It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionIntroducing GOG.com DRM-Free Movies(632 posts)(632 posts)
(632 posts)
Pages:
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
33
34
35
36
37
40
43
This is my favourite topic
Posted August 27, 2014
Cause there's no business like show-business!

Our DRM-Free approach to digital distribution has been the foundation of GOG.com since day one and we're convinced it is now firmly rooted in the gaming industry landscape. More and more users start to expect and demand the digital content they paid for to be free from any kind of restrictive mechanisms that limit access to their collections and get in the way of enjoyment. We think this is a good time to take the next step in our quest to make digital entertainment better for everyone. Today we set out to spread our DRM-Free ideas across the movie industry! That's right: GOG.com now offers DRM-Free movies.

Our goal is to offer you cinema classics as well as some all-time favorite TV series with no DRM whatsoever, for you to download and keep on your hard drive or stream online whenever you feel like it. We talked to most of the big players in the movie industry and we often got a similar answer: "We love your ideas, but … we do not want to be the first ones. We will gladly follow, but until somebody else does it first, we do not want to take the risk". DRM-Free distribution is not a concept their lawyers would accept without hesitation. We kind of felt that would be the case and that it's gonna take patience and time to do it, to do it, to do it right. That's quite a journey ahead of us, but every gamer knows very well that great adventures start with one small step. So why not start with something that feels very familiar? We offer you a number of gaming and internet culture documentaries - all of them DRM-Free, very reasonably priced, and presenting some fascinating insight into topics close to a gamer's heart. Now, what do we have in store for you?

- There's a whole new Movie Catalog for you to browse!
- All the movies we sell are priced at $5.99 (that's a launch promo price for a few of them), and we aim to have that as the main price point for most of our future releases
- Two of the movies - The Art of Playing and TPB AFK: The Pirate Bay Away From Keyboard are available for FREE, so that you can test our new movie distribution features
- Most of our movies are in Full HD 1080p quality, some in 720p. With those of you with limited bandwidth or download quota in mind, we also supply much lighter 576p versions.
- Apart from downloading your movies you have the option to watch them streaming online, right here on GOG.com
- GOG.com is famous for its bonus goodies - each movie will come with as many of them as we can muster
- You can expect subsequent movie releases each week

That's it. GOG.com Movies is a go, time to get some popcorn!
Posted September 01, 2014
My question is: will there be more game related movies? Not just documentaries. My idea: Fanfilms, like the one about Metal Gear Solid or Mega-Man.

And where it has already been mentioned here: I do not think the public domain films would be possible. Due to the copyrights of the individual films. Or am I wrong?

Thank you GOG-Team.

;3
Posted September 01, 2014
avatar
shmerl: I hope Daala comes before that which will be even smaller than H.265 and won't require GOG paying anything to the patent trolls ;)
avatar
phaolo: I didn't even know about it. I was just hyped about x265.

May the best supported codec win and come here to GOG, then ; )
You can read more about it here:

* [url=https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/daala/demo1.shtml]https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/daala/demo1.shtml[/url]
* [url=https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/daala/demo2.shtml]https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/daala/demo2.shtml[/url]
* [url=https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/daala/demo3.shtml]https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/daala/demo3.shtml[/url]
* [url=https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/daala/demo4.shtml]https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/daala/demo4.shtml[/url]

Here is also a very good overview of what's going in with codecs now:
[url=https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/video/Free_Codecs_Update_Opus_and_Daala.ogv]https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/video/Free_Codecs_Update_Opus_and_Daala.ogv[/url]
Post edited September 01, 2014 by shmerl
Posted September 01, 2014
avatar
avatar
shmerl: I think it's better for GOG to concentrate on offering good service, rather than reinventing media players, e-book readers and browsers. Doing it requires tons of effort and there are excellent projects which handle those tasks just fine (you already mentioned VLC, I can add mpv to the list). I doubt GOG can invest such amount of man hours to catch up with VLC, mpv or open e-book readers. And if not, why would I want to use an inferior application to handle those types of media? It's just my opinon of course.

Also, don't forget. Releasing a player with decoder used in a commercial product would require GOG paying licenses for proprietary codecs like H.264 and AAC. And you don't even want to start dealing with that pile of garbage, since once you do, your expenses will be endless. Let GOG spend their resources on something useful, rather than feeding MPEG-LA patent trolls.

I'm not even sure what's the situation with simply selling or streaming commercial MP4 (H.264 / AAC) files. It also might require a separate toll paid to MPEG-LA.

