I'm burning my AVCHD Blu-ray compatible discs on 30 cent DVD-R blanks, same as I did with 3x DVD HD Compatible discs. No big licensing fees so far. ;-)

Personal attacks? Hmmm, as when he said to Douglas,

"Spot throwing crap on the wall in hopes that it sticks."

This dude's just some wannabe that enjoys ruffling the feathers of successful people. Every forum's got one or two of these guys, and I have no qualms about taking them to task on it.

alright boys and girls, let me avail you of some forum etiquette in a manner that should be enjoyable to us all.

http://www.redvsblue.net/posting.html

Please watch and take it to heart, because even though it's freakin hilarious, we all know it's true.

Dave

And answer me this: How compatible are HD-DVD recordables? I don't mean regular discs burned as HD, I mean actual HD-DVDs? (Because it's only fair to compare apples to apples.)

I keep trying to tell people that HD DVD is done Fred. Now we have BD, this is the issue. Why do people want to continue to compare BD to a dead format?


Now, as for BR discs not being able to play on all BR machines... hmmm, what does that sound like? Maybe DVDs? In case you're in denial and can't bring yourself to remember, DVDs-- especially dual layered ones-- don't exactly have the greatest compatibility record. Also, the DVD specs changed at the beginning too and early-adopter machines couldn't access some features (I had one of those).

I get it. You're saying that BD is less than perfect.... and that's okay. Well... maybe for you Fred, but personally, I expect a little more.

Dang blink, you are really stupid. Seriously...

Your claim: Blu-Ray announced fees after HD DVD "stepped down"
Fact: Bullshit, it was decided long ago and announced long ago

Your claim: Blu-Ray fees are fundamentally different than DVD fees or HD DVD fees
Fact: Bullshit, there is no real difference between the three (now two) formats, fees are all over, you just never notice

Your claim: You have a brain
Fact: More and more your posts prove otherwise

Little brat!"

Try and grow up a little there DGates.

Your claim: Blu-Ray announced fees after HD DVD "stepped down"
This is not a HD DVD issue. HD DVD is dead.

Your claim: Blu-Ray fees are fundamentally different than DVD fees or HD DVD fees
Your reading is as bad as Spot's. You show me PLEASE, where I said blu ray fees are different.

Dang blink, you are really stupid. Seriously...
I see you're playing in the same sandbox as DGates.

Personal attacks? Hmmm, as when he said to Douglas,

If you send me your address, I'll send you a dictionary and a thesaurus, because it's pretty clear that you lack in the English language.

You see....up above I am explaining what Spot DID. In other words it's kind of verb-ish... a statement of action.

A personal attack would be something more along the lines of a NOUN
Something like CHILDISH as stated from Fred, or BRAT from you, or STUPID from Terje. These are called nouns... they describe what a person IS and they are attacks.

In fact DGates, I see you have brought NOTHING other than personal attacks to this thread.

Dang blink, you are really stupid. Seriously...

Your claim: Blu-Ray announced fees after HD DVD "stepped down"
Fact: Bullshit, it was decided long ago and announced long ago

Your claim: Blu-Ray fees are fundamentally different than DVD fees or HD DVD fees
Fact: Bullshit, there is no real difference between the three (now two) formats, fees are all over, you just never notice

Your claim: You have a brain
Fact: More and more your posts prove otherwise
===================
What's wrong with you Terje? You have a consistent pattern of personal attacks using vulgar language to accent them. Why can't you make your arguments using less personal comments and by expanding your vocabulary? It is truly offensive not to mention a consistent violation of forum rules.

Try an online Thesaurus.

Regards,

John

"Something like CHILDISH as stated from Fred, or BRAT from you, or STUPID from Terje. These are called nouns... they describe what a person IS and they are attacks."

Aren't these adjectives rather than nouns? Just saying.

"Something like CHILDISH as stated from Fred, or BRAT from you, or STUPID from Terje. These are called nouns... they describe what a person IS and they are attacks."

Aren't these adjectives or adverbs rather than nouns? Just saying.

"Something like CHILDISH as stated from Fred, or BRAT from you, or STUPID from Terje. These are called nouns... they describe what a person IS and they are attacks."

Aren't these adjectives or adverbs rather than nouns? Just saying.

The vast majority of DVDs are still SD and solid state flash drives and Hi-Def streaming are advancing so much that even yet Blu-ray may never be a serious player in a big way. I believe before BD takes over from SD moving disks will be nostalgia.

What we need is an authoring system to incorporate menus etc into data files like .m2t that can be uploaded to clients.

Wow, this thread turned UGLY and quickly, too. Seems that the same 3 or 4 people have hijacked quite a few threads lately to spew their opinions. Perhaps the forum moderators should place these people on probation.

Anyway, I believe that the EULA for DVD Architect and Vegas says that the MPEG2 encoder is only licensed for personal use and that ANY commercial use of the MPEG2 encoder requires payment of licensing fees. While the fees for Blu-Ray may be different amounts, the licensing doesn't seem to be significantly different than for making DVDs with our beloved Sony software tools.

John

Thanks to Spot for trying to cut some sanity into this thread.
Gotta be frustrating for him to have people react that way when he was simply trying to clafify an issue that he is well qualified to comment on.
I am frankly embarrassed for him at the uncivilized tone of the personal attacks in this thread.
This is shocking behaviour from professing adults.
I think it's the worst I've seen.
I too hope the moderators of this forum will issue some suspensions.

