Camcorder Jamming Devices Announced 583
Adam Carrington writes "I'm definitely not behind things like DRM, but Virginia-based Cinea has an idea that I do support... jamming camcorders in movie theaters. CNET has some interesting details on how they plan on going about it. They even throw an unrelated jab at Microsoft." This might be the technology that drives the stake in analog projection.
Great for Kazaa!! (Score:5, Funny)
Screeners? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where are those screeners coming from? Well, the film industry of course!!!!!
Re:Great for Kazaa!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great for Kazaa!! (Score:3, Insightful)
When I break a law, it is almost always because I find it too difficult to keep, or change, or repeal: my lawbreaking is a matter of immediate convenience. Sometimes, when challenged, I parrot various catchphrases as an excuse: "The infraction is trivial!"; "The law is unjust!"; "I'm not hurting anyone!"; "Or if I am, they deserve to be hurt!"
On closer inspection, these excuses seem to be unsubstantiated, poorly reasoned, or obviously weak. In the end, my lawbreaking is nothing more than the instant gratification of my desires--hardly a good reason to abandon the conventions of my society (and note that one of these conventions is that all laws, no matter how trivial or annoying must be kept, and those that do not keep them should be punished).
Saying "such and such a law has no value" is very different from saying "keeping the Law has no value". If I find value in the Law--a system of rules to govern peaceful interactions between individuals--then I'd be very upset indeed by bad laws, since I must bear the burden of keeping them even though they do not improve society. It's precisely because I (hypothetically) value keeping the Law that bad laws are so burdensome. But if I find no value in keeping the Law, then specific laws are meaningless to me, whether good or bad. I'll ignore them all at my convenience.
Breaking a law might be the best way to improve society, but it might also contribute to a culture that devalues the Law. How does warezing movies make me a better person and a better citizen? How does it improve my community or enrich society? The answer is not clear to me, except that I know that as long as my arguments are weak, breaking the law does not do any of these things.
Any argument that began, "warezing movies improves the individual and the community because..." would interest me greatly. The arguments I have actually seen show little evidence of any attempt at reasoning, or any real concern for self- or social improvement. Should our motto really be "breaking the law is easier than fighting it"? That hardly seems a solid foundation on which to build a better system.
Justice, At Last (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Justice, At Last (Score:5, Informative)
Hesus, most people don't even know what IRC is! Is there anywhere else to go for movies?
Re:Justice, At Last (Score:2)
Hotline (if you can stand the fools), Carracho (if you've got a Mac), Kazaa(et al) if you've got a PC, ummm, Cinemas (if you've got the cash). Guess that's about it
Oh, give it a rest. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you can't download the latest Lord Of the Rings DiVX? Cry me a river.
- A.P.
Re:Oh, give it a rest. (Score:4, Insightful)
The truth is, it's just stealing. Plain and simple theft. It's more comfortable than shoplifting, because you can do it from the comfort of your own home with relatively little chance of being caught, but when you get right down to it, it's still theft. Apparently, however, some seem to believe it their right to steal.
Re:Oh, give it a rest. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's illigal, yes. It's breaking the law. However, its not theft
I mean, even the law calls it something other than theft.
Fans of The Grateful Dead or KRS-One were encouraged to bootleg shows by the copyright owners, but no formal agreements were signed by anybody
Both are illegal, both are (arguably and to varying extents) ethically wrong, but they are not the same thing. Folks who claim they are the same thing are simply parroting the cries of their sad and embattled heros, the Business 2.0 reading media/content exec. Save your breath, they have enough money and time to get their message across without you tagging along behind them waggin your tail
When it gets down to it, it behooves your survival skills to differentiate between the real world and the real world according to its current wealthy conformists. Now _theres_ a world of difference I hope you can appreciate.
