Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Night Vision Goggles vs Pirates 689

Cormorant writes "It was reported in The Guardian that Warner Brothers has sent night vision goggles to cinemas across Britain for ushers to don and scan for camcorder pirates during the entire length of the movie [the new Harry Potter], along with watermarks and codes displayed on screen during the film. Mr Graham said "Video piracy is rife everywhere, and with the UK screening the film four days before the rest of the world, Warner was concerned the movie would end up on the internet. Warner sees the investment as negligible compared with the threat to the whole industry."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Night Vision Goggles vs Pirates

Comments Filter:
  • by Bandit0013 ( 738137 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:56AM (#9303237)
    Returning as Sam Fisher, you infiltrate the theaters of the UK...
    • Having sat next to kids rustling crisp packets and sweet papers in the cinema, I'd be quite happy to club a few of them unconcious with the butt of a gun.

      (and what's with speaking in a normal voice to the person next to you during a film. Do they not teach whispering in schools these days?)
      • by RollingThunder ( 88952 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:39AM (#9303848)
        The solution is to politely but firmly ask that they stop, and tell them that you will have no problem going to get an usher if they continue.

        Don't be rude, don't be a psycho. Just be firm.

        If enough of us do it, politeness and manners can once again be the norm at the theater.
        • My friends and I used to behave like that back when we were in HS. If some dweeb "firmly" asked us to stop trying to sound tough we would probably be throwing stuff at him till the end of the film. Being firm with someone you never met is hardly polite and a good way to end up slugging it out in the parking lot.
        • by Azghoul ( 25786 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:17AM (#9304356) Homepage
          The trouble is, they're pirates. They'll just say "Yarrrrr, avast ye whiny land lubber!"
        • by JudgeFurious ( 455868 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @01:07PM (#9305756)
          One many years ago when I was a young man I was forced to sit through the movie "Purple Rain" three times in three days. I never once paid for a ticket and I didn't particularly want to see the film. I just happened to be with three different groups of people who were dead set on seeing it and having nothing better to do I went with them. They were paying for it after all.

          The first time it was not entirely horrible. It wasn't good of course but I could deal with it. The second time it was starting to get horrible but again I held it together and managed to make it through the movie. The third night I would have passed on it if the girl I was desperate to get into bed hadn't wanted to go see it but that's where I made my mistake.

          We sat in a theater next to a couple who brought with them a thoroughly miserable baby who (on reflection I really can't blame the little bugger) wanted to be anywhere but sitting in a dark theater watching Prince. That baby cried through most of the picture. People sitting around them asked them politely if they would take the baby into the lobby. People glared at them while the baby screamed like someone was pulling it's toes off. People moved to other available seats. They didn't budge.

          I was hanging on by a very, very thin thread at this point and stood up, turned around and told them that if they didn't find a way to shut that baby up I was going to pick it up by it's feet and beat them to death with it.

          They got up and left as people around us clapped. Now, at close to 40 years of age I realize how lucky I was not to have gone to jail. On the other hand these people were terribly rude to make everyone else sit through a movie listening to their child.

          You're right though. In recent years I've just asked people to be quiet and gone and brought an usher down when necessary. It's the better choice.
      • by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:07AM (#9304218)
        "kids rustling crisp packets and sweet papers"

        For us Yanks, that's potato chip bags and candy wrappers.

    • by dark-br ( 473115 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:54AM (#9304050) Homepage
      Whats next? Now that we have gmail, this could be their next big thing.

  • by eltoyoboyo ( 750015 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:56AM (#9303238) Journal
    Theater pirates may get lots of press, but most of the stolen copies freely available are taken right from the studios themselves.
    • by betelgeuse-4 ( 745816 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:01AM (#9303340) Homepage Journal
      If you go to my local [12 screen] cinema (I live in the UK) during the early afternoon on a weekday, you'll only see 3 or 4 staff working, serving food and selling tickets. None of them actually do ticket or piracy checks whilst a movie is being shown. Night-vision goggles aren't going to help much.
    • by ichimunki ( 194887 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:04AM (#9303384)
      Not only that, in this case their stated concerns arise because it opens in Britain four days earlier than the States? Why not just release it simultaneously worldwide?