See http://gigaom.com/2010/08/26/mpeg-la-h-264-streaming-will-be-free-forever/

MPEG LA is announcing today that it will continue to offer a royalty-free license for the H.264 video codec for video sites that offer free video streams to consumers “during the entire life of this (l)icense.” In other words: Web sites like YouTube will be free to use H.264 for its streams without having to fear they’re eventually going to have to pay massive royalties to MPEG LA.
avatar
shmerl: Note the part about free streams. GOG's offering is commercial, so I suspect MPEG-LA leeches will want their piece of the pie just for the fact of streaming it. Distributing a decoder would add another separate fee, just because. GOG wouldn't want to go there. That's why may be it makes sense for GOG just to stick to free codecs and use WebM instead (may be it's too drastic but it can save tons of money). On the other hand the fact that most physical players are crippled by being locked into proprietary H.264 can make it a tough decision for GOG.
But would they have to pay royalties for a decoder? GOG galaxy is free and is simply a client to deliver content and separate from that actual video file your buying. It's really no different than buying the file on GOG site and playing it with VLC. If they were charging for GOG Galaxy then I could see it, since there making money off the decoder. But there not, there making money off the file itself. Though I'll freely admit I'm not 100% on what is and isn't legal here or what GOG would have to pay for as a company to this.

I'm also not talking about making something as in-depth as VLC, just a simple video player built into Galaxy... should be to long or difficult to do really in all honesty.

You may be right about the streaming though...

I'm just thinking long term as a business, and as a consumer I think it makes more sense for them to streamline the process and have Galaxy handle everything they sell while giving everyone an option to not use it. They should also make a phone app that does the same (ie allows you to buy games, start downloads to pc from phone, download/play movies on phone...ect).

Again I realize it's very easy to do yourself without GOG, but as I said simplicity drives business... hence why Steam is such as success.
Posted September 01, 2014
avatar
Yes, they'd have to pay royalties if they are to ship the decoder with the application. VLC and other projects avoid it because they are open source projects which operate outside areas where software patents exist. So they say: we give you the source code, do whatever you want, and figure out yourself if in your area there are software patents which can limit its use. In practice VLC is used everywhere, but MPEG-LA don't bother to go after it because there is nothing in it for them. VLC is an open source project so MPEG-LA have no way to get any money from them.

Now, compare that for example with Mozilla. They for a long time refused to implement closed codecs in the browser, not only because of course they are strongly against them, but because they'd have to pay to MPEG-LA for every copy of the browser downloaded. That's atrocious for an average sized company with thin profit margins.

Eventually, Mozilla accepted the fact that WebM failed to get universal adoption (because of various crooks who hate the open Web), so they added support for H.264, but they avoided shipping the decoder. The way they did it is a workaround. They said, if decoder is already available on your system, then Firefox would use that (for Windows it can be DirectShow filter installed, on Linux it's Gstreamer plugin and so on). And if it's not available - there is nothing Mozilla can do it about. Because of that they don't need to pay anything to MPEG-LA.

See this article for more details: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/

GOG is in the similar situation and even worse, since they sell videos as a commercial service. I don't think they need to bother with any of this if they simply avoid shipping any players altogether. Streaming using H.26x however will remain a huge problem for GOG, especially when it will scale beyond certain amount.

Also, on related subject, see this article about sick trend of adding DRM into the HTML standard itself:

https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/

I hope such efforts as this push for DRM-free films from GOG can put an end to these sickening DRM developments. And open codecs like Daala and Opus can put an end to patent trolling and tolls placed on the Web services and developers.
Post edited September 01, 2014 by shmerl
Posted September 01, 2014
avatar
avatar
shmerl: Yes, they'd have to pay royalties if they are to ship the decoder with the application. VLC and other projects avoid it because they are open source projects which operate outside areas where software patents exist. So they say: we give you the source code, do whatever you want, and figure out yourself if in your area there are software patents which can limit its use. In practice VLC is used everywhere, but MPEG-LA don't bother to go after it because there is nothing in it for them. VLC is an open source project so MPEG-LA have no way to get any money from them.

Now, compare that for example with Mozilla. They for a long time refused to implement closed codecs in the browser, not only because of course they are strongly against them, but because they'd have to pay to MPEG-LA for every copy of the browser downloaded. That's atrocious for an average sized company with thin profit margins.

Eventually, Mozilla accepted the fact that WebM failed to get universal adoption (because of various crooks who hate the open Web), so they added support for H.264, but they avoided shipping the decoder. The way they did is a workaround. They said, if decoder is already available on your system, then Firefox would use that (for Windows it can be DirectShow filter installed, on Linux it's Gstreamer plugin and so on). And if it's not available - there is nothing Mozilla can do it about. Because of that they don't need to pay anything to MPEG-LA.

See this article for more details: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/

GOG is in the similar situation and even worse, since they sell videos as a commercial service. I don't think they need to bother with any of this if they simply avoid shipping any players altogether. Streaming using H.26x however will remain a huge problem for GOG, especially when it will scale beyond certain amount.