Re:Oh, give it a rest. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, department stores keep a watch over their sweaters. They don't try to make a business model out of, for example: Leaving piles of sweaters unattended at busy street corners, with a sign saying "Sweaters $39.99. Please take one and put your cash payment in this evelope"
Anybody who understands human nature would see that that scheme would be utterly unworkable. Likewise, nobody should be surprised when people cheat on copyrights as soon as technology makes it cheaper and easier than buying a real copy.
Copyright infringement may not be right, but your righteous indignation isn't going to change things. The only way to stop this behavior is to make it more like a department store: physically protect the merchandise. However, this is just about impossible with copyable stuff. Too bad. If the content producers go out of business under the current model with current human nature, there'll be a shortage of content. Then somebody else will come along and figure out a new way to make money on entertainment that is more workable, and not dependent on the honesty of millions of anonymous consumers.
Re:Oh, give it a rest. (Score:5, Funny)
Bravo. Telesyncs blow. (Score:5, Funny)
Telesyncs are *SO* 1985.
tell me about it (Score:5, Funny)
and the cameraman burps. gawd.
MPEG artifacts, I can deal with. but please no more of this.
Different Jammer Needed..... (Score:5, Funny)
Frees bandwidth... (Score:5, Funny)
jam camcorders? blargh, start with mobile fones! (Score:5, Insightful)
but to jam mobile fones, that would be a good thing,
and actually increase the value of the experience
for consumers, not just for the movie houses.
for that matter, how about jamming screaming babies,
and that person in front of me with the big head,
and the person behind me who keeps kicking my seat.
rant off.
Re:jam camcorders? blargh, start with mobile fones (Score:2)
While jamming the screaming babies, etc. may be a bit difficult, I don't see why phone-jamming should be too much of a problem.
We already know that tunnels cause dead areas in cell networks. All we have to do is create this artificially in the theatre. Is it possible to create an electromagnetic jamming field that would surround a single theatre in a multiplex? That way if you absolutely must use a cell phone, you can go out into the hall or the lobby to make your call.
Re:jam camcorders? blargh, start with mobile fones (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:jam camcorders? blargh, start with mobile fones (Score:2)
How 'bout making the theatre into a Faraday cage? Blocks the transmissions, but does't have any active components.
Re:jam camcorders? blargh, start with mobile fones (Score:5, Informative)
I've seen the same effect in older buildings that used a metal mesh for plaster lath. I had to put an 802.11 AP in every room of an old house because the RF couldn't get through the walls. Cell phones wouldn't work either. Same effect in buildings whose glass windows have a high metal content.
Unfortunately (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunately (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately (Score:2)
You know, I wonder about that....what if the theater just puts a good Farraday cage around the actual screening area? That's not actively jamming, but it does interfere with the signal that the cell phones get. Would that be illegal? I'd hope not (it's just a feature of the building, not an active attempt to jam the phones), but then, I don't know, which is why I'm asking....
Re:Unfortunately (Score:2)
What I would like to see is something that forces a phone to go into vibrate mode.
Re:jam camcorders? blargh, start with mobile fones (Score:4, Funny)
Now, a screaming baby jammer, that I can agree with.
Re:jam camcorders? blargh, start with mobile fones (Score:4, Insightful)
Face it, if you're likely to receive a call that is so stupendously important that it couldn't wait until you pick up your messages, then perhaps you shouldn't have gone to the movies in the first place.
Re:jam camcorders? blargh, start with mobile fones (Score:5, Insightful)
Dammit, people, it's not that hard to be polite. You don't need to be reachable immediately at the press of a button all the time.
Re:jam camcorders? blargh, start with mobile fones (Score:5, Funny)
He/She -- whatever -- cried through the whole first part of the movie. Then something weird happened. Some noob in the projector booth flipped the volume switch up -- way up.
The move was painfully loud. My buddy Winky, ordinarily not a do-gooder, started mumbling about the annoyingly loud sound and wondering if it's actually *safe* for the baby to be there.
My other buddy, Drummer Todd, said it wasn't our business and we should just sit back and chill. In the Impala on the way over, we *did* say that we wanted a loud fucking movie with a lot of explosions.
