Talk:Digital copy

Untitled

OK, this article has been brought back from the dead and hopefully it's here to stay this time. I've spread around links to it wherever I could and made some minor edits (added some links at the end). The list strikes me as hopeless to maintain and I think instead it should just note the first title to have a Digital Copy (Was it Live Free or Die Hard? I think it might have been.) and the first iTunes compatible Digital Copy. (Family Guy Blue Harvest?) The article should probably note what studios have jumped on the bandwagon, how DC's releases are thus far disproportionately for films that appeal more to young people (seems accurate), how DC versions of existing titles are rereleased even if the DVD is the same as always, or cost a premium even if that is the only feature on the 2nd disc, drop references to DVD only since Blu-ray releases also have DC, more links (such as articles about DC), and maybe notes about resolution, video codecs and bitrate. Oh, and let's not forget the ever important categories, which I know it needs, but I'm not sure which to add yet.

This article can become quite polished, and if those links I spread around bring in enough views and edits, soon enough it will be.

Klknoles (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the page should include the ages it took for the companies behind it to acctually get the technology out there. It's 2009 now. Makeing a digital copy isn't news to the world. Besides, any flaws with this tecnique should be highlighted in the article to avid mass "disapointment" that could aid scareing users from trying legal alternatives for ever.

/the Swede. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.239.182 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and cleaned up the article somewhat, but it still needs a lot of work and reads like an ad. It needs an expanded section on the whys of Digital Copy (i.e. to discourage the creation of DRM-free copies through ripping) and a more specific discussion/dissection of the DRM (specific limits to the number of devices it can go on, for example) at a minimum. Also, the syntax needs clarified; is it a technology or are the individual files the Digital Copy? And references, it needs all sorts of references if it's to survive here.

ViRGE (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

DRM Free Software

Isn't it worth mentioning in the article that there are (and have been since before Digital Copy officially launched) several different software solutions that allow users to transcode their own discs into "digital copies" and do so without DRM (for example, DVDFab, or CloneDVD Mobile + AnyDVD)? - Artificial Silence (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

List of films in this article

This list could become very long if the technology is used on every film from here on out. It may be a good idea to just include a link to this article from the DVD/Blue-ray sections of the films instead of maintaining the list for to long. If the list gets to 100 films, it could safely be dropped, in my opinion. So, if it is not included on another 25 films, then keep the list, but if another 25 films comes out with it on the disk, then drop the list. LA (T) @ 09:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that an article be created called List of movies with Digital Copies, or something similar, and linked from this article. Perhaps only the very first movies to include this feature could be mentioned here. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 22:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Expiration dates, disc or download, nomenclature, the list, and more

Okay, I've been putting off more edits for months so I figured I'd make mention of some ideas to act as a placeholder until I get around to writing more.

The article makes no mention of Digital Copy expiration dates and needs to, but I don't really know how absolute they are. Do all Digital Copy releases stop allowing transfer after their listed date, or is that only a suggested date for when they may pull the plug? I've seen plenty of Digital Copy releases on sale after their supposed expiration dates. Does that mean they're selling coasters? If so I betcha there are some P.O.ed customers.

Most Digital Copies are on disc and only use internet access for authentication allowing the transfer, but there are some that require downloading of the actual video. It appears to be done where the disc spaced used would be substantial since the two examples I know of are Supernatural season 3 and South Park season 12 and there will likely be more.

A minor point, but there needs to be a mention of nomenclature. All the studios choose to call it "Digital Copy", but Disney calls it "DisneyFile Digital Copy", Fox calls it "Fox Digital Copy", Sony only calls it "Digital Copy", and WB calls it "WB Digital Copy". These are subtle differences, but I think it's important since competing studios happen to all call it "Digital Copy" at the same time, perhaps by coincidence. In time another name may appear.

Unlike the limited number of Superbit and Infinifilm titles, Digital Copy is more numerous, coming out at a faster rate, and not limited to a single studio. That, as has been observed, means the list is less sustainable and many (like me) have thought it should in time be deleted. But I've come to think maybe it should be kept, though as a separate article if need be. I changed my mind because I realized that there aren't much in the way of lists on-line (An Amazon.com search for Digital Copy works, but crudely.) and the list as it exists can be improved with organization into a table. A table with nice neat rows and columns could contain release and expiration dates, supported platform and format, and other worthwhile notes.

As mentioned above, there are at least four studios involved: Disney, Fox, Sony, and Warner Bros. Are there any others? Will there in time be? I suspect Digital Copy use by other studios is inevitable.