Also, on related subject, see this article about sick trend of adding DRM into the HTML standard itself:

https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/

I hope such efforts as this push for DRM-free films from GOG can put an end to these sickening DRM developments. And open codecs like Daala and Opus can put an end to patent trolling and tolls placed on the Web services and developers.
Okay I get that... but what about just using MKV with the MKV codec since it's open source? Apparently I read GOG is adding an MKV option over MP4 for those who want that... again this isn't my area really so just curious.
Posted September 01, 2014
avatar
MKV is not a codec. It's a free container format called Matroska: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matroska
WebM uses the same container for instance.

Container is just a way to package the video and audio data. It can use various different codecs inside, which can be the same H.264 and AAC. MP4 is just another container that can be used.

Here is a good overview of this subject which explains differences between containers, codecs and etc:

* https://www.xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml
* [url=https://wiki.xiph.org/A_Digital_Media_Primer_For_Geeks_(episode_1)]https://wiki.xiph.org/A_Digital_Media_Primer_For_Geeks_(episode_1)[/url]
Post edited September 01, 2014 by shmerl
Posted September 01, 2014
avatar
BKGaming: Okay I get that... but what about just using MKV with the MKV codec since it's open source? Apparently I read GOG is adding an MKV option over MP4 for those who want that... again this isn't my area really so just curious.
avatar
shmerl: MKV is not a codec. It's a free container format called Matroska: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matroska
WebM uses the same container for instance.

Container is just a way to package the video and audio data. It can use various different codecs inside, which can be the same H.264 and AAC. MP4 is just another container that can be used.

Here is a good overview of this subject which explains differences between containers, codecs and etc:

* https://www.xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml
* [url=https://wiki.xiph.org/A_Digital_Media_Primer_For_Geeks_(episode_1)]https://wiki.xiph.org/A_Digital_Media_Primer_For_Geeks_(episode_1)[/url]
Interesting, I knew MKV was a container but I thought it had it's own codec too. What about converting the video/audio to an open source codec or one with no fees, isn't that possible?
Post edited September 01, 2014 by user deleted
Posted September 01, 2014
avatar
BKGaming: Interesting, I knew MKV was a container but I thought it had it's on codec too. What about converting the video/audio to an open source codec or one with no fees, isn't that possible?
That could be ideal. Right now the best available and production ready option is WebM with VP9 + Vorbis or VP9 + Opus. But then you'll right way hear people complaining that such video doesn't play in their browsers (thanks to MS and Apple sabotage) or on their embedded players (thanks to MPEG-LA and Nokia sabotage and general slow adoption of modern day codecs by hardware manufacturers).

Youtube had exactly the same problem, and Google until this days ships videos both in WebM (VPx + Vorbis) and MP4 (H.26x + AAC), except that Youtube doesn't pay royalties for MP4 since it's a free streaming service.

That's why everyone who cares about open Web is so eagerly anticipating the arrival of Daala. Because it has a chance to fix this huge mess.
Post edited September 01, 2014 by shmerl
Posted September 01, 2014
avatar
BKGaming: Interesting, I knew MKV was a container but I thought it had it's on codec too. What about converting the video/audio to an open source codec or one with no fees, isn't that possible?
avatar
shmerl: That could be ideal. Right now the best available and production ready option is WebM with VP9 + Vorbis or VP9 + Opus. But then you'll right way hear people complaining that such video doesn't play in their browsers (thanks to MS and Apple sabotage) or on their embedded players (thanks to MPEG-LA and Nokia sabotage and general slow adoption of modern day codecs by hardware manufacturers).

Youtube had exactly the same problem, and Google until this days ships videos both in WebM (VPx + Vorbis) and MP4 (H.26x + AAC), except that Youtube doesn't pay royalties for MP4 since it's a free streaming service.

That's why everyone who cares about open Web is so eagerly anticipating the arrival of Daala. Because it has a chance to fix this huge mess.
Well I'm more concerned about the downloaded video than the streamed video, they can separate that if need be and convert the downloaded video to a different codec.

Or if need be stream directly from GOG Galaxy (or play from hard-drive if downloaded) and not worry about the browser issues... and the fees. Convert to open source and be done with it. Offer people who don't use Galaxy a download copy, but no streaming (if your streaming it you can download it).

For people on a phone, simply make a GOG app that does that same.

EDIT: I was just reading about Daala defiantly looks interesting for an open source project.... they made FLAC right?
Post edited September 01, 2014 by user deleted
Posted September 01, 2014
avatar
shmerl: That could be ideal. Right now the best available and production ready option is WebM with VP9 + Vorbis or VP9 + Opus. But then you'll right way hear people complaining that such video doesn't play in their browsers (thanks to MS and Apple sabotage) or on their embedded players (thanks to MPEG-LA and Nokia sabotage and general slow adoption of modern day codecs by hardware manufacturers).