Well, with the sound jacked, it was a loud fucking movie.
So Winky actually got up, went out into the lobby, and -- we learned all this later -- told one of the people at the popcorn booth that there was an infant in the movie and that with the sound as loud as it was, it might be a good idea to (a) turn down the sound, and (b) eject the infant.
So a few minutes later Winky comes back, sits down, and a few moments after *that*, a manager and a little guy in a red vest come looking for the info. They're shining their little light sticks all over the place trying to figure out where Winky was sitting.
Drummer Todd is telling all of us to shut the fuck up and chill, that the sound's fine, that the baby's not our business. Winky starts signalling for the ushers and a guy two rows behind us tells Winky to sit the fuck down.
Winky ignores him and nearly trips over Drummer Todd trying to get out in the aisle to flag the ushers. The couple in front of us -- the couple with the crying baby -- actually turn around to see what's going on and tell me -- me! -- to quiet down.
All this is going on while Vin Diesel has just let on that he really *is* a secret agent to the hot Russian chick while they're sitting in the cafe. She's explaining to him that there's a sniper outside and is about to cap him when he walks out. So they get up, walk over to the waiter, and whack the silver tray out of his hand. Now, it's a fine scene -- a pivotal scene in the movie -- but imagine this scene with the sound turn up so fucking loud you can't really hear anything. And then imagine a metal tray clattering and bullets flying -- all in 6.1 DTS -- or whatever they have. It was absolutely mind-numbingly loud. Truly, the single loudest experience I have *ever* had in my sixteen years of life.
Anyway, the ushers locate Winky, head on over to us, and ask the couple with the infant to please leave. They don't want to leave and it looks like a confrontation is gonna happen. All the while they're arguing with the ushers, the kid -- the fucking infant -- is balling his/her -- whatever -- head off. Balling and balling.
Finally, common sense prevails. The couple get up, glare at Winky, and -- with the infant in tow -- leave the theater. The ushers nod toward Winky, Winky nods back, and Drummer Todd tells him to sit the fuck down.
And a few moments later, the sound drops back down to normal.
And that was that. Very weird.
But I agree: forget the camcorders. Turn off the mobile phones.
And for the love of god: don't bring infants into films like XXX. It's insane.
Re:jam camcorders? blargh, start with mobile fones (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, I'll agree. The idea of 'jamming' camcorders is insane. How many times have you actually been bothered by someone with a camcorder?
The answer is none. Anybody desperate enough to film the movie is gonna be as low-key and low-in-the-seat as possible.
It's the mobile phones and beepers that oughta be jammed -- in movie theaters, restaurants, and anywhere where you, the cell phone owner, are surrounded with people who are not using cell phones and aren't even thinking about cell phones.
Re:jam camcorders? blargh, start with mobile fones (Score:4, Informative)
And that's the point: why should I care about something that doesn't benefit me? I'd much rather support a cell phone *ban* that benefits me, the movie consumer, than a slow, technological paradigm shift that will (a) raise prices, (b) create new glitches, and (c) be cracked within weeks and will only benefit rich guys like Valenti wearing Italian suits.
Babies in Movies Tips (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a 17 month old child. My wife and I have brought him to about 20 movies since he was born. This includes ATATC, LOTR, Spiderman, ect.
For those of you who have an infant child and want to bring he/she to the movie, try some of the following:
- Your kid naps. Usually like clockwork. Time your movie for when the kid is about to fall asleep. We would keep our child from napping until we actually got to the movie. This usually can get you through about half of the movie with a sleeping child.
- Breast feed/bottle. Have these ready to go when the child wakes up.
- Biter cookies (Gerber). These are intended for teething infants/todlers. These cookies are hard and if your child has yet to have much of any teeth, one cookie will keep the kid busy for a good 15 to 20 minutes. We'd bring at least 4 to 5 of them. Overkill is necessary as they get dropped on the floor.
