Transfer ultraviolet digital copy dvd to iTunes, not Flixster?

"UV is cross platform not proprietart to UV "

It IS proprietary. It needs to be licensed from the UV consortium.

You need to talk to the movie houses to make movies available via any platform.

"iTunes is iTunes. You either watch it on iTunes or an iOS device or you don't watch it."

UV is UV. You eitegr watch it with a UV app or you don't watch it. It is not viewable via iTunes or video app or vlc or any other app.

UV is simply trying to cut out the majority of users by using proprietary DRM and not being compatible.

Ironically all those means suppose to prevent illegal download just push users to legally download from an illegal source what's they paid for.

you pay , you watch.

UV-iTunes 0-0

"push users to legally download from an illegal source what's they paid for"

No it doesn't.

UV is not proprietary, it is an industry-wide digital copy standard that any studio, digital media store, hardware vendor, or software media player can support. I know it feels like it is proprietary right now, but it is not. Soon, when the Common File Format is deployed, UV files will be able to be played on any connected blu-ray player from many manufacturers, (LG, Phillips, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, Toshiba, Western Digital) and also Windows Media Player, PowerDVD, and any other software that chooses to support it. The fact that iTunes and Disney has chosen not to adopt the standard that everyone else has agreed to is the fault of Apple and Disney, no one else. Once the CFF is deployed, I am sure even more digital media stores and studios will want to support it as well.

>>"push users to legally download from an illegal source what's they paid for"

>No it doesn't.

Ye, I did ;-)

> the standard that everyone else has agreed

Then it´s not a standard

echopulse wrote:

UV is not proprietary, it is an industry-wide digital copy standard that any studio, digital media store, hardware vendor, or software media player can support.

As long as they license it, which makes it proprietary.

I know it feels like it is proprietary right now,

It feels like it propietary because it is. You cannot use it unless you license it.

Soon, when the Common File Format is deployed, UV files will be able to be played

on players that are licensed for this proprietary technology.

If that is your definition of proprietary, then almost every file format is proprietary. An MP3 is licensed by the Motion Picture Experts Group, a JPG is licensed by the Joint Photographic Experts Group, a DVD is licensed by the DVD Forum, a Blu-ray disc is liscensed by The Blu-ray Disc Association, a M4A is licensed by Apple, and there are many more. Anyone can make or sell products containing these formats, they just have to pay license fees, somethimes called royalties.

Chris CA wrote:

"UV is cross platform not proprietart to UV "

It IS proprietary. It needs to be licensed from the UV consortium.

You need to talk to the movie houses to make movies available via any platform.

"iTunes is iTunes. You either watch it on iTunes or an iOS device or you don't watch it."

UV is UV. You eitegr watch it with a UV app or you don't watch it. It is not viewable via iTunes or video app or vlc or any other app.

UV is simply trying to cut out the majority of users by using proprietary DRM and not being compatible.

I am really not sure what the point you are trying to make is. Regardless of how you try to word your argument the point remains that it is invalid. The use of UV is NOT proprietary and any attempt to claim otherwise is either an outright lie, or a statement made by someone ignorant of the facts. UV IS 100% absolutely unequivocally available one ALL platforms end of story. being "forced" to download a free app or channel or whatever they are called on your p[articular platform is not even remotely the same as not having the option to watch your video library AT ALL on your platform because it is manufactured by an Apple competitor or because iTunes just doesn't exist for PS3, PS4, Xbox 320, Xbox One, Roku, Chromecast, or Smart TV's and if you already own any of the above your ONLY option for accessing iTunes is to throw away $99 of your hard earned money to buy the ability to watch iTunes. In the end UV may use proprietary DRM but the UV service IS NOT proprietary. If it were then people would be complaining about having to buy an UV player to download the flixster app on so that they can watch their movies, but that is not the case. UV is available to anyone anywhere with any platform for free. UV is not requiring people to go out and buy their product in order to watch things in the UV Library. All UV is is a cloud service, which apps playback UV content is entirely dependant on whihc companiesd CHOOSE to allow UV playback. You absolutely COULD watch UV on iTunes if Apple would allow it but they don't want to do that. Saying "UV is UV and you either watch it on a UV app or your don't watch" in reply to my point that you can either buy an Apple device to watch your itunes Library or not wstch it all is nothing but a straw grasping tactic. Having to download an app that supports UV is leaps and bounds different that having to go out and BUY a piece of hardware that suypports iTunes. That is not the definition of a proprietary service, Apple is the perfect example of proprioetary, When the rest of the worlds phone manufacturers were "encouraged" by the FCC to start using only one type of charger for their phones to make it easier for consumers to find a place to charge their phone Apple fought tooth and nail saying that the iPhone was a onestop media station not a phone and shouldn't have the same restrictions...less than two years later they release the iPhone 5 which now has a completely different charger but still not the miniusb that all other phone manufacturrers have moved to because Apple likes to have proprietary software, proprietary hardware, and proprietary everything. Requiring a license to use the DRM of UV is NOT whay determiones if it is proprietary or not. I see now that you clearly have no idea what the word prorpietary means look it up before you start trying to argue about how UV is proprietary next time and you will understand why your argument falls flat on its face befroe it even gets started.. The fact of the matter here is that UV is a much better service than iTunes video library for the simple fact that it gives you infinite more optons than itunes of whwre to watch your library without REQUIRING you to go out and spend money on something that would otherwise be comepletely useless to you. The only people with something bad to say about UV are the elitist jerks who soome to think that nothing should be free in the world and if you aren't paying for a service you don't deserve it.If you are perfectly happy only being able to watch your videos on an Apple device then have at it and enjoy, but don't try to claim that UV is just as bad as iTunes just because you refuse to accept the facts as they have been laid before you. You can't make a ridiculously incorrect claim like saying UV is not available on all platforms because that is an outright lie. There isn't a multimedia platform out there at the time that this was written that does not have access to UV through a free download of some kind.