      And have you ever been in a crowded movie theater? Who the heck wants to watch a camcorder copy of that presentation anyway? The last thing I need is to save $5 (I normally go to matinees) by "pirating" a copy of a movie, just to get all the coughing, jostling, kids talking, babies screaming, etc etc anyway.
      • by fractaloon ( 454371 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:29AM (#9303709) Homepage
        Anybody that wants to take the time to download and watch a poor quality pirated copy shot in a theatre is a huge fan. That person is also going to go watch the movie themselves, probably more than once.

        Warner Brothers is delusional if it actually believes that it's losing money because of theatre copies.
        • by StillNeedMoreCoffee ( 123989 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @01:13PM (#9305818)
          The profits they make off these movies are in the millions, usually more than covering the cost of making the film. It is just pure profit rolling in and it is not because of additional work done. It is not like you are stealing money from hard working folks, they got their money from the film as salary. Only a few get the benefit from extra profits from movie sales, the producers, director, writers and some actors that get a percentage. The first Star Wars films gave most of the actors a set rate for the first 3 films. Hans Solo I believe didn't go for that deal and got lots more for subsiquent films.

          The theaters loose some though but probably not enough to warrant the cost of night vision goggles.

          So this move is in protection of the huge potential profits of the Movie producers and company. They are surely a group who's profits I want to go out of my way to protect. Now if they did like Marshall's and as time went on, lowered the price to see a movie (that had already covered its costs and a resonable profit), maybe. But they keep raising the prices and keep making millions and millions (on the winners).

          But then those winners probably cover the cost of them producing the dog's. Which means that we are subsidizing their bad choices, essentially lowering their risk and probably allowing more dog's to be made, cause we are picking up the tab for them.

          I am sure they will raise the prices to go to a movie to pay for the night vision goggle too.

    • Screener copy != Studio itself.

      learn the difference.

      In the age of dvd burners, the studios should just have a machine that hand-burns each of the screener copies with the name of the recipient in about four thousand random places in the movie -- some very subtly and some very obviously.

      • by eltoyoboyo ( 750015 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:24AM (#9303643) Journal
        In fact, the awards screener DVDs are only one source. (A "screener" is a promotional preview videocassette/DVD of a film provided by a film company, or its distributor, to video store owners or movie award voters prior to its general release date. Selling, trading or distributing these "screeners" is frowned upon by the MPAA)

        Every point in the production cycle where the movie transitions from print to electronic version is a possible leak.

        Screener traces [findarticles.com]are already in place. And there was a notable incident this year where an Acadamy of Motion Pictures member was caught bootlegging his screeners [cnn.com] by the trace technology.
      • by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:32AM (#9303737) Homepage
        Screener copy != Studio itself. Learn the difference.

        Learn to read. The parent says nothing about screener copies. Since they started embedding screener IDs, "screener copies" are a non-issue (and really, never have been much of an issue).

        There are, however, many many many points in the chain within a huge studio where the picture can be quietly spirited away in perfectly clean DVD form.

        Think Inside Job, my friend. And againe, taking a page from your diplomatic book, LEARN TO READ!

    • by The-Dalai-LLama ( 755919 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:21AM (#9303623) Homepage Journal

      Theater pirates may get lots of press...

      Bingo. It's in the best interest of the *IAA's to thoroughly convince everyone that any IP theft is taking place outside the studios, paving the way for things like DRM & DMCA. These measures are necessary because the theft is obviously taking place out in the public, beyond the studios' control.

      The Dalai LLama
      ...hey, can I score a pair of those googles?...

    • by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:52AM (#9304025)
      Warner sees the investment as negligible compared with the threat to the whole industry.

      The biggest threats to the whole industry is (1) their inability to control costs on marginal product and (2) over-saturation of the market with expensive product.

      The second point is rejected by the industry because the weekly blockbuster releases have all been are consumed and mostly paid off with two or three weeks of their release. Although the core audience is not growing, they are fanatically dedicated to going to the newest and biggest release every week. For five years there has been no break in audiences absorbing the box office ticket price increases necessary to blockbuster films. The film industry is in a positive feedback loop,which is not a good thing. If there were any film executives with engineering training , they would see that this will burn out your resources too quickly. In this case the resource is the attention span of the audience for cookie-cutter blockbusters.

