA has their head so far up their ass that they can look out their mouth -- perhaps the MPAA will learn a lesson from the RIAA's actions.

Re:My take on the whole online video thing (1)

deinol (210478) | more than 13 years ago | (#353752)

I keep seeing people saying stuff like "People want to watch movies on a TV, not cramped in front of a computer monitor." That's very true, but that is something that will change very quickly. First off, TV out on a computer is becoming more common, I have been using my computer as a DVD player for as long as I've been watching DVDs. I use a long extension cable to send the output downstairs to my actual TV, and this beautiful wireless keyboard to control it. Works just as well for any kind of video on computer.

Second, my friend and neighbor has a much bigger monitor than my TV, so often we prefer to watch things on his screen becuase not only is it bigger, but it's much better resolution (especially when we want to read subtitles on anime, which we often can't buy on DVD so we get it DIVX from friends).

So no, these setups aren't conventional, and may not be common yet, but for those of us poor college students where the choice is buy a good TV or a good computer, and I get so much more use out of a computer, I couldn't imagine wasting a bunch of money buying a stand alone DVD player and huge TV, when I could spend less money and upgrade my monitor instead.

It was Slashdot rearranging itself (1)

Hairy_Potter (219096) | more than 13 years ago | (#353759)

In a minute or two, Agent Micheal and Agent Taco will burst in on the trolls, guns a blazing, and capture OSM (Open Source Morpheus).

Wrong Divx (1)

Hairy_Potter (219096) | more than 13 years ago | (#353760)

You are thinking of the moronic Circuit City divx, where you had to hook your DVD player up to a phone line to play a divx movie.

The article is talking about divx:) or some other punctionated abomination, a movie format that fit's TV quality movies onto a single CD, still not DVD quality though.

Psst, where are the good divx sites? (2)

Hairy_Potter (219096) | more than 13 years ago | (#353761)

I tried to find one a few weeks ago, but got lost in pop-ups, vote for me's and porn banners.

And then I tried to explain the porn banners to my wife, ouch!

Re:Movies are different than music singles (1)

zhensel (228891) | more than 13 years ago | (#353763)

Dreamcasts can already play burnt vcd's and I am pretty sure they are working on porting a divx decoder as well. I remember seeing a beta binary for it somewhere. Of course, you can always download a divx encoded flick and change it to vcd for playback in most DVD players.

Re:MPAA support MPEG-4 not so far-fetched (2)

zhensel (228891) | more than 13 years ago | (#353767)

Except that the printing cost is quite similar for CDs and DVDs and that decoding a mpeg-4 file is much more hardware intensive and thus, expensive. Also note that VCD players have been around forever at what is essentially VCR quality (better in some areas, worse in others) and they never caught on. People don't like DVD because it is a convenient, easily breakable/scratchable disc, they like it because of the better quality and the extra features. More likely, we'll end up with double releases of DVDs - barebones and special editions. For $15 you can get the barebones edition with stereo audio and no special features (plus a load of pre-movie advertising like on VHS). Then for $30 you get surround sound, commentary and other features, and no extraneous advertisment. This way the MPAA companies can get people hooked on DVD with the regular discs and then once they decide they like surround sound and the special features they'll start buying the more expensive discs. Disney is really the only company to have started doing this and I really can't believe the others haven't. It is an excellent (if annoying to the DVD collector) business strategy. Lots of studios will release a barebones disc and later a special edition, but this practice is starting to come to an end - most movies out now are labeled "special edition" or something similar regardless of the disc's contents.

Re:Movies are different than music singles (1)

Jucius Maximus (229128) | more than 13 years ago | (#353768)

What about video headsets? I wouldn't be surprised in a few years for people to take these headsets with them on plane flights or let the kids use them on long car drives. (Great if kid#1 doesn't want to watch the same flick as kid#2.) In this way a 2 hour video would be great to watch. Just download them into the hard drive built into the device (probably about 80 gb or so) and then put on the headset and watch the film.

There is an audience for movies played via computer...it's just that the computer would probably be wearable and the audience would watch the films in a different venue.

O'Toole's Commentary on Murphy's Law:

Re:The Difference between DiVX and MP3 (1)

Jucius Maximus (229128) | more than 13 years ago | (#353769)

"If these people can buy and install a software package from their local computer store, DivX is EASY!"