Out of 20 or so movies, we have had to remove the baby from the theater twice. Once was because we didn't follow our own rules (family corraled us to go against our better judgement) and the other time, his teeth hurt so bad, that nothing (short term) would keep him from crying. We've learned since then that having our child pre-party with a bit of kiddie ibuprofren with a bit of ambesol if needed works wonders.
Yes, I know that those two movies that we attended with a cranky baby, likely caused a few frowns, but as we care about our own movie experiences, we were extrememly quick to remove him from the theater once he wouldn't settle down. We'd never think of staying in there with him crying.
We are getting to the point now where he usually walks where he pleases and if the movie doesn't keep him attentive, he wont want to keep in one place. We don't go as often at this point (and very rarely with him).
But maybe he could hold the video camera. That might keep him busy. After all, he can minimally use the Replay TV to start *shudder* Barney, Sesame Street, ect. 17 months old. I can barely believe it myself.
From the article (Score:3, Funny)
I'm getting out of the way right now before the flames hit. Trolls and Editors first! Run for your lives!
~Chazzf
Subliminal Messages (Score:5, Funny)
No, subliminal messages don't work, but you could still print messages on the screen (invisible to the naked eye) using this system, and then only people trying to pirate the movie with a camcorder would be treated to the messages like:
OBEY
NO ALIENS LIVE AMONG US
and so on. Then, they turn themselves in when they reveal the subliminal messages to the press! Pure genius. Alternatively, you could sell sunglasses that let you read the subliminal messages (they'd have digital camcorders built in with displays on the inside of the glasses,) AND let you see that hilarry rosen is really an alien.
Re:Subliminal Messages (Score:2)
This would actually be pretty easy to do. Just shine a bright near-IR light onto the screen, and any camcorder without an IR filter will be washed out. Ditto with soft UV, though fluoresence will be a problem.
Aleternatively you could project with "white" light made from colours that muck with the colour balance of camera detectors. What looks white to you would look ugly on camera (or to someone with partial colour blindness, though).
Alternatively, you could sell sunglasses that let you read the subliminal messages (they'd have digital camcorders built in with displays on the inside of the glasses,) AND let you see that hilarry rosen is really an alien.
If you're using the colour-balance approach, ordinary coloured filters should let you see the patterns your fake white light is making. IR and UV are a bit harder to catch cheaply (UV could be seen cheaply by focusing an image on a slide painted with fluorescent material, but near-IR is harder).
How to get your story posted on Slashdot. (Score:4, Funny)
Instantly, the story was rushed to the forefront of the other waiting stories. I can see this put to use:
WarCraft IV Announced; Microsoft Sucks!
Matrix 2.0 Details; Bill Gates hit in face with pie
NPR reports bin Laden dead; New Microsoft IIS bug found
Ah, Slashdot.
A different perspective, perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
This is similar to how the 12-year old kid who obtains a pirated copy of Photoshop to fool around with isn't really causing a net loss for Adobe because he wouldn't be able to shell-out the $650.00 (or whatever it is these days) for Adobe Photoshop 7.0.
Re:A different perspective, perhaps (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not your job to enforce what you think would be a good business model on the content producers, if they thought they could make money selling tapes for $3, they would do it. The truth is it is their content to do what they want with.
If someone started violating the terms of my GPL code because they didn't like my license, I'd be quite pissed.
If you don't like their business method, don't do business with them. But don't steal their stuff either.
What the heck comes out these days that is so great you can't wait for 6 months to see it on DVD anyway?
I appreciate our point that they tend to inflate the perception of their losses, but that doesn't stop the fact that bootlegging is illegal (and most everyone would agree, immoral.)
Re:A different perspective, perhaps (Score:3, Insightful)
It never ceases to amaze me how common it is for slashdotters to fail to understand that there is a difference between something which is infinitely reproduceable for virtually no cost and something which is not. Trying to treat them exactly the same is simply moronic.