Spot is correct that you have been paying licensing fees ever since cassette tapes became popular in the 60's. The copyright laws have been updated to include blank DVD's, but it's interesting that the fee only applies to blank recordable media sold for music, but blank computer media is exempt. Not that anyone can tell the difference. The USC also covers license fees collected for each playback device (cassette, CD DVD players, etc) but not the burners. The fees are collected by the manufacturer at the time of first sale. The fees (royalties) are administered by The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies for featured artists and copyright owners.

----------
From Wikipedia:
Blank music CDs and recorders

17 USC 1008 bars copyright infringement action and 17 USC 1003 provides for a royalty of 3% of the initial transfer price. The royalty rate in Section 1004 was established by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998. This only applies to CDs which are labeled and sold for music use; they do not apply to blank computer CDs, even though they can be (and often are) used to record or "burn" music from the computer to CD. A similar royalty applies to stand-alone CD recorders, but not to CD burners used with computers.

Thanks to a precedent established in a 1998 lawsuit involving the Rio PMP300 player, MP3 players are deemed "computer peripherals" and are not subject to a royalty of this type in the U.S.
---------

Spot is correct that you have been paying licensing fees ever since cassette tapes became popular in the 60's. The copyright laws have been updated to include blank DVD's, but it's interesting that the fee only applies to blank recordable media sold for music, but blank computer media is exempt. Not that anyone can tell the difference. The USC also covers license fees collected for each playback device (cassette, CD DVD players, etc) but not the burners. The fees are collected by the manufacturer at the time of first sale. The fees (royalties) are administered by The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies for featured artists and copyright owners.

----------
From Wikipedia:
Blank music CDs and recorders

17 USC 1008 bars copyright infringement action and 17 USC 1003 provides for a royalty of 3% of the initial transfer price. The royalty rate in Section 1004 was established by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998. This only applies to CDs which are labeled and sold for music use; they do not apply to blank computer CDs, even though they can be (and often are) used to record or "burn" music from the computer to CD. A similar royalty applies to stand-alone CD recorders, but not to CD burners used with computers.

Thanks to a precedent established in a 1998 lawsuit involving the Rio PMP300 player, MP3 players are deemed "computer peripherals" and are not subject to a royalty of this type in the U.S.
---------

Steve,

Thanks for the information. When I read the first posts in this thread, I thought there was something new and horrible happening with Blu-Ray licensing. I did a little research and found out, like you, that there is nothing new going on here and that the sky is not falling.

It must have been the lunar eclipse yesterday, 'cause some of the posts in this thread sure have been loony.

Terje:

Hey blink, thanks for proving my third point, that you actually do not posses a functioning brain. Do I say above that this is an HD DVD "issue"? No, I just point out a simple fact, you claimed something that was absurdly wrong. The only relevance for the mention of HD DVD in your and mine statement is for the timing. Now, try to go back and re-take that English 101 you clearly flunked.

Terje:

Blink, you are up in arms about the Blu fees. You are not about the DVD fees nor were you ever about the HD DVD fees. These are all fundamentally the same. If you have no issue with the Blu fees, why are you discussing this issue? Are you just trying to prove again and again that you are unable to form logical thought?

"In fact DGates, I see you have brought NOTHING other than personal attacks to this thread.

I'm content with that.

What's wrong with you Terje?

That is a very good question. I know for sure that I have an abnormally low tolerance for stupidity, I am also a tad over my ideal weight, but do not suffer from any other physical ailments that I am aware of.

You have a consistent pattern of personal attacks using vulgar language to accent them.

I do at times characterize a person in what seems to be a personal attack, less often than you would think though. Far less often than I am accused of. The problem is that a lot of people are unable to tell the difference between the attack on an opinion or a statement and the attack on a person. In the posting you probably replied to, I did in fact use a direct personal attack, I claimed that available evidence as supplied by an individual would point to the fact that the individual in this case was not in the possession of a brain.

When would I use such a characteristic? Only when the individual in question repeatedly, and in a consistent manner, have exhibited behavior indicating that the individual, at least in the limited sphere of the discussion forum in question is in fact an idiot or do in fact not possess a brain (in this case).

In other words, in the limited sphere of internet discussion forums, you are what you do. That makes me a bit of a shit, and makes others brainless idiots. This doesn't mean they are so in the real world, but I have no ability to find that out, I can only go by behavior in the forum in question.

Now, before I forget, to the discussion on whether personal attacks is something I do a lot or just occasionally.

You will often find me saying things like:
Thinking XXX and opining YYY given the fact that NNN and also that you clearly said ZZZZ, is really stupid.

Is this a personal attack? Nope, it is not. It is a direct attack on a persons opinion. Most of the time fully justified through elaboration, as was the case in two of the statements you replied to.

I state that blink claimed something (that the Blu-Ray fees were announced in a certain time frame). I explained to him that this was an error, and that he had has facts wrong. I used the word "bullshit" in refuting that, and I am sorry if that offended your delicate senses. It wasn't a personal attack on anybody however.

Finally I stated that blink claims to have a brain, a clear untruth as far as I know, I have never seen him claim this, so that was a complete fabrication on my part. I have no indication whatsoever that blink has any such thing.

Oh, and in case it isn't clear, read the following article before commenting on the last paragraph http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor

"In fact DGates, I see you have brought NOTHING other than personal attacks to this thread.

I'm content with that.
===============================================================

Yup.... I have to admit... you had me laughing with that one.... quite an unexpected answer!