Not necessarily.

Regular software is easy for people to understand. For example the user thinks: "Hmm, I need to manage my finances. Therefore I should go and buy an accounting package." They phyiscally pick up a box of the shelf and pay for it and get a CD to install. That makes sense to people. They insert the CD, it installs, a pretty icon appears on their desktop and they click it. They look in the manual or call tech support if they need help.

But try explaining what exactly a codec is to a non technical person. They won't understand conceptually what it is. They have to go and find it and download it. There's no paper manual and no tech suport number to call. And when they install it, no "DiVX" icon appears on their desktop leading to a screen with a colourful and intuitive user interface." And what if it conflicts with their video drivers or just won't install? They're stuck.

You see, installing DiVX is still a significant leap for the run-of-the mill user. And eliminating that leap is required for making it popular and easy to use.

O'Toole's Commentary on Murphy's Law:

The Difference between DiVX and MP3 (2)

Jucius Maximus (229128) | more than 13 years ago | (#353772)

The difference between DiVX and mp3 is that for mp3, there are programs like WinAMP, Audigrabber, Musicmatch Jukebox and the like. They make the format accessible to the public. That's what popularized mp3 and made it the target of the RIAA.

For for DiVX, even installing the codec can be too technical for most people, let alone encoding the movies. Not everyone has a DVD drive or the hard disk space, patience, and knowhow to do it. Therefore, unlike mp3 which was accessible and relatively easy to use, DiVX still languishes in relative obscurity. Therefore the MPAA doesn't see it as an enormous threat.

In additon, movies and audio are fundamantally different. With mp3, you just play the song and do whatever you're doing while listening to it. With DiVX, you play the movie and all things are on hold while you're watching it. I'm listening to mp3 right now, but I couldn't be typing this post if I was watching DiVX.

Listening and watching are two fundamentally different activities. And it would be another revolution completely different to mp3 if DiVX became mainstream. And the MPAA would fight tooth and nail keep it from happening.

O'Toole's Commentary on Murphy's Law:

WHY IS EVERYONE WINKING AT ME? (2)

Dr. Awktagon (233360) | more than 13 years ago | (#353773)

Seriously, is ;-) part of the name? What's that all about?

Bandwidth?? (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 13 years ago | (#353774)

I think that thinking about distributing movies online is very premature at this point. Considering that most of the world has no Internet connectivity whatsoever, and most of those that do are still connecting over analog modems, movies distrubution online won't be widespread for a long time. Heck, most of us with analog connections still think that 1/2 hour to download a single 3 1/2 minute MP3 is a long damn time. I can't imagine how long a movie would take. Personally, I expect to be buying DVDs for a long time to come. Besides, I don't think that paying $15 for a digital quality movie is too much to ask. I wouldn't bother downloading movies even if I had the massive bandwidth and storage necessary to do it.

Re:My take on the whole online video thing (1)

thelexx (237096) | more than 13 years ago | (#353776)

The MPAA probably is not keen on the idea of a worldwide team forming to do a movie across the internet, or any other challenge to their rule.

I'm being serious when I ask what the fsck the MPAA could do about it if myself and some friends (in other countries) were to collaborate on a independent film. Deny us the right to show it in the US? At what level? Just theatres or even private distribution on tape? Would SAG and their ilk come after us with legal batons? This is thoroughly depressing to think about...

Movies are (can be anyway heh) ART goddammit. If a friend in Honduras and I put together a VHS tape of a screeplay we created and I want to show it in my front yard, WTF right does any legal authority have to say squat about it?

LEXX

ARRRRGGHHH! Stop calling it "Copy Protection"! (3)

GeneralEmergency (240687) | more than 13 years ago | (#353777)

There is NO SUCH THING!

MPAA, RIAA... Release your DENIAL!

The absolute BEST you can hope for is "Copy Encumbrance" or "Copy Inconvenience" or "Copy Reduction". But NEVER will your digital content be "Protected".

Digitize it, and they will crack.


"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --

Re:Divx usability.. (2)

dat00ket (249468) | more than 13 years ago | (#353778)

"Look, Divx isn't that great. I've used it-mpeg2 is far superior. Why is this? Because the size of files isn't important any more. People have 30 gig hard drives, and broadband connections. Who cares if the file size is bigger?"