Can *real* jamming be done? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since Americans generally are apalled by the thought of voyeurs and law enforcement alike capturing images without 'proper' permission, then a weapon like this seems like it would be incredibly useful.
I wouldn't be shocked... (Score:5, Funny)
Somehow better mousetraps just don't seem to be the answer.
But but but?! (Score:2, Funny)
License... (Score:2, Funny)
Enjoy your film.
If people would just SHUT UP! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:If people would just SHUT UP! (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said that, I go to the theater almost every weekend, and I have never had someone talk throughout the film, or had a baby cry during a movie.
Re:If people would just SHUT UP! (Score:3, Funny)
Hacking it (Score:2)
So wouldn't it be possible to record at double the frame rate and eliminate the bad frames? Or if it's just a preprogrammed watermarking technique, strip it out?
Re:Hacking it (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd imagine their copy protection scheme will be *hell* on people with epilepsy. I have done work in offices that had lighting offensive to sensitive people and can just imagine what these theaters will do for an entire audience. The people investing their money in this have no idea what they are in for...
Two problems with this (Score:2, Interesting)
The other problem is that these artifacts could be cleaned up with digital processing. With giant hard drives and fast processors, all that is needed is an app to do it.
It took about... (Score:3, Interesting)
Some friends of mine - Star Wars fans - were backpacking at that very time. They wanted to wait until they could see the movie in a proper theater but found this almost impossible as every other bar/ restaurant/ hotel was showing the movie...
Tor
Plugging my analog hole (Score:3, Insightful)
And most improtantly, I am sure that there will be a hack to get around the distortion - whether it is a run-time hack that fixes it as you record (difficult) or go back with some sort of filter to post-process it (maybe easier), I am sure it will happen. But bottom line, it won't matter - the people who watch these video-taped copies aren't in it for the fidelity, they are in it for seeing it first - a little more distortion won't stop them.
No Problems! (Score:3, Funny)
Why embed the signal into the picture at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
Camcorders are much more sensitive to infrared light than the human eye... why not just mount some infrared strobes in the front of the theater, aimed out at the audience? The people won't notice it, but the camcorders would effectively be blinded.
Re:Why embed the signal into the picture at all? (Score:2)
Re:Why embed the signal into the picture at all? (Score:2)
Maran
Re:Why embed the signal into the picture at all? (Score:5, Interesting)
Camcorders are much more sensitive to infrared light than the human eye... why not just mount some infrared strobes in the front of the theater, aimed out at the audience? The people won't notice it, but the camcorders would effectively be blinded.
That was my first thought too. Mount an infrared projector behind the screen writing various patterns and anti-piracy images. Sucks to bring home a video with "DAMN YE, PIRATE, ARRR!" written in huge letters all over the best scenes.
But the issue isn't the public recording in the public theaters, it's the employees and publicity hacks who set up a tripod in an empty theater, or better yet, rip it off the proofing screen in a projection room, or better yet, just rip the DVD press copy.
The movie industry's worst enemy is itself: it has inserted so many middlemen that it can't trust. Those middlemen have no fealty, they just want to make a buck. With every move to eliminate the middlemen, the middlemen find new ways of keeping involved.
Macrovision? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is basically how macrovision works for VCRs.
All or nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if they find ways to block 95% of camcorders from being able to read the signal, since most or all pirated copies of a given movie come from one point source, so as long as there is *any* camcorder or other solution out there, the copy will be made, and once one copy is made, that's the ballgame, since VCD-Rs and mpegs will propogate from there.
Of course, the vast majority of these copies come from Asian countries, and are often recorded in poorer neighborhoods. I'd like to see how their business plan will get this digital protection mechanism into every theater in the East, regardless of the economic level.
If they only manage to get it into 80% or even 98% of the theaters, then it doesn't do any good at all.
$3 Billion and 50% cut in piracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:$3 Billion and 50% cut in piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, this guy is headed for another bankrupcy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now why would Charlie Cinemaowner want to install this? No reason at all.