      Movie execs are known for their 'MORE, MORE, MORE!' mentality, so the concept that they may be creating and releasing too much product too quickly would be difficult for them to grasp. The movie business operates on a pay-per-view basis and having too much product available in the theatres and video stores can only work to drive down the price that the audience is willing to pay for the product. You see this a little with the number of special offers that the video rental outlets are using to get six-month-old product off the shelves, stuff like $1 US 24-hr rentals of new releases on weekdays or much shorter periods between theatrical and DVD/video release. Often a DVD is now released even as a film is still playing in second-run theatres. Distributors want to cash in before the film is forgotten.

      I think that the emphasis on preventing 'piracy' (in this case pay-per-view without the distibutor or studio getting the pay) is somewhat missplaced because it implies that the first viewing of any product is most important 'money point' and that is getting to be less true every year. Film is now becoming like television; a product that is often a background medium that sets the mood rather than commands complete attention. Why go through the hassle of illegally copying this weeks blockbuster when next week there will be another one just the same? And next month it will be in DVD and available at the supermarket for a dollar rental?
      • by cardshark2001 ( 444650 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @01:12PM (#9305811)
        The biggest threats to the whole industry is (1) their inability to control costs on marginal product and (2) over-saturation of the market with expensive product.

        And pepsi commercials. I stopped going completely when they started that crap. I PAID to see the movie, not f(*)ing commercials. I don't like previews either, but I'm willing to tolerate them.

        Luckily, here where I live there's a place called the Alamo Drafthouse, that serves food and beer during the movie, and never shows commercials before the movie. In fact, they show entertaining clips from old movies that are somehow related, or previews to old movies that are related. If they ever start showing commercials (they won't) I will stop going to the movies altogether.

        Most people I talk to aren't as incensed as I am about it, but I think it could have something to do with the fact that people are going to the movies less. I mean, whether they admit it or not, the hassle of getting there early to get good seats and then sitting through 20 minutes of commercials has to be a deterrent.

        Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

  • by grahamsz ( 150076 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:56AM (#9303240) Homepage Journal
    It'll be interesting if this really stops piracy or not. It just takes one recording and all their efforts are wasted.
    • by gmack ( 197796 ) <<gmack> <at> <innerfire.net>> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:34AM (#9303771) Homepage Journal
      I'm willing to bet it will actually increase piracy by killing off a major source of bad quality product.

      It's almost as if they want to make the problem worse.

      Personally if I were the MPAA I would let these morons record all so they can flood the market with bad quality DVDs and making it such a bad case of hit or miss that the only way you can be sure of getting a good copy is to buy one.

      A smarter move would be to finish hunting down the people in their own industry who are leaking production quality material before the movie even makes it to the theaters.
  • by platypussrex ( 594064 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:56AM (#9303242)
    ...if cam captures were the main source of piracy, but from what I've read, it's a lot more common for the leaks to come from "insider" sources. Either from post-production workers, or theatre employees in the projection booth.
    • by Tuvai ( 783607 ) <zeikfried@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:04AM (#9303383) Journal
      And the patient will just wait for the high quality DVD rips to be released, especially popular over here in the UK thanks to the excessive amount of time a large proportion of titles take to cross the atlantic.
      This is a nice publicity stunt that might (in the unlikely event of it being well implimented) possibly add a day or two to the length of time it takes a poor quality camrip to appear on suprnova, but nothing more
  • by th1ckasabr1ck ( 752151 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:56AM (#9303246)
    ... going to spout off about how they have no right to be observing us? I mean, what gives them the right to spy on us during a movie that we paid good money to see?
    • Re:Isn't someone... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by shadowcabbit ( 466253 ) <cx.thefurryone@net> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:00AM (#9303311) Journal
      I mean, what gives them the right to spy on us during a movie that we paid good money to see?

      The fact that you paid $6.50 to sit in their theater, which coincidentally works along the same lines as an EULA; i.e. "by paying $6.50 you agree to the fact that you'll be able to watch Harry Potter on the big screen with the hella-loud sound system, and that if we catch you doing anything stupid like, say, yakking on your cell phone or taping the movie, we can and will throw you out".
      • by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06&email,com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:13AM (#9303520)
        Where the hell do you live where they're still charging $6.50 for a movie?