The main reason some of us like DivX is because it allows you to backup a whole DVD to a single CD while maintaining acceptable quality. MPEG2 can't do that.
________________________________________________ __

Still-born (2)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 13 years ago | (#353779)

I don't get it. I thought DivX was dead-in-the-water (reworded from the subject line so as not to offend anyone). Wasn't the standard already not accepted by the public? Or was it just the implementation, pay-per-play?

Re:The Difference between DiVX and MP3 (2)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 13 years ago | (#353780)

DiVX still languishes in relative obscurity. Therefore the MPAA doesn't see it as an enormous threat.

Isn't that what they thought about DVD/CSS? What's the difference? Won't the same thing that happened to CSS happen to DiVX?

MPAA clueful? (2)

eXtro (258933) | more than 13 years ago | (#353782)

I'd hope that for a change an organization would be clueful. If the MPAA actually does realize the writing is on the wall and works out an electronic distribution mechanism I hope they do it justice. I'm willing to pay for streaming movies, but only around the price that I pay for a rental right now. I've not rented a movie in a while, but I think thats around a couple bucks for a new release.

I've downloaded a few DIVX videos, the quality is not bad but its not great either. I still want to be able to purchase DVD's of movies I'd like to own. (No, decss will not make me boycott DVD any more than sweat shop labour will stop most people from buying clothes)

If the MPAA is smart they'll jump on the bandwagon soon. In my opinion the infrastructure isn't really there yet. Most people don't have broadband, and the broadband we do have isn't broad enough. Even given that its still important to be there first and get people used to the technology (and kill off the "if I had some legal way of getting movies online I would" argument)

Re:The Difference between DiVX and MP3 (1)

Stibanater (261368) | more than 13 years ago | (#353783)

You are talking about technology problems that originally hindered mp3, as well.

I remember when I first discovered mp3 in 1995, it took all night to rip one song with my hardware, and finding software utils for it was very difficult, then running them was hard to implement, too.

At that time, with dually bonded ISDN lines, I had MAJOR bandwidth for a consumer in '95, and it still took forever to find the stuff, wading thru lots of crap. It was right about the time the RIAA was sending cease-and-desists to the massive web and ftp archives at major US universities. After that, you had to find mp3s overseas. But I digress...

Still, the point is, that bandwidth, storage, and processor power will all catch up to Online Video, not to worry.

Re:Bandwidth?? (1)

Stibanater (261368) | more than 13 years ago | (#353784)

in the US, where we have cheap bandwidth and ridiculous amounts of disposable income compared to the rest of the world, I think the studios would be seriously remiss to not tap into this market now, so they can get people used to it and then apply the slow and deliberate fucking

divx;) will never be accepted until it plays porn (1)

typical geek (261980) | more than 13 years ago | (#353785)

I do hope that the divX;) team realizes that they will head down the same path to oblivion that home grade Beta followed unless they allow porn on their disks.

kind of annoying (4)

geomcbay (263540) | more than 13 years ago | (#353787)

It is kind of annoying me that sites like Slashdot are continually equating DivX (open source project) as MPEG4. I must reiterate that the Open Source DIVX/Project Mayo stuff is nothing more than an implementation of MPEG-4, the DivX people didn't invent it..their code was even based on an existing project.

Now, don't get me wrong, the actual coding work the DivX people are overseeing is great for open source causes, but they are using some subversive self-promotion as of late to make it seem like they invented all of this stuff, and pushing the 'Divx' brand-name (which is actually quite a stupid name since it causes much confusion with the failed Circuit City format), as the be-all end-all of MPEG-4, which is just not true.

Also, supporting DIVX/MPEG4 because there is a good open source implementation is short sighted. Please do some research into MPEG4 and realize what a patent nightmare it is. Just because the source is open doesn't mean you can use it without violating patents.

Re:DivX or DivX ;-) (1)

zachdms (265636) | more than 13 years ago | (#353791)

sigh... DivX *IS* Microsoft's codec. DivX 3.x is the hack of the Microsoft MPEG4 video codec, DivX 4.x last I checked was based off of the MoMuSys C++ source code MS submitted

I submitted a topic on archive.org updating (1)

Joey7F (307495) | more than 13 years ago | (#353793)

I submitted an article about archive.org. They have been adding films like crazy. Goto archive.org/movies and check it out.