True, the studios often own the cinemas and can force him to install the gadget, but that's no guarantee that he'll actually have the thing plugged in.
Not to mention that many Asian camcorder grabs are done with the concent of the cinema owner.
(The ones where the cinema isn't fulled with
people speaking Javanese or whatever)
It's just stupid. Need I say it's not going to stop piracy,
it's just going to cost the money for the theaters.
(And that means even more expensive movie tickets!)
Sorry, Robert... (Score:2)
You don't get one without the other. Your new technology is interesting and may even disrupt piracy for a while. However, that period of time will be remarkably shorter than the time it takes you to develop your technology.
Instead of Jamming them... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, who says flickering monitors don't cause eye damage? Just because we can't easily see it doesn't mean our brain doesn't.
Stop fscking with my eyes!
Re:Instead of Jamming them... (Score:2, Interesting)
They don't want people to have to do anything. They want machines.
The fundamental problem with encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
At some point, it has to be decrypted and viewed. As long as that happens, then there won't be any way to prevent people copying it.
Remember the
The same thing with this. People can develop a program that eliminates the screen flicker, or turn down the gain on their camcorders or tap into the feed before the projection ocurrs or any number of things...
Another useless arms race.
My $0.25
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, the people who don't care about the (piss-poor) quality of 'camcorded' movies aren't going to care about some stupid watermark floating on the screen.
Another piracy-battling idea that will be ignored (by pirates) and yet make lots of $$$ for the company that brings it to market.
It seems that piracy-battling solutions are the only thing that makes $$$ while not working. That and Congress.
Higher quality piracy, right around the corner (Score:4, Informative)
This will force a new era in piracy. We've already seen the beginning with the availability of the second LoTR movie on the net before it hits theaters. All this means is that pirates will have to accept a small reduction in their proffit margins since they'll now have to bribe productuin and editing staff for advance copies of films, which will inevitably be of higher quality than those tapes by audience members in theaters.
I'm not entirely clear on why NIST is handing out grants oor research in this field though. Seems to me the products resulting from this research will have applications in limited areas of the security industry (in addition to the initial target of the motion picture industry) but have no larger societal benefit so they shouldn't be handing out grants in thie area.
--CTH
Why I love DRM! (Yeah, seriously...) (Score:5, Insightful)
Result: S/W available only as compelte .iso image with crack implemented.
Going to make theater movies unrecordable?
Result: P2P shared movies are all nicely ripped screaner DVD releases.
DRM, cleaning up the warez and vids available on P2P.
That reminds me of a time.. (Score:5, Funny)
Laser pointer (Score:2)
The irony (Score:2)
Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Great news! (Score:4, Interesting)
Quality and Cell phones (Score:2, Funny)
While they're at it, I hope they block cell phones too. The last couple of movies I went to, people actually took calls throughout the whole thing. One guy took five of them!! And of course he had one of those cutesy ring tones.
Some considerations (Score:3, Informative)
B: "screen" copies are not a product of modern piracy. They were here since videoplayer/recorders. The only difference Divx;) made was that the quality of a "screen" copy was a little better than the cassete. Anyway, people never loved "screens" and don't love them till now.
C: "screens" are usually a vector to move people to theaters. At least in the region where I live. There is a big difference seeing a good film on the monitor/TV and going to a good cinema to see it. However prices on a good cinema are not so cheap to risk going on every silly film. I remember that "The Matrix" was a box-record just because everyone has seen it before. At least, for the first week, the cinema here was stormed by a crowd of fans who knew that the Matrix has you...
So, what will be the consequences of jamming camcorders, I only guess. People go to cinema for quality. And people are different. I hope that this "jamming" will not affect some people I know about. People who are sensitive to light and frequencies with some deviation from the norm. Even most "normal" people are able to have some good deviations in their capacity to see things. I know this because I saw a lot of fantastic things while working with lots of monitors and people. So I wonder how this "jamming" would reflect on the quality of the shows.