        In NYC, it's almost double that.

    • by PhrostyMcByte ( 589271 ) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:16AM (#9303559) Homepage
      Well, I guess this means no more banging your girlfriend in the back seats. Then again, nobody here should have to worry about that.
    • by AviLazar ( 741826 )
      This is something new? They are doing what ushers at movie theatres have been doing for years, walking up and down the isles to make sure people aren't misbehaving. The fact that they can use cool night vision goggles instead of a flash light (annoying) makes it even better. Sorry no spout this time :)
    • The fascist capitalist bolshevik corporate overlords are yet again conspiring to encroach on my freedom to record all that I see, even though i happen to be in a movie theater that is privately owned and even though that couple in front of me is totally unaware that i am filming them more than the movie and plan to distribute videos of them making out on emule; But they have no right to film me! Those communist fbi Hoover-worshipping hippies think they can just go around filming whatever they see, even me i
  • Waste of time... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cenonce ( 597067 ) <anthony_t@@@mac...com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:56AM (#9303247)
    That seems like a waste of time.

    All a pirate has to do is pay the kid making minimum wage running the projector a couple hundred pounds to let the pirate sit in the booth and record from there!
    • All a pirate has to do is pay the kid making minimum wage running the projector a couple hundred pounds to let the pirate sit in the booth and record from there!

      And what if the pirate *is* the kid running the projector? I know of at least one of these instances.
      • Re:Waste of time... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Peyna ( 14792 )
        And what if the pirate *is* the kid running the projector? I know of at least one of these instances.

        That's what the watermarks are for.
    • Re:Waste of time... (Score:4, Informative)

      by keyshawn632 ( 726102 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:11AM (#9303480) Journal
      At my theater, the projector is run only by the managers and the projector guy [all adults]. A teenager has never ran the projector...

      /kid making $5.15/hour @ movie theater cleaning up your Icee spills
      • Re:Waste of time... (Score:3, Informative)

        by arglesnaf ( 454704 )
        That really depends on Union involvement. Many regal cinemas for instance are non-union so the assistant and shift managers run the movies. They generally ARE teenagers.
      • by cabraverde ( 648652 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:27AM (#9304474)
        I used to project films for a local cinama (here in the UK) from the age of 15. Films I wasn't even legally entitled to watch.

        Large multiplex cinemas may have well-paid, adult projectionists with night-vision monocles and decent security - but there are thousands of smaller single-screen cinemas where any old kid (like me) runs the projector for pocket money. All it takes is for one of them to bring in a camcorder.
  • by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:57AM (#9303258) Homepage Journal
    except, they can use this to boost up coverage in media.

    which is what's this is really about, or they got some very stupid idiots deciding where to put the money.

    maybe they haven't noticed that nobody really watches shitty cams made in secret during a public view? or if watches, wouldn't be very likely to watch it in the theatre anyways if he'll settle for that.

  • by nekoniku ( 183821 ) <justicekNO@SPAMinfosource.info> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:58AM (#9303272) Homepage
    Now when the projector gets screwed up or there's no sound, there will be theater personnel on hand to notice!
  • We've got ours (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Muhammed Absol ( 670439 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:58AM (#9303275)
    We had a set sent to our theater, and have had a bit of fun playing with them. We were amazed to find how many people actually use their cell phones during a movie. Just goofing off I've seen cell phones, laptops, and a gameboy! But no camcorders, yet.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Cell phone cameras?

      They were probably recording the whole thing, streaming it out over the internet in real time.
    • Come on... (Score:3, Funny)

      by dark-br ( 473115 )
      Phones? Laptops? Camcorders? Start looking for the ladies being banged on the back seats and then you use YOUR camcorder ;)

  • by e2mtt ( 629911 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:58AM (#9303279) Homepage
    Seriously, how could bootleg piracy videos really hurt their industry?
    Harry Potter's target audience isn't the people who scour the net for zero-day pirate releases, and anyone who doesn't go see the movie because they saw already saw it in a grainy fuzzy download, probably wasn't really that interested in the movie anyway.
  • 2 problems (Score:5, Insightful)

    by millahtime ( 710421 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:58AM (#9303284) Homepage Journal
    First, the guys working in the theatres who make minimum wage are not going to report anyone for pirating a movie. They aren't paid enough to care

    Second, all the good pirated coppies come out before the movies hit the theatres and are from the studio themselves.

