MPAA Ruins Own Films As Anti-Piracy Measure 732
WCityMike writes "Steve Kraus, a Chicago film projectionist, noted in this week's Movie Answer Man column that movie studios are quite purposefully putting 'large reddish brown spots that flash in the middle of the picture, usually placed in a light area' in order to ruin computer-compressed pirated copies of films. Among recent films that feature these spots are 'Ali,' 'Behind Enemy Lines,' '28 Days Later,' 'Freddy vs. Jason' and 'Underworld.' (I guess they had to destroy the movies in order to save them ... )"
I watched the DL'ed version of one of these and... (Score:1, Interesting)
Okay, so now they know. Now what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The movie company then downloads the film, see's the spots and tracks it to my theater. Now what? Are they going to shake down the theater owners, untill they install security and metal detectors?
How does this really prevent anything, aside from viewers like me having just ANOTHER excuse to wait until the DVD comes ou and rent that, rather then deal with tampered film (among the other lame problems of theater viewing, like ticket prices, travel, lines, food, seating, etc)?
Re:bleh (Score:3, Interesting)
P.S. Yes, I know I may have just ruined it for a bunch of you too, but why should I be the only one to suffer. (=
Copy release tracking? (Score:2, Interesting)
Quick, patent this!
Just Remove the Frame? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't care (Score:5, Interesting)
Can't bring in outside food or drink anymore. Can't even bring in a backpack, either - post 9/11 fears and "anti-piracy measures" gone too far.
I don't care if the movie looks like crap on my computer. I'm not interested in keeping most movies anyway. If I like it, I'll go see it in the theatre or wait for the DVD.
This really isn't a bad thing. Heck, since the MPAA is purposely altering movies, maybe they should go ahead and let us download stuff and leave p2p alone. If the stuff on p2p is of such low-quality, what is the big problem?
Oh, the problem is that we'll watch it and realize that the movie sucks and we won't shell out $$ to go see it.
I wish I could have my money back from John Carpenter's "Vampires" - aside from 1 hot nude chick, that movie was a total waste of time and money.
Re:Didn't see it (Score:1, Interesting)
Care to cite us to a particular law that "makes it illegal in the US," Clarence Darrow, Jr.? "I'm pretty sure it qualifies as subliminal advertising" doesn't cut it in the specificity department, as "pretty sure" isn't really verifiable, and it's hard to see how a simple red dot constitutes "advertising". And in any event, there are no federal or state laws governing subliminal advertising, since the whole idea is a pile of monkey stool.
Please keep your uninformed legal opinions to your own hygenically-challeneged self.
Re:Hmmm... I didn't even notice (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:someone had to say it... (Score:2, Interesting)
Are they aware that I would never consider spending a dime on Freddy Vs. Jason and that the only way I would watch that movie is if I download it?
I mean, a good movie comes out, I go see it in the theatre just for the experience. A shit movie comes out, I don't go see it. It's not called piracy, it's called shit.
Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
This amazes me considering that DVD movie technology, and by extension, digital movie files, naturally involve a measureable loss of detail and quality over, say, watching it in a theater.
It almost sounds like a desparate measure; as if someone out there threw the idea out without taking into consideration how little quality matters when it comes to satisfying the average DVD consumer.
Re:bleh (Score:5, Interesting)
At the first cue mark, 8 seconds from the end of the reel, you'd roll the second projector and uncap the arc lamp. At the second cue mark, you'd close a shutter on the first projector, open the shutter on the second, and throw the sound feed over the the second.
After you changed over to the other projector, you had to shut off the carbon arc, unload and rewind the film on the first projector, thread it up with the next real, check the carbon arcs, and go back to sleep for 10 minutes.
And yeah, I still always see the cue marks.
Re:brown spots? (Score:3, Interesting)
I watched a divx rip of a dvd screener of Bruce Almighty, and where he looks at his beeper, it shows something like 555-1234, but when he reads it out load, he mentions a completely different number. Now, I find it hard to believe this is an error (it's not even a 555-number, and a quick look on imdb.com reveals it's not been noted as a goof, so it's probably only in the screener. Now, if every copy of the screener has a different number in the audio track, it would be easy to spot who leaked it.
Re:The real solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:bleh (Score:3, Interesting)
VERY ANNOYING!
RTFA (Score:4, Interesting)
As pointed out beautifully in the article you should have read. Now ask yourself - why would they NEED to enlarge them, if not to screw with compression, in the same way the RIAA has done with sound recordings? RIAA put spikes in that don't play badly, but that really screw with attempts to rip to mp3, resulting in pops and cracks. The MPAA is just combining two technologies here.
Re:solution? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes!