Zoumbo wrote:

> the standard that everyone else has agreed

Then it´s not a standard

Um...yes....it is..Saying that it is not the standard because two companies refuse to follow suit is like saying that not cutting people into little pieces with an axe is not the law because people don't do it....If it has been agreed upon by EVERYONE except for two companies it is the standard and those two companies are operating outside of the standard. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue and Apple being on the outside doesn't change the definition of a standard format.

It's a standard because some says it is, regardless if others follow it.

In order to meet the standard, the file has to be x, y, z (whatever).

Joshua Miles wrote:
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue and Apple being on the outside doesn't change the definition of a standard format.

The same for UV format not meeting the iTunes standard for DRM.

I know what I am about to say won't fit the definition of a "Standard" I think of Open. that is without a proprietary encoding, or proprietary DRM scheme. By this definition I don't consider Apple's movies a standard even though they use MPEG-4 which is a standard. But I sure don't consider UV a standard either. They may dispurse there apps, and support in 3rd party apps far and wide, but that doesn't make it any more of a standard than Apple's movies, just that they have controlled there content in adiffernet way.

In short If I can't move and play my movie files accross (most) major media applications (VLC, Quicktime, Windows Media Player, etc..) then the movie probably isn't in a standard format.

If The studios were sistributing the movies in a standard format then we peobably wouldn't have this thread, becasue we could all organize our movie files where and how we want. It happens that this is an Apple centered forum, so most of us here want a format (standard or not) that supports that Apple ecosystem.

I purchased the rights to use their content, I expect to be able to use it how and where I want so long as how I am using it is legally (i.e. not sharing it). As a consumer I want all my media in iTunes, that's how I manage my catalog, I don't want UV's crapware or to need another app (like flixster) to do it.

When the CFF is launched, you will be able to move and copy your movie files between devices and apps, such as Windows Media Player, PowerDVD, and any other app maker that supports the format.

It's not the fault of the UV consortium that Apple's DRM is not supported. If apple submitted their DRM to be an approved UltraViolet DRM, then I am sure the DECE would run over hot coals to get it approved quickly.

All DRM is proprietary and most, with the exception of widevine are expensive. Even when DRM is free, implementing UV is not. It's complex and has been a poor experience for users. Disney and Apple have solid reasons for avoiding this mess.

echopulse wrote:

When the CFF is launched,

it will become a heaping big mess that will last a few years, go by the wayside and people will be stuck with media they cannot use on ANY of their devices...

Forgive my ignorance, but my understanding of CFF is that it is basically set guidelines for file format containters, etc... (MP4 (H.264), AAC Audio, etc...) Does it also provide specific specifications for DRM or will each studio be releasing?

even if CFF is all that is promised when it is released (which, as with any product is really just vaporWare until it is actually released) unless Apple jumps on board I am of course still going to want either a DRM free version of the movie or an iTunes compatable version.

In general, I think DRM free versions would be the best, the movie files could still be fingerprinted for all I care (meaning you download a file that has your info embedded in the file somewhere so they can track you down if you pirate the move out to other people) This would serve everone on all platforms the best. you wanna watch it in iTunes..awesome, you wanna watch it on Android or Windows devices then that's awesome too.

But that assumes that studios want to serve their clients, and save everone from having to implement DRM, etc...