    Sounds like the guys trying to thwart the pirating aren't very knowlegeable themselves about what/how it happens.
  • by kneecarrot ( 646291 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:59AM (#9303300)
    In the future, I predict that blind people will be able to attach a mechanical device to their heads that will allow them to watch movies.

    Pirates will begin modifying their video equipment to look like these devices, thus foiling the ability of pirate scouts to spot actual pirates.

    Then, one day, a movie theatre employee will kick out a blind man, suspecting him of pirating the movie.

    All matter of hell and lawsuits will spew forth and in the end, only the blind people will suffer.

    So, ban movie theatre pirate scouts before it's too late!

  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:00AM (#9303322)
    So, all these stormtroopers are stomping up and down in the cinema in their nifty night-vision goggles searching for anyone likely to steal their Death Star pla^W^W^Wmovie... while the projectionist quietly copies the bloody lot.

    Whoops.

  • by gik ( 256327 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:00AM (#9303326)
    First the Web, then groups, then images, then froogle, then Gmail, and now.... NIGHT VISION!! ON 100,000 Linux boxes!!! NOW I CAN SEARCH THE WEB IN THE DARK!!! ...oh... goggles.

  • by Bowdie ( 11884 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:00AM (#9303329) Homepage
    Say you took a reasonably high powered IR LED, and fitted it to a 9v battery, would its output be enough to blind the night vision?

    I've got no interest in seeing OR ripping off Harry Potter, but I don't take kindly to being spied upon in a movie theatre.
  • Arrrrrrrrrr (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lurker McLurker ( 730170 ) <(allthecoolnames ... (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:01AM (#9303337)
    I thought the article was going to be about actual pirates. It conjures up images of a sailor sitting in the Crow's Nest holding up an old brass telescope to his night vision goggles.

    Of course, there are still pirates on the seas today, and maybe people do use night vision technology to spot them, although radar's good, too.

  • by alexatrit ( 689331 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:01AM (#9303346) Homepage
    Honestly now, how many screeners have you downloaded and watched? Not very many, probably. Why not? Because the quality is dismal compared to leaked copies. Most of the movies I've seen are of VHS (if not DVD) quality, not screeners. IR goggles aren't going to help. These studios just don't want to accept that their primary source of leaks is an internal one, either from promotional copies or early edits.
    • by Sandman1971 ( 516283 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:12AM (#9303486) Homepage Journal
      To correct you, screeners ARE copies made from VHS or DVD, sent to movie reviewers and members of the Academy (and others too). Screeners is the best quality you can get.

      FOr your enlightment:

      What's CAM, Workprint, Telesync, Telecine, Screener,DVDRip, Subbed?

      CAM - This type of VCD was recorded by someone in a cinema with a camcorder and the audience can be heard! The picture quality is usually OK but the sound is mostly very bad and hard to make out speech.

      TS (Telesync) - These are also recorded in a cinema but usually on an expensive camera and they should have a seperate audio source (so the audience cannot be heard), these are generally very good quality and highly watchable.

      TC (Telecine) - Done a number of ways, all from taking directly from the reel. Ripped in either widescreen (letterbox) or in full-screen (pan and scan) with excellent audio and video.

      Screener - A Screener is usually recorded form a promotional video tape or DVD which is sent to censors and film critics etc.. The quality is usually as good as a commercial VCD, some times a copyright message appears on the screen.

      Work-Print - Each frame of the film is copied from celluloid (or another source). The sound is usually perfect and the visual quality can vary. These are sometimes incomplete movies.

      LD/DVDRip - Are ripped from DVD or Laserdisc versions of the film and the quality is as good as genuine.
  • by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06&email,com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:02AM (#9303357)
    when all you needed to take on pirates was a cutlass, a musket, and of course if you're in Bengalla and it's the Sengh Brotherhood you're dealing with, the Phantom [imdb.com] wouldn't hurt.
  • watermarks... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dioscaido ( 541037 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:03AM (#9303361)
    How I understand it, watermarks create slight variations in the encoding of the movie (color, in this case) that are invisible to the eye, but detectable by computers. I wonder, though, whether these watermarks actually make it through to a camcorder rip of a movie, seeing as the quality is so degraded, and the color is so washed out.