Here are a few films, if you are not sure what to look for.

Duck and Cover - Very far fetched nuclear bomb warning, that tells you all will be fine by simply covering your face with your arms. Then everything will be swell. The same one from Atomic Cafe.

A Case of Spring Fever - For you MST3K fans, this was one of the funniest shorts they did(attached to squirm). An irrating spring does a christmas carol/its a wonderful life style presentation of the world without springs.

Supervising women workers - A very sexist movie about how you have to explain every little thing to women, because they just don't understand mechanical things like us guys do. Great to show feminists.

I am working on getting a list of movies on here that were done by MST3K.

--Joey

BTW does anyone know where to get the MST3K shorts online? I have been looking for them on Gnutella with no luck :-(

Re:Still-born (2)

mech9t8 (310197) | more than 13 years ago | (#353796)

"DivX" is the reviled and defunct pay-per-play product.

"DivX ;)" is an Mpeg4 encoding thingy used mainly to encode porn and pirated movies.

See, it was given the name by hacker kiddies as a jab against the DivX format. Funny, huh?

How the hell they can form a company, get $5.6 million in venture funding, and still keep the hacker kiddie name I just don't get.

Embracing Div-X is a bad idea... (4)

Pilferer (311795) | more than 13 years ago | (#353797)

How is this a good thing? Someone hacked binaries of a Microsoft MPEG4 Codec and called it "Div-x" after the failed Circuit City format. It didn't become popular because it was a groovy Open Source project, or a new Codec never seen before, etc. It became popular because The Matrix looked real cool, and fit on a CD. If you stop and think about it, Div-X is owned by Microsoft, and named after something that started a Holy War not too long ago. The idea of putting a movie on a CD is good (and done before: VCDs), but Div-X is not the format to use. If MP3s are still lawsuit bait, I'd hate to see what Div-X does to the Internet media scene.

Re:good distribution format... (1)

ThirdOfFive (313093) | more than 13 years ago | (#353798)

Has someone cracked the players so that they can be used to distribute free movies?

It might help if you'd actually read the article. "... DivX Networks is going to the people, opening up the code in its codec so that software developers all over the world can take a look and make their own additions or changes" (from part 1). Also from part 1, "DivX-encoded content -- hard to find and difficult to download nine months ago -- now appears all over the Net."

--

Re:good distribution format... (1)

UltraBot2K1 (320256) | more than 13 years ago | (#353799)

So if I download a Divx:-0 movie and burn it to a CD, it'll play on my DIVX player without paying for it. That's cool. Where can I find some movies.

Re:Psst, where are the good divx sites? (1)

tyeee (325747) | more than 13 years ago | (#353802)

First of all, divx ;) and the web don't mix very well right now. The average divx movie is >400 MB and wouldn't be hostable on average webhosting possibilities. In the recent past, Scour.Com was the ideal place to find divx... Currently, unless you know of good ftp sites, the primary source for divx is none other than newsgroups. On the alt.binaries newsgroups, there are TONS of movies and music videos posted daily. A good friend of mine has downloaded 80+ movies that are up to 1GB in size from @home news servers... (and they block MOST of the alt.binaries newsgroups!) In summary, check out your provider's newsgroups, download free agent, and have fun! (free agent = www.forte.com)

Re:Movies are different than music singles (1)

Transwarp Conduit (398219) | more than 13 years ago | (#353803)

How about developing a chip that can encode MPEG-4 in real-time, and marrying it to a CD-R / CD-RW transport with a suitable embedded computer to run the show? Ultra-VCD's, anyone? :)

Re:MPAA support MPEG-4 not so far-fetched (1)

Transwarp Conduit (398219) | more than 13 years ago | (#353804)

VideoCD and SVCD never really caught on here in the U.S.A. because they were never really introduced here... except for the Teraoptix Terapin VCD recorder, and a few "grey-market" SVCD units from otherwise-unknown Asian manufacturers like Amoisonic, stand-alone record/playback units are virtually unknown to the average consumer. Whether this is by accident or design is left as an exercise to the reader. :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>