Talk:DVD region code

/Archive 1

Added "Criticism" section

In addition to the legal issues, which are very interesting, there should be a section on general criticism. Many criticisms have been voiced on this talk page without taking this appropriate step. The section could definitely be better developed, so I invite editors to contribute to it.94.222.208.225 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yabut, you're duplicating information already found in the article. The ACCC paragraph is fine. Your ref simply makes it better (now with four, instead of three, Australian refs). The "Legal concerns" section could legitimately be retitled "Criticism", however section titles should not be changed for "light and transient reasons" as they are linked to off Wikipedia. My point is: These are all about the same organization that has the concern: ACCC. These references should all be kept together in the article, for the reader to understand that this one org has four separate cited concerns. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The information was not redundant, because that section is still limited to "legal concerns," a very specific criticism. Many voices on this talk page have voiced other criticisms, yet there is no space to include them. I am not aware of any guideline where sources should be confined to one section. Yes, let's find additional sources- shouldn't be too hard. The problem is the section now is so narrowly focused as to discourage developing it. I agree, let's either retitle the section or have a new one, but the old version does not make sense. Either solution is better than just reverting.94.222.212.140 (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I found some additional sources (Washington Post article, etc.) and expanded the section into a "Criticism and Legal Concerns" section. I hope this solution finds consensus. Also the discussion of legal concerns includes the situation in Australia, New Zealand and the European Union - all with refs.94.222.212.140 (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I agree with 94.222.xxx.xxx's concerns about "the legal concerns" section, and I agree it should be widened (with sources). The current changes I agree with, as they contain cited sources. I am not against adding info, I am only against redundancy for the reader of the article. Now that the section is expanded to "Criticism and Legal Concerns" I say, "Have at it", just give me a source. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete this sentence?

In the article it says "On Feb. 7, 2001, NASA sent two multiregion DVD players to the International Space Station.[26]" While true it's neither informative, illustrative or actually all that interesting. Unlike the former sentence "In March 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown received a "wrong region" message on a screen when attempting to watch a DVD set of classic American movies received as a diplomatic gift from US President Barack Obama.[25]" which clearly illustrates a criticism. Why is the NASA sentence there? RamdomWolf 198.96.34.35 (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What DVD region is French Guiana?

is it "part of France" and thus Region 2, or is it part of "South America" and thus in Region 4? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.125.229 (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, as a French overseas territory, French Guiana is presumably region 2, although the DVD region information listed on Amazon.co.uk lists French Guiana as Region 4 (See: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=502554). Jammycaketin (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed someone has written that South America except French Guiana is Region 4. Is there a reference for this? As I wrote above, I found French Guiana specifically listed under Region 4 on Amazon.co.uk, although I don't know if there are any sources to suggest otherwise. Please add a reference if you can, otherwise I would suggest that the 'except' be deleted and a reference to the Amazon page added. Thank you. Jammycaketin (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article you cited more carefully. The "French territories" categorization is for BluRay region coding and not for DVD region codes. The article you reference specifically lists French Guiana as region 4. Also, the term "French Overseas Territories" has a very specific meaning and is not correctly used here. That refers specifically and solely to [French Southern and Antarctic Lands]. While "French territories" is generally used to mean France plus all of its "overseas departments and territories." Those other members of the list are not Territories but are Departments and presently the only remaining member considered to be an "Overseas Territory" under French law is the one I mentioned. Though since even the correctly named or described categorization is not wholly placed in any one region, I suppose the semantic point is moot.

It may be best just to copy the more complete lists found in the reference sites or at least linking to one. France is particularly hard to pin down since it has so many categorizations for so little kinds of departments and territories. Here is a much more specific breakdown than I have been able to find elsewhere (see: http://www.astrakan.ca/dvd-blu-ray-regions/) - but be sure not to mix up BluRay and DVD regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.165.250 (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

New Caledonia?

The map shows it as region 2 (probably due to being French), while the article implies (being part of Oceania) that it's region 4.