    Maybe it would make more sense, i think, to flash the serial number of the film print for a frame or two at random points in the film. At 24 fps, the human eye would not notice, especially if the number is simply super-imposed on the video, possibly in a section of the current frame that attracts the least attention of the viewer's eyes. I went to a research talk once of an algorithm to automatically detect the point of high interest in every frame of video, so this could be done automatically.
    • by tabacco ( 145317 ) * on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:23AM (#9303640)
      Heh... until you have millions of people worldwide walking around unable to get a 15-digit number they don't recognize out of their heads :)

      "Weird, I went to see that Harry Potter movie and now all I can think about is 2917772119442.2"
    • Re:watermarks... (Score:5, Informative)

      by saderax ( 718814 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:30AM (#9303718)
      You are correct in your understanding of watermarking. However, one of the main requirements of a good watermarking system is that the watermark should be preserved in the presence of image modification (compression, cropping, rotating, etc.) This means that many watermarks themselves are not implanted once, but repeated many times throughout the frame. There is currently a lot of research in the field of watermarking because it is a difficult problem to solve, and the ramifications could be great. (I recall seeing a slashdot article where a man was arrested for pirating movies because the movie studios watermarked each screener DVD differently and were able to trace the internet release to its source.) Some watermarks operate in the frequency domain (such as the fourier transform, or discrete cosine transform DCT) which recognize patterns in the image, and describe the image as a summation of waves. Applying a watermark in the frequency domain means one bit worth of data changed is distributed throughout every other pixel in that row/column of image.

      In summary: Im absoultely positive the MPAA is using watermarking techniques, and I am sure that they have put tons of research money/time into defining watermarks that will survive the MPEG or DivX encoding algorithms.

      And btw:
      A serial number in a random frame can be blotted out easily or the entire frame can be cut out by someone compressing the video stream to an mpeg or divx.
    • Re:watermarks... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Feanturi ( 99866 )
      At 24 fps, the human eye would not notice

      I always see those conductor-punch holes at scene changes, and those are only 1 frame aren't they? At 24 fps, the human eye doesn't notice that it's looking at a bunch of frames flying by, it's fooled to think it's all smooth analog motion.. But it DOES see every frame. If the eye couldn't see every frame of a 24 fps film, then we would be using a slower framerate because 24 would be overkill.
      • Re:watermarks... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:25AM (#9304438)
        Possibly the holes in the corner of the screen that you refer to are the reel-change markers. Many years ago theatres would have two projectors pointed and focused at the screen. The film reels would last about twenty minutes and each projector would hold a reel.
        The marks on the film would be set about 15 seconds apart. The second projector would be set 15 seconds before the start of the film. The projectionist would watch the corner of the film near the end of the reel. When the first mark appeared in the corner, the second projector would start but with the light off. At the second cue mark, the first projector's light would be switched off and the second's light switched on. This results in a continuous film.

        Now the film is spliced together into a long single strip. This allows one projectionist to run many screens as long as they don't start at the same time.

        The cue marks are never only one frame, they are always about 20 frames in order to avoid being missed by the projectionist. People can detect one frame as a glitch but can't absorb symbolic information like letters, numbers, or logos from one frame.
  • by l33t-gu3lph1t3 ( 567059 ) <`moc.liamtoh' `ta' `61legna_hcra'> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:03AM (#9303366) Homepage
    If I had any intention of going to the Harry Potter movie, I would go. Regardless of whether there's a ripped copy available online. People don't go to movie theatres because it's their only way to see a flick - they go for the theatre experience: big screen, big sound, greasy food.
    • by Dr. Evil ( 3501 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:43AM (#9303911)

      ( $14 CDN + $9/(drink+popcorn) ) * 4 people ~= $92

      It is getting close to the price of renting a home theatre and having somebody coming over to set it up for you:

      http://www.megacityone.com/ [megacityone.com]

      Of course, they're not first-run movies, but there are no screaming kids, nobody kicking your seat, you can bring your own food and drinks, play a few rounds of ---Insert FPS here---, you can drink booze or smoke if you're so inclined, and you're supporting local businesses.