Youtube had exactly the same problem, and Google until this days ships videos both in WebM (VPx + Vorbis) and MP4 (H.26x + AAC), except that Youtube doesn't pay royalties for MP4 since it's a free streaming service.
avatar
BKGaming: Well I'm more concerned about the downloaded video than the streamed video, they can separate that if need be and convert the downloaded video to a different codec.

Or if need be stream directly from GOG Galaxy (or play from hard-drive if downloaded) and not worry about the browser issues... and the fees. Convert to open source and be done with it. Offer people who don't use Galaxy a download copy, but no streaming (if your streaming it you can download it).

For people on a phone, simply make a GOG app that does that same.
Once you start converting on the fly, you already deal with encoders and decoders. Encoding in H.26x? Pay up to MPEG-LA. And I don't think GOG want to exclude some percentage of their users from streaming the video because their browser is crippled. I personally don't mind it though, but users will be upset because not all people understand these issues and they'll blame GOG.

Also, lack of hardware decoding for certain codec makes it barely usable on mobile devices which have limited charge. Software decoding is more CPU intensive and eats the battery much faster. The bottom line, support for open codecs like VPx now is not widespread enough to avoid using H.26x altogether. This makes MPEG-LA very happy and they do all they can to keep things this way. It makes all services which are stuck in this horrible mess sad.
Post edited September 01, 2014 by shmerl
Posted September 01, 2014
avatar
BKGaming: Well I'm more concerned about the downloaded video than the streamed video, they can separate that if need be and convert the downloaded video to a different codec.

Or if need be stream directly from GOG Galaxy (or play from hard-drive if downloaded) and not worry about the browser issues... and the fees. Convert to open source and be done with it. Offer people who don't use Galaxy a download copy, but no streaming (if your streaming it you can download it).

For people on a phone, simply make a GOG app that does that same.
avatar
shmerl: Once you start converting on the fly, you already deal with encoders and decoders. Encoding in H.26x? Pay up to MPEG-LA. And I don't think GOG want to exclude some percentage of their users from streaming the video because their browser is crippled. I personally don't mind it though, but users will be upset because not all people understand these issues and they'll blame GOG.

Also, lack of hardware decoding for certain codec makes it barely usable on mobile device which have limited charge. Software decoding is more CPU intensive and eats the battery much faster. The bottom line, support for open codecs like VPx now is not widespread enough to avoid using H.26x altogether. This makes MPEG-LA very happy and they do all they can to keep things this way. It makes all services which are stuck in this horrible mess sad.
Hmmm, anyway thanks for explanation... I know many things (I'm currently going after a degree in computer programming), but I not much of a video guy so I don't keep up with this much. Hopefully GOG finds a way around this and can offer this for those who want it.
Posted September 01, 2014
avatar
BKGaming: Hmmm, anyway thanks for explanation... I know many things (I'm currently going after a degree in computer programming), but I not much of a video guy so I don't keep up with this much. Hopefully GOG finds a way around this and can offer this for those who want it.
I'm not working on video processing much either, but I care about open Web so I keep track of important developments related to it :) And the "codecs war" of open vs closed and related subjects is quite a turbulent topic, which however remains obscure to the public at large because of its technicalities. Most people think in terms of "who cares - it's all video / audio, isn't it?". While in practice it has a serious impact on the Web in general and on efforts of keeping it open and not becoming beholden to control of gatekeepers and trolls who place fees for entering it and making some new service and so on.
Posted September 01, 2014
Why is GOG offering purchase when most people rent? It make almost zero sense to buy movies when people view them once.
Posted September 01, 2014
avatar
Garrison72: Why is GOG offering purchase when most people rent? It make almost zero sense to buy movies when people view them once.
You're probably just trolling, but really? Why buy games when you can rent?
Posted September 01, 2014
avatar
Garrison72: Why is GOG offering purchase when most people rent? It make almost zero sense to buy movies when people view them once.
Renting of digital goods is nonsense even if people view them once and people rent only because major distributors feed them such nonsense by not allowing them to buy video properly. Digital renting is also strongly tied to the whole sick DRM mentality. Read the thread above, this subject was already explained in detail:

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree_movies/post350
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree_movies/post355
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree_movies/post360
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree_movies/post362
Post edited September 01, 2014 by shmerl
Pages:
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
33
34
35
36
37
40
43
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionIntroducing GOG.com DRM-Free Movies(632 posts)(632 posts)
(632 posts)