|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
211.27.176.2
In Reply to: interesting posted by Joe Murphy Jr on January 22, 2007 at 00:57:27:
Interesting. I thought I'd seen a comment somewhere here that the Blu-ray discs in Australia were identical to the US discs. This would seem to indicate that they aren't quite identical, though I think that comment was meant in relation to video format and it's certainly true in that respect.The decision regarding multi-zone access on players here in Australia was initially a court decision and it revolved around the right of users to be able to freely play discs from other zones that were legally obtained. I would assume the principle of that decision applied also in relation to Blu-ray discs. I wonder whether it's possible to make a Blu-ray disc play discs from all zones.
Follow Ups:
While there are now zones for Blu-ray, it's up to the studio to determine if they wat to enforce restrictions in a certain zone. If they decide that they want every zone to have access to that movie, it's up to them. If they only want a 1 zone or 2 zone pressing. that's how they'll do it.I don't know the details, but I believe after 1 year of release (the disc, not the movie) if there are more pressings of that movie it will be an all-zone pressing (ie, the studio cannot specify pressings after 1 year to restrict any zone).
Well, all of that sounds a lot more reasonable than the situation with normal DVDs where the zone system genuinely works against the customer.I bought a copy of Tarkovsky's "Solaris" on a local, zone 4 DVD late last year when it was finally released here. It was the first local DVD release of the film and that release could hardly impact on the film release since I saw the film on it's release here in Australia around 30 years ago, and a few times after that. In the US there were at least 2 releases of the film available yet here there were none. If the zone system really did anything to protect the interests of the copyright holder in such cases, I could find some reason to support it, but it isn't protecting the interests of the copyright holder in such cases. It works against them by limiting sales. A totally hopeless situation for the prospective customer and a stupid one for the copyright holder.
Making things difficult for the prospective customer can rarely, if ever, be a sensible decision and I don't t hink it's a sensible one here.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: