Tony Glover of The Business Online delivered his promised follow-up on the single-play DVD story one day early. Read it for yourself here:
The Business, the bloggers and Microsoft’s ‘one-play’ DVD
It doesn’t start out well:
One blogger going by the unlikely name of Ed Bott claimed to have carried out a piece of investigative journalism of his own to prove the story was a “hoax”. Though dismissed by other online commentators, Bott’s blog found favour with a hard core of dissenters on the internet.
I’ll have to tell my parents all about the unlikely name they chose for me. I certainly didn’t expect a professional journalist to start a serious defense of a controversial news story by making fun of my name, although I will give him credit for spelling it correctly. But let’s carry on…
Glover’s defense of his story is almost comical. Last week, he wrote, “Microsoft has developed a cheap, disposable pre-recorded DVD disc that consumers can play only once.”
This week, he unmasks his source and provides a quote:
Alistair Baker, Microsoft’s UK managing director, told The Business: “Microsoft’s digital rights management [DRM] software generates a licence key to give the DVD content owner total control over how the content is viewed. This could mean watching a film only once, or over a limited period.” [emphasis added]
Yes, it could mean that, exactly as I said in my earlier posts. But it certainly doesn’t mean that Microsoft is poised to unleash a new disposable disc format on the world, which was what the original story screamed. (It referred to the alleged new disposable disc format as a “revolutionary product.”)
I don’t see anything in Mr. Baker’s quote about “cheap” or “disposable” DVD discs. In fact, given the retooling costs involved and the greater complexity of the dual-layer HD DVD media, the new discs will probably cost somewhat more to make than current DVDs.
As I pointed out earlier today, the DRM components in the Windows Media format can be used in a variety of ways. Using the DRM toolkit, a content provider could choose to create digital media files that can only be viewed on the 28th day of any month between 1300 and 1400 GMT. Why they would choose to do so is another question completely. It would be a bad business decision, in my opinion, just as building a business around disposable DVD discs would be.
The real story, the one that Glover should have printed last week, goes something like this:
Next year, new optical disks in the HD DVD format will begin hitting the market. This format, a competitor to the Sony-backed Blu-Ray Disc, can be used to produce a hybrid disc that includes standard-definition content and high-definition versions on different layers. Consumers who play the new disks in standard DVD players won’t be able to view the new high-definition content. For that, they’ll need a new player or a personal computer running Microsoft’s Windows Vista, which is also due out in 2006.
[update: Some details in the following paragraph have been revised based on discussions with representatives of Microsoft’s Windows Media group]
The most controversial aspect of digital media is its support for Digital Rights Management (DRM). Microsoft’s Windows Media DRM strategy, which has been widely debated among experts in the digital media community, gives content distributors a wide range of tools to lock down content that is released in Windows Media format. They can limit the number of plays, or specify that a promotional video can’t be played past the date the film is released. These DRM technologies are used in online content distribution. Some content providers (MovieLink and CinemaNow) already offer Internet-based services that allow consumers to download movies on a pay-per-view basis; future services could take the form of all-you-can-watch subscriptions similar to the Napster and Yahoo music services.
Windows Media DRM is not, however, used in the HD DVD disc format. It uses the Advanced Access Content System (AACS), currently under development.
That’s the story I would have written [and then rewritten!], and I would have proudly tacked my “unlikely” by-line on it. But Slashdot wouldn’t have been interested in it, because it’s not news.
So, what’s missing from Glover’s story? How about a quote from one of the content providers who are dying to flood the market with these revolutionary new disposable DVDs? Somehow I think it’s highly unlikely that anyone from a major content producer has any such plans.
Ed Bott 
I find your name to be highly likely, Ed ;^)
Maybe you should shorten it to edbot so you can appear more unlikely?
Best headline of the day is from Techdirt:
When Gloating That You’re Not Wrong… It Helps To Not Be Wrong
I’m not sure if you noticed that the quotation marks around the Baker quote include the sentence “This could mean watching a film only once, or over a limited period.” Those were Baker’s words, not Glovers. You seem to take Baker’s comment to mean that “total control of how the content is viewed” is vague and a possible interpretation is “watching a film only once” but we don’t know for sure, etc.
I think it is clear Baker was saying the technology can be used in a variety of ways, including but not limited to “watching a film only once.” That does seem to bolster Glover’s argument. unless you detect a very subtle difference between a DVD that can be watched only once and a self-destructive DVD.
Eric,
One more time… Baker was referring to the DRM software used in digital downloads and ultimately in HD DVD discs. The fact that a content producer can use those DRM restrictions in a variety of ways does not mean it will be used in those ways. As I asked, where are the quotes from the DVD manufacturers who are lining up to create these products?
It certainly not “cheap,” and it doesn’t have to be “disposable.” If you actually read up on this technology, you will see that a DRM-restricted DVD can take many, many forms. The more likely use of the single-play restriction is for digital delivery over the Internet (pay-per-view), not on DVDs.
Stay tuned for more.
I see no similarity at all between a DVD that can only be watched once and a “self-destructing DVD”. After reading this, I was reminded of a story from about a year ago (http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Oct/gee20041020027489.htm) in which this company developed a truly self-destructing DVD that will render itself physically unplayable after 48 hours. I wonder if this is the technology Glover thought Microsoft was going to be releasing? Even so, you could watch the movie many times within 48 hours.
And Baker’s comment included the phrase “over a limited period.” Once again Glover does seem to quote Baker in context, supporting Glover’s original assertion. I’m not sure how the debate about whether the technology will be used in a certain refutes the idea that it could be used that way.
I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but your assertion that Baker’s quote doesn’t prove Glover’s story depends on a lot of hair splitting.
Eric, this isn’t hair-splitting. I have referenced the DRM capabilities of the Windows Media format since my very first post on this subject. Yes, WM DRM can be used to create restricted files, which can be downloaded or put on an HD DVD. That is not news.
Let me see if I can explain using another example. Windows Media DRM can also be used with music files. A music file in Windows Media format, USING THE EXACT SAME DRM TOOLS AS THE ONES UNDER DISCUSSION HERE, can be digitally restricted so that it plays only once. See this page (question 3.4).
Therefore, I have a scoop: “Microsoft has developed a cheap, disposable, pre-recorded music CD that consumers can play only once.”
By your standards, this statement is true. By my standards, and those of most people who are knowledgeable about digital media technologies and markets, it is ludicrous. Although such a music CD containing Windows Media Audio files could be made, no sane company would do so. The same is true in the case of DVDs. The single-play restriction is primarily for use with downloadable content (pay-per-view) and is highly unlikely to be used in physical discs, in my opinion.