Then I'll corner the film piracy market with my portable 8mm film camera, which will still make a perfect, er, near perfect copy of the film after an EMP burst.
555 (Score:5, Interesting)
I researched this a year ago when working out a fake number to use in a book, and finally have the opportunity to share this worthless information...
Re:Add value... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Didn't see it (Score:2, Interesting)
Schism (Score:3, Interesting)
They want us to watch these films.
They want us to hear the music.
But at the same time these entities want your money many times over and in as many ways as possible that they'll take such irrational actions such as suing the very people who are buying their products or changing formats the physical formats of the products every decade or so just to "keep up with technology".
Re:The real solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Traditional macrovision only affects the brightness in areas of the screen that you can't see (either above or below, I forget which). The idea is that this fools the AGC (automatic gain control) on many VCRs into adjusting the brightness of the entire picture to compensate. Unless your TV also has an AGC it really shouldn't be noticeable. I'm pretty sure that there have been additions/changes to macrovision over the years though so maybe there are some additional tricks they use these days (chances are google knows). I'd be curious if using a different set of outputs from your DVD player makes a difference.
Re:someone had to say it... (Score:3, Interesting)
I purchased it myself. Mostly because I still think they have better potential for great music and I want them to make another CD. It would be nice for them to drop the whole grung bass/guitar crap and get back to metal with awe inspiring guitar riffs.
Re:someone had to say it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Who is fooled? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not really a big deal? (Score:2, Interesting)
The MPAA has been putting dots in films (reels) for years now. They serialize where the film came from if it ever shows up somewhere it shouldn't (eg. auction house, different theater, or yes, your home living room).
Disney was one of the initial big backers of this technology. They are particularly careful about who gets their reels of film once the movie runs. The usual answer: "No one."
Production/Distrobution companies own the reels and movie houses (AMC, Cinemarc, etc) only get the rights to show the reels. Typically they don't own them outright and at the end of their lifespan they have to be sent back to be vaulted up or destroyed.
Anyway, these codes are a newer technology based off of 'cap codes.' The dots are usually put in one or two frames near the middle of the print in a 3x3 grid with only some of the dots showing. (Eg. five dots in a 'T' formation).
The move was because with most current compression technologies will make the whole screen get brighter unless those frames are removed before encoding.
The better pirating groups will usually seem them edit them out by either just dumping the frames and copying the ones before it and after it. (at 28/32 FPS, you won't see the effects) or they take a morph of the two and make an 'averaged' frame.
These are much more obtrusive than the original 'cap codes' but they hardly ruin a movie any more than the 'cigarette burns' that show up which are just as noticable.
Newer technologies which have not been implemented involve a form of visual stegonography where they can slightly alter the frame in certain places to do the same thing without the large brown dots. Infact they can do it throughout the entire film which would make it hard to just toss a few frames.
Re:No, it isn't lossy at all... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here's a screenshot (Score:2, Interesting)
What they don't seem to realize is that as technology progresses -- and gets cheaper -- going OUT to the movies is an experience than more and more people can surpass in the comfort of their own living rooms. All they have to do is wait. And with the general quality of what's coming out, why not wait?
Lest anyone think this post completely off topic, my original point had to do with the quality of the print as it relates to the filmgoing experience. I was once at a screening of Lawrence of Arabia at the Director's Guild. It being Lawrence, there were the usual number of power players in attendance. The print was unbelievably gorgeous -- crisp, clear, and clean -- like it had been struck the day before. Better even than the DVD (which isn't color timed properly.) In only one place was there a slightly jumpy transition between reels -- and by slight, I mean virtually unnoticeable, not some huge explosion on the soundtrack where the audio didn't mesh together. After the show, as everyone was leaving, I happened to pass by this small cluster of people who were in the process of just tearing this poor guy a new one. Turns out he was the projectionist, and the Powers that Be were livid that this one tiny mistake "ruined" their presentation.
While it was completely unprofessional to have upbraided this guy in public, they're obviously a lot more sensitive to these sorts of things than most moviegoers. The DGA would have never let a print with this sort of marking through their front doors. Try getting your money back from a theatre on something like that...
Re:Why do ugly watermarking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe they'll fine a cinema if a pirated version of their print surfaces. That would give an incentive to control access to the prints and stop people from bringing cameras into the theater.
Another technique might be to briefly mask different parts of the frame, or vary the frame rate slightly, to confound video cameras (like a CRT monitor refresh - you can adjust a video camera for a particular constant rate, but it would be hard if the rate varied a lot).
And I agree that any measure that perceptibly alters the experience for normal audiences is reprehensible.
full of it (Score:2, Interesting)
This info came from a Kodak rep on the Film Tech website about a year ago.