According to this PDF it's region 4, but I don't know how accurate that is -- it's just something I found in 20 seconds of googling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.11.50 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Made changes because of numerues errors

Hello,
Had to make several changes in the article, because of almost 10 errors spotted. First of all it's not true that a country or territory can be in two regions at the same time. (In the same way that for example the state of Maine cannot belong to both USA and Canada at the same).
Also it's not true that european DVDs has been further coded for the countries they are intended used, making them impossible to play outside these countries. These codes are just internal codes used by Warner, and any DVD bought in UK will play OK in Norway, and vice versa no matter what D or Z lettering that are printed on the cover.
The only extra coding possible in addition to the regions, are the RCE system used on a few USA, Can and Jap discs to create problems for people buying discs outside their region.
It is staten that R0 disc are common in China and Phillipines. As far as I know they're common in all DVD producing countries of the world. At least 40% of my very international DVD collection is Region 0. All countries are richly represented.
The main thing causing confusing is the territories of USA, UK, Fra and Hol laying thousands of km away from the mainland in a different region. (All of them islands, except French Guyana). US territories are counted into R1, and french territories are counted as R2 'cos they're ruled from Paris with very limited independence. But what about UK and Hol territories? Some are goverened tighly from London and Amsterdam, while others, especially those laying in the Caribbean are almost ruling themselves as own countries. Not even bothering using their "motherland's" currency.
Also there are no such thing as SECAM DVDs. All SECAM countries (except Cuba) changed to PAL, when DVD was introduced. (SECAM was a video system made in France 1965). There is just two systems on DVD: NTSC and PAL.

Best regards

Stein S., Oslo, Norway

P.S. I come back and make further changes, when I have time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.93.233 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss your changes first; the material you have (repeatedly) added introduces numerous errors into the article. There are some spelling errors, you have added uncited opinions, and there is no real need to change the country names in the way that you have. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that countries that used SECAM changed to PAL with the introduction of DVD. DVDs are neither SECAM nor PAL as both terms refer to two different methods of adding colour information to an analogue television signal. The term 'PAL' is usually incorrectly used on DVD packaging to signify a 720x576 pixel format picture (equivalent to the analogue 625 line system). Note that the same argument is not quite so true of the term 'NTSC' which also refers to the 525 line television system as well as the colour system frequently employed with it, but not to any digital format including DVD. Although DVDs sold in France (for example) are marked as being in 'PAL' format, France's analogue television broadcasts nevertheless remain in SECAM. 86.184.24.140 (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Bermuda is NOT in Region 1 etc.

Hello,

Instead of looking at all these listings written off each other all over the internet. I went straight to the source itself, Hollywood. (They must know since they invented the system). Out of my ca. 90 DVDs bought from USA Hollywood companies, 23 is genuine R1 discs (found it out on my PC drive). And by reading on the backcover of these DVDs all of them "are inteded for use in USA, Canada and US territories". Not even 1 out of 23 mentions "Bermuda". That must count as some sort of proof.

By the way, why would they bother to take Bermuda in? It just don't make sense. It's a british colony getting the supplies from the "motherland".

Also, all regions maps on the internet shows not only Russia, Belarus and Ukraine as in Region 5. But in fact the entire Former Soviet Union. Meaning that also Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (the Baltic states) and Moldova are included too.

There's no such thing as SECAM DVDs. To prove this I suggest you go to Ebay, and search for russian or french DVDs. And no matter how many backcovers you maginfy it will always say PAL. (All countries that used SECAM videos (except Cuba), changed to PAL with the introduction of DVD).

Lastly Hong Kong does NOT use both R3 and R6. I've got ca. 60 HK DVDs at home and when examing them on my PC drive, ca. 40 has R3 and NON have R6 or R3+R6.
The article has a number of issues, that has to be sorted out.

Best regards

Stein S., Oslo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.93.233 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

history

This article has no clear explanation on how this sistem was born, or about who created it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.84.169 (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The very first paragraph has the why and certainly implies the who. 86.184.24.140 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)