Was there ever a single HD-DVD release with Digital Copy included? As near as I can tell there never was, but I don't know for certain.

OK, that's it for now. Why bother editing wikipedia when you can ask others to do it for you? Just kidding. I'll try making some of the above edits in time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klknoles (talk • contribs) 00:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

One Disc, Two Disc, Old Disc, New Disc

Another placeholder (and I couldn't resist writing the title). As I commented at the top of this page, there are a number of titles predating the existence of Digital Copy that have been re-released as two-disc editions but they're really just the previous single disc editions re-packaged with the DC on the second disc. The article should have some sort of comment about this, and I wonder if out there somewhere there has been confusion and criticism of the releases - Two-disc DC editions of Starship Troopers and Die Hard might be confused with the original two-disc special editions.

The second disc thing is often inconsistent. The two-disc edition of Resident Evil: Extinction is the same as the single disc edition except for the Digital Copy, and yet the DC is on the first disc and additional content that the single disc edition has is relocated to the second disc. The two-disc edition of Hitman has a different first disc from the single disc unrated release, but the DC is the only content on the second disc. The two-disc edition of the unrated Alien vs. Predator: Requiem has an identical first disc as the single disc release and the second disc is the DC making it the only additional feature over the single-disc release.

And then there's the three-disc release thing. The Incredible Hulk, Hellboy II, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Wall-E, and some others have three-disc editions with the third disc a Digital Copy. Were it not for DC, these would be two-disc releases.

Just picking it until it bleeds and remembering to sign this time...

Klknoles (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

List Deletion Without Discussion?

Well, somebody wiped it out. They could have at least asked first. Should we attempt to recreate it as a separate article, bring it back with modification (the table I describe above), or bring it back as-was only to be killed again...and again, and again... Klknoles (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was completely unreferenced, and frankly, unencyclopedic. It was completely original research, and I suspect people were simply adding titles to it that they liked, as opposed to titles that had reliable sources stating that they came with a Digital Copy. Also, you should take a look at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Article moved

Things looked a little different and what I believe happened is that somebody moved the article from "Digital Copy" to "Digital copy", even though from almost all that I've seen the term is "Digital Copy" with both words capitalized. Irritatingly, they didn't move the talk page along with it, and the history has also been mostly wiped. (Surely there were more edits than that!) Rather than start a war, I just moved the (newly named) talk page over and figure the new title is harmless, though inaccurate. If it's going to be moved back (to where it belongs), there should at least be some discussion beforehand like there should have been in the first place. If all this is the result of somebody not knowing how to move moving the article improperly (and the wiped history suggests that.), I would love to see this fixed and have the history back.

Klknoles (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Should be "Digital Copy", capitalized

See: Managed Copy, as well as all of the references that this article points to, which deliberately use the capitalized form. "Digital copy" without capitalization is ambiguous. It can mean a myriad of things that aren't covered by this article (and shouldn't be). Msgohan (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Msgohan, the use of the lowercase "c" in "copy" is to prevent the article from being mistaken, if "Digital Copy" is abbreviated to "DC", with DC Comics or "Direct Current", which is also abbreviated "DC". --Fandelasketchup (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Does not appear to be a proper noun.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Digital copy → Digital Copy –

• I request Digital copy to be renamed to Digital Copy and have their histories to be merged. I tried Special:MovePage/Digital copy but it failed due to the existing history on the target page. Reason for renaming: the word "Copy" is capitalized in a sentence because the marketing term is a proper noun. Please advise. — Hasdi Bravo • 11:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
•  Done history-merged to Digital copy. About the name change to Digital Copy: there are many digital copies; is this 'Digital Copy' a proper name, or merely "importance capitalizing" by a commercial firm? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose move - the term is not a proper name, and much as marketers like to use caps, they are inappropriate here.--ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose move - that apparently has already taken place. Wikipedia does not capitalize unnecessarily, copy is not a proper name. --MrBoire (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Unclear - I do not understand the reasoning behind the request. How is a "copy" that is digital a proper noun? Or is there something that I am missing? As far as I know "copy" in the sense of either marketing or print material like news copy are all nouns that are not capitalized. Merriam-Webster Online Does Not Capitalize It!--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 05:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. "iTunes Digital Copy" or "Disney Digital Copy" etc are marketing terms, arguably proper nouns and are therefore correctly capitalised. "Digital copy" in general is not a proper noun nor a marketing term. Note that "marketing term" is unreferenced in lead and I have therefore removed it. GDallimore (Talk) 11:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digital copy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331142051/http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/digitalcopy/ to http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/digitalcopy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an archive ! --Fandelasketchup (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)