The key to success... (Score:5, Interesting)
"There's a difference in the way a camcorder and the human eye see the world," Schumann said. "We've figured out some ways to exploit that. The trick is to make sure there is no negative impact on the viewing experience for the audience."
I would completely quit going to see movies at the theatre for $10 a show if they start to flicker to avoid copying. I'm already ticked off that most theatres are run by 17 year olds who can't focus properly.
S
"unrelated jab at Microsoft" (Score:5, Insightful)
Love the math (Score:5, Interesting)
"According to Cinea's grant abstract, the motion picture industry loses some $3 billion a year due to piracy, including the sale of illegal copies made using camcorders in theaters."
I bet this is how that was calculated:
- Seeing a show costs $10.
- "Pirate" tapes sold on the street: 18.75 million
- Said tapes viewed by 4 distinct people
- each viewer sees the movie four times.
So:
18,750,000 tapes
* 4 viewers
-------------
75,000,000
* 4 views per viewer
-------------
300,000,000 views total
* 10 dollars to see the movie, legit
-------------
3,000,000,000 dollars "lost" to piracy
Give me a break.
S
My consumer camcorder has an anti-Cinea setting... (Score:5, Informative)
And this is just a cheap consumer camcorder--and it's a feature that it has ALREADY.
I can easily believe that Cinea might be able to introduce short "tachistoscopic" artifacts that might screw up a camcorder on its normal settings, but if the camcorder's effective "simulated slow shutter speed" is 1/20 of a second or so, the artifacts will have to last 1/20th of a second or so to be visible to the camera--and at that speed, they'd be pretty visible to the naked eye.
I find it very hard to believe that the people who take videos off a movie screen don't know how to adjust their camcorders. Or that, if the Cinea scheme becomes popular, camcorder vendors will not respond with settings that are called by some other name but nudge, nudge, wink, wink designed to overcome the problem. Or that it can't be taken care of by some kind of digital processing afterward (analogous to using timebase correctors on analog VCR copy-protection schemes.)
In other words, it's a scam perpetrated on theatre owners.
Also, undoubtedly the "camcorder-jamming" artifacts are actually just as visible as, say, dirt specks flashing quickly by on individual frames of a dirty print. It may not make a lay audience walk out and demand their money back--they don't do that for dirty prints now. But people will be aware that the image quality isn't what it should be.
To a critical eye, DLP is currently SLIGHTLY inferior to traditional film projection in some regards (superior in others). Anything that tips that balance is going to be a problem. If the ordinary UNCRITICAL lay audience judges that "perfect" digital DLP actually isn't quite as good as 35mm and starts thinking of it as a cheap-and-cheesy alternative. I would think a cinema manager would be nuts to shell out a couple of hundred thousand for a DLP setup then add anything that would make the image quality worse.
All you need is two black markers... (Score:5, Funny)
They'd have to blink the film A LOT in order to break that scheme.
$2 million grant (Score:5, Insightful)
your hard earned tax dollars, not going to towards things like a faster internet, faster genome sequencing, or an aerospace plane, but instead to pay to develop a technology that will make some guy rich helping hollywood fight a fringe form of copy protection that will be dwarfed by the possibilities of direct digital piracy that will be opened up by the digital distribution/projection infrastructure this proposed technology depends upon.
wtf.
-- p
Camera rips will probably fizzle anyway... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't do that now because the film is on a big canister that needs light shone through it... but if it's just bits on a HD, the bits can be intercepted, or even copied when the movie isn't being played.
This DivX company seems doomed to failure. Now they're trying to introduce something akin to stopping people from copying CDs onto audio tapes. Sure, it might work, but those who want a copy of a CD now just rip it...
And, seems that the industry's biggest problem now is untrustable DVD screeners, honestly.
If you're about to say that there aren't HDs big enough to store a full digital projection movie, well, my HD used to get pretty full ripping an audio CD, too...
