More on the single-play DVD

Earlier this week, I posted an item debunking a story that claimed Microsoft is on the verge of introducing a “cheap, disposable” single-play DVD.

Yesterday, Wall Street Journal columnist Jeremy Wagstaff, in his loose wire blog, says he doesn’t know what to believe:

I contacted the author, business editor Tony Glover, who says the online publication “stand[s] by the story 100% and will be running a follow-up on Sunday naming sources”.

Well, that should be interesting. Glover’s original story appeared in The Business and its online edition, under the headline Microsoft invents a one-play only DVD to combat Hollywood piracy. (And his by-line lists him as Technology Editor, not business editor.)

The story is unsourced and lacks any details that would allow an independent reader to do any further investigation. It also makes a bold assertion that is thoroughly contradicted by known facts:

Computer software giant Microsoft has developed a cheap, disposable pre-recorded DVD disc that consumers can play only once. … The revolutionary product could be on the market as early as next year, with the new DVD players needed to view them.”

Break it down:

Microsoft has developed a new DVD disc? That’s just plain wrong on its face. Microsoft doesn’t develop optical disc formats. Anyone who follows digital technology knows there are two next-generation optical drive formats due out next year. One is the Blu-Ray Disc, from a Sony-led consortium, and the other is the HD DVD format, from a consortium led by Toshiba. Both formats have been under development for some time and are due to be introduced next year. Microsoft didn’t develop either format, although they recently threw their support behind the HD DVD, which was approved by the DVD Forum in December 2003.

Disposable discs that can be played one time only? This is almost certainly a reference to digital rights management features in Windows Media. If a content provider chooses to use the DRM features in the Windows Media format, they have all sorts of options, including the ability to specify an expiration date for a media file, or to specify how many times it can be played, or to require a subscription. Again, there’s nothing new here; the DRM-enabled Windows Media video format has been around for more than two years. (See the Digital Media Timeline here, and note that WMV HD was added in January 2003. For details on what content providers can do with Windows Media DRM, see “Enabling DRM on Windows Media High Definition Video DVD ROM Discs,” available in Word format here, for more details.)

The rest of the story was a complete mishmash, jumping from discussions of downloadable content to the fortunes of Netflix without ever making much of a point. It’s exactly what one might expect from a business writer who is trying to write about a complex technology he doesn’t really understand. (That’s why I avoid stories about the business side of Microsoft or its stock price. I’m not an expert.)

Wagstaff says my story was “intemperate”:

When a writer finds a story they believe to be untrue, they should try to contact the author for comment when publishing their ‘knock-down’ story. At the very least, they must show they have authoritative sources who contest the story’s accuracy or veracity (not the same thing) and make this clear. They might also choose careful language which allows for the possibility of gray between the black and the white — “source X said he knew of no such meeting/product/agreement”, or “company X denied the story and said on the contrary it had no plans for xxxx”. Saying something is a hoax/has no truth to it/is bogus without enclosing the comment in quotes is not only a tad extreme, it’s not good journalistic practice. Imagine if someone did it to you.

Contact the author? Please. When a journalist publishes a story, it stands on its own. If the story is wrong, the story is wrong. This sensational story was picked up by dozens of sites, none of whom bothered to contact the author or Microsoft before amplifying it. The story took on a life of its own and it should be judged on its own merits, which are sorely lacking.

I will agree that “hoax” was a poorly chosen word. That implies deception on the part of the author, and the more likely explanation was that the author simply jumped to unwarranted conclusions based on an inadequate understanding of the technology. It’s also possible that he was deliberately “spun” by a source. But without giving any details of where the story came from in the first place, all we can do is guess.

I’ll publish a link to the follow-up story when I see it posted.

Update: Tony Glover posted his reply a day early. Here’s the follow-up.