Editing DIVX (section)

===Opposition===
Almost immediately after the format's reveal, a movement on the Internet was initiated against DIVX, particularly in home theater forums by existing owners of the then-still nascent DVD format.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,14125,00.html |title=DVD owners dis Divx|first=Jim|last=Davis|date=September 10, 1997|website=CNET News |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19990116224259/http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,14125,00.html|archive-date=January 16, 1999|url-status=dead|access-date=September 18, 2019}}</ref> Broader groups of consumers had environmental concerns with the format, since under the advertised "no returns" model a disc would be discarded as waste once the initial user was done with it, rather than being reused as they were under the traditional rental model.<ref name=EGM104/> Both companies that created the DVD format ([[Sony]] and [[Toshiba]]) also denounced DIVX, as did major studio distributor [[Warner Home Video]] (who was the first major American studio to distribute DVD)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.e-town.com/news/articles/divxtoshiba091097dea.html|title=DIVX No, Say Sony and Toshiba |first=David J.|last=Elrich|date=September 10, 1997|website=E/Town News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19990117090503/http://www.e-town.com/news/articles/divxtoshiba091097dea.html|archive-date=January 17, 1999|url-status=dead|access-date=September 18, 2019}}</ref> and the [[DVD Forum]] (a consortium of developers on the format who standardized DVDs).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nb-pacifica.com/headline/dvdforumsaysdivxwill_1084.shtml |title=DVD Forum Says DIVX Will Confuse Consumers |first=Martyn|last=Williams|date=September 19, 1997 |website=Newsbytes Pacifica|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19980130171517/http://www.nb-pacifica.com/headline/dvdforumsaysdivxwill_1084.shtml|archive-date=January 30, 1998 |url-status=dead|access-date=September 18, 2019}}</ref> Titles in the DIVX catalog were released primarily in [[pan and scan]] format with limited special features, usually only a trailer (although a few widescreen titles did arrive on the format in early December 1998<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.twice.com/domains/cahners/twice/archives/webpage_3401.htm |title=Divx Prepares To Ship First Widescreen Titles|first=Greg|last=Tarr|date=November 19, 1998 |website=TWICE|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19990224041132/http://www.twice.com/domains/cahners/twice/archives/webpage_3401.htm|archive-date=February 24, 1999|url-status=dead|access-date=September 18, 2019}}</ref>). This caused many home theater enthusiasts to become concerned that the success of DIVX would significantly diminish the release of films on the DVD format in the films' original [[Aspect ratio (image)|aspect ratios]] and with supplementary material. Some early demos were also noted to have unique instances of [[compression artifact|artifacting]] on the discs that were not present on standard DVDs.<ref name=FirstLookAtDivxPlayer/> Many people in various technology and entertainment communities were afraid that there would be DIVX exclusive releases, and that the then-fledgling DVD format would suffer as a result. [[DreamWorks Pictures|DreamWorks]], [[20th Century Fox]], and [[Paramount Pictures]], for instance, initially released their films exclusively on the DIVX format (something that DIVX did not originally intend to happen).<ref name=KinderGentler/><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20071007094046/http://www.digitalbits.com/articles/oldstudionews/paramount.html] The Digital Bits: Paramount jumps on DVD wagon; Fox, DreamWorks still out</ref> DIVX featured stronger encryption technology than DVD ([[Triple DES]] instead of [[Content Scramble System|CSS]]) which many studios stated was a contributing factor in the decision to support DIVX.<ref>[http://www.digitalbits.com/articles/oldstudionews/paramount.html Studio & DVD News - Paramount] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071007094046/http://www.digitalbits.com/articles/oldstudionews/paramount.html |date=October 7, 2007}}</ref> Others cited the higher price of DIVX-compatible DVD players and rental costs as their reason for opposing the format,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?CRW19971013S0019|title=Supporting new technology @ retail -- Should everyone pay the price for Divx?|first=Warren|last=Mann|date=October 13, 1997|website=TechWeb |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000305082622/http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?CRW19971013S0019|archive-date=March 5, 2000|url-status=dead|access-date=September 18, 2019}}</ref> with one declaring DIVX as "holding my VCR hostage".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/circuits/articles/28pete.html |title=Life After the VCR: Choosing DVD or Divx|first=Peter H.|last=Lewis|date=January 28, 1999|website=The New York Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020226014736/http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/circuits/articles/28pete.html|archive-date=February 26, 2002|url-status=dead|access-date=September 18, 2019}}</ref> One online poll surveyed 786 people on the format, of which nearly 97% disapproved of the format's concept,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.e-town.com/news/articles/polldivx092597swb.html|title=Poll: DIVX Horribilis|date=September 25, 1997|website=E/Town News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19990117010303/http://www.e-town.com/news/articles/polldivx092597swb.html|archive-date=January 17, 1999|url-status=dead|access-date=September 18, 2019}}</ref> and another poll in December 1998 reflected 86% disapproval even if the format were free – a testament to the fierce online backlash the format received.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.guidetohometheater.com/showvote.cgi?61|title=Poll: If Divx were a free option, would you prefer a player with it built-in?|date=December 13, 1998 |website=Stereophile Guide to Home Theater|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020131031739/http://www.guidetohometheater.com/showvote.cgi?61|archive-date=January 31, 2002|url-status=dead|access-date=September 18, 2019}}</ref> As early as December 1997, news outlets were already calling the format a failure for Circuit City.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://techweb.cmp.com/crw/news/divx1219.html|title=Divx expensive loser for Circuit City in 1998|date=December 19, 1997|website=TechWeb|access-date=September 18, 2019}} {{Dead link|date=September 2019|fix-attempted=yes}}</ref><!-- Need an active version of this article! -->