Rip the digital stream, bring it home, reencode. If it's at all possible, it'll be done. It's essentially an early copy of the DVD playing on a really nice projector. Capturing that video through a camcorder won't be necessary for much longer.
sheephead
$3Billion (Score:4, Interesting)
If not, they should shut the fuck up, or prove the statement.
No more Rodney King videos (Score:3, Offtopic)
Will it be raspberry? (Score:3, Funny)
(Jam starts running down the screen.)
Radar Tech:
Helmet: Jammed? (takes a taste of the jam) Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry. (pulls down mask) Lone Star!
Not "digital" copies at all (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not being pedantic. The reason this matters is because camcorder copies are crap and not worth watching. And this company is claiming that stopping camcorder bootlegs would bring the industry an extra $1.5e9 per year, yeah right.
They should worry about the REAL digital copies, leaked by insiders and mass-produced in the far east. (Well, they ARE worried about those, but this camcorder stuff is a joke).
In other words... (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, just how much do the producers think the videotaping of a movie off a theater screen will hurt their sales? If it's a movie I want to watch, I'd definitely not be content with watching a inferior-quality camcorder rip. The only occasion I can think of is where such a rip might prevent me from watching the movie is if the movie does not meet up to my expectations. Therefore, only the makers of awfully bad movies have to be afraid of this.
But then... 90% of Hollywood's movies are awfully bad. Okay, I understand now why they are concerned ;)
Shhh...don't tell them about ... (Score:4, Funny)
To combat this piracy threat, estimated at 20 million samolians a year, theaters will require all persons entering the theater to have barcodes branded on their foreheads. They will be cross checked against a central database to ensure that they only see the movie they paid for, and that only one person with the unique bar code is in any theater at the same time.
Since every major cinema will have different standards, the FCC will use an auction to allocate the portion of your forehead to be branded. Those sections in the middle region, which are flatter and easier to read, will of course bring the highest dollars.
Privacy advocates are already concerned that the 'movie police' will now be able to tell what movies each and every person in the world have seen, and began lobbying for legislation prohibiting this practice. But since it was released that Ralph Nader often visits www.goatse.com, all lobbying efforts have mysteriously ceased.
In other news, following recent examples of airport security checks, movie theaters are installing food detectors at all entrances to ensure no dangerous food items are brought into the facility. The theaters will provide certified safe foods at concession areas for those that wish to eat or drink during a movie.
love the comment (Score:3, Insightful)
err DUH how clueless can you get, no market support implies it was NOT a great product because NO ONE wanted it. The only people behind DIVX were the movie companies that stood to gain bazillions by controlling your every viewing choice. The so-called market, or the paying customers HATED the crap and refused to buy it. Must be nice to be the center of the universe...
Divx (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah. I'd really be bragging about that.
Re:What about lasers blinding cameras? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about lasers blinding cameras? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What about lasers blinding cameras? (Score:5, Insightful)
But with any scheme that attempts to use light, you have to consider the safety of the audience topmost, including audience members that may suffer from photosensitive epilepsy [epilepsy.org.uk].
They'd use IR (Score:2)
Re:They'd use IR (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't forget... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, if legislation like the DMCA is used to keep you from trying to crack the thing, _that_ is bad, but DMCA didn't even exist when Circuit City was pushing DIVX.
The one bad thing I remember thinking at the time was that one was in danger of buying a DVD player that couldn't play DIVX and being left out, or buying one that could and paying extra for something which might (and did) become completely useless.
DIVX threatened the new DVD format. (Score:5, Interesting)
Disney, for instance, was one company planning DIVX-exclusive releases. Even if you bought the "DIVX-gold" releases, which theoretically you could play forever, they still had the right to revoke your ability to view that disc at any time.
I don't want studios to have that much control over something after I buy it. This is the same reason why DRM is evil and should not be supported in any way. DVD's region coding and copy protection are nothing when compared to the evils of DRM. Period. EOF.
Re:Don't forget... (Score:2)
bad! (Score:5, Funny)