In addition to the hostile Internet response, competitors such as [[Hollywood Video]] ran advertisements touting the benefits of "Open DVD" over DIVX, with one ad in the [[Los Angeles Times]] depicting a hand holding a telephone line with the caption: "Don't let anyone feed you the line." The terminology "Open DVD" had been used by DVD supporters and later Sony themselves;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://e-town.com/news/articles/sony022698dea.html|title=Sony Disses DIVX|first=David J.|last=Elrich|date=February 26, 1998|website=E/Town News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19990423213637/http://e-town.com/news/articles/sony022698dea.html|archive-date=April 23, 1999|url-status=dead|access-date=September 18, 2019}}</ref> in response to DIVX's labeling of DVD as "Basic DVD" and DIVX/DVD players as "DIVX-enhanced". Other retailers, such as [[Best Buy]], also had their concerns, most of them citing possible customer confusion and cumbersomeness with the two formats.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.e-town.com/news/articles/divxretail091597xxt.html|title=Retailers Wary of DIVX|first=David J.|last=Elrich|date=September 15, 1997|website=E/Town News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19990117001138/http://www.e-town.com/news/articles/divxretail091597xxt.html|archive-date=January 17, 1999|url-status=dead|access-date=September 18, 2019}}</ref> [[Pay-per-view]] companies were also concerned with the format intruding on their business sector, namely with their objective of single-use rentals of a film being offered to the consumer.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mediacentral.com/Magazines/CableWorld/News97/1997091502.htm|title=Home Video, PPV: Nix on Divx Format|first1=Kim|last1=Mitchell |first2=Jim|last2=Barthold|date=September 15, 1997|website=Media Central|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19981205032703/http://www.mediacentral.com/Magazines/CableWorld/News97/1997091502.htm|archive-date=December 5, 1998|url-status=dead|access-date=September 18, 2019}}</ref>

However, early concerns of alleged or feared constant usage of the phone line proved to be somewhat exaggerated, as all players needed to do was verify its usage twice a month.<ref name=KinderGentler/> Despite this, informational-freedom advocates were concerned that the players' "dial-home" ability could be used to spy on people's watching habits,<ref name=sfgate/> as well as copyright and privacy concerns about its licensing of the media, with some alleging it violated [[fair use policy|fair-use]] laws entirely.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/6947.html|title=Divx Protects Content, But Not Your Liberties|first=Michael|last=Stutz|date=September 17, 1997|magazine=Wired|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19981205194250/http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/6947.html|archive-date=December 5, 1998|url-status=dead|access-date=September 18, 2019}}</ref>

Allegations of anti-competitive [[vaporware]], as well as concerns within the software industry prompted David Dranove of [[Northwestern University]] and Neil Gandal of [[Tel Aviv University]] and [[University of California, Berkeley]], to conduct an empirical study designed to measure the effect of the DIVX announcement on the [[DVD]] market. This study suggests that the DIVX announcement slowed the adoption of DVD technology. According to Dranove and Gandal, the study suggests that the "general antitrust concern about vaporware seems justified".<ref>{{cite journal| url=http://repositories.cdlib.org/iber/cpc/CPC01-016/| title=The DVD vs. DIVX Standard War: Empirical Evidence of Vaporware| first=David| last=Dranove| author2=Neil Gandal| date=November 1, 2000| journal=Competition Policy Center| id=Paper CPC01-016| access-date=April 16, 2010| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091016165843/http://repositories.cdlib.org/iber/cpc/CPC01-016/| archive-date=October 16, 2009| url-status=live}}</ref>