      With the current trends, the gap between "big theatre" prices and "home theatre" quality is only going to narrow... I'm sure somewhere Blockbuster et. al. probably rent projectors these days... if not, they will soon.

  • by elid ( 672471 ) <eli.ipod@g m a il.com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:03AM (#9303371)
    (from stanthecaddy)

    % Anna and George in George's car.

    George: I'm a bootlegger.

    Anna: You're a what?

    George: I'm bootleggin' a movie, baby!

    Anna: Isn't that illegal?

    George: I can do hard time for this one. And community service!

    Anna: Is this your FiberCon?

    George: (Takes it and throws it out window) Get outta my way!
  • by SeanTobin ( 138474 ) * <byrdhuntr@hot[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:05AM (#9303401)
    I wouldn't worry too much about the night vision goggles. Anyone smart enough to bring a camcorder into a theater is surely going to know how to defeat anyone with night vision goggles.

    Magnesium flares!
  • Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mericet ( 550554 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:06AM (#9303418) Homepage
    What bugs me, is that movie goers excpect a bit of privacy in the theater (as many couples can attest). Unless big 'we are watching you and we can see you in the dark' posters are posted in front of the theatre, I would think this should be regarded as invasion to that privacy.
  • QC (Score:3, Insightful)

    by piggywig ( 780829 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:09AM (#9303449)
    Since a camcorder in the cinema is possibly the worst way to copy a movie, doesn't that just mean that the film industry will be acting as quality control for the pirates?
  • "Hey, where are you going with the goggles, man?"
    "Boss told me to check for videocams in the theatre."
    "Dude - fair warning, Paul Reuben is in there. I wouldn't go if I were you."
    "Who? Look, I just do what the boss says. See ya in a few."
    ...
    "!"
    ...
    "You got a fork suitable for removing eyes around here?"

    Hope WB is able to handle the 'problems' of this technology.

    -Adam
  • by JosKarith ( 757063 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:15AM (#9303534)
    How long is it going to be before we see the first lawsuits from this.
    In the back row of a darkened movie theatre "things" happen. People disturbed in the middle of an essential part of the human mating ritual by drooling minimum-wage usher-boy aren't going to be too happy.
    And that's not counting the dangers from one person armed with a pocket flash/laser pointer and a malicious sense of humor
  • Study? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Viking Coder ( 102287 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:15AM (#9303543)
    So, where's the study that proves that people are MORE likely to go to theaters or buy DVDs, if they can freely download a movie?

    I suppose that the movie studios can do what they want to - but we can lobby to change the laws. I think that IP Laws and IP enforcement have gotten silly beyond imagining, when things like this happen.
  • Blinding NV... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TEMM ( 731243 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:24AM (#9303648)
    Night Vision goggles have built in safety mechanisms that prevent the user (and device) from being damaged by looking at bright light sources while they are turned on. Using an IR light to "blind" someone looking for pirates would only serve to draw attention to yourself and get you kicked out.
  • just publicity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by toiletmonster ( 722398 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:27AM (#9303679) Homepage
    i think this is just a publicity stunt on the part of the movie industry. they want to be able to say to congress (or to the public via those inane ads), see what lengths we have to go to in order to protect ourselves from these nasty pirates?

  • by beatleadam ( 102396 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .egrebmalf.> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:36AM (#9303800) Homepage Journal
    If we have night vision goggles, we can see ahem...night vision "action" and as long as there was to be a video camera anyways as well as money, we point money, camera and night vision goggles to the couple snogging in the back row and make a profit upon selling it on the web...and to their parents :-)
  • by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:36AM (#9303804) Journal
    I've seen a couple of videocammed movies. Wow. A grainy, jiggly, low quality image with bad sound. Is there really a demand for this?
  • Defeating watermarks (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ajs ( 35943 ) <ajs@ajs . c om> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:44AM (#9303918) Homepage Journal
    What I don't get is why the watermark thing works at all.

    Has no one written a program to merge several films and subtract out the noise (e.g. watermarks)? I mean, comparing two videos and establishing which bits are identical IS old tech, no?

    All you need is software like that and video from two theaters, and you should even be able to enhance the quality and remove motion.
  • by seniorcoder ( 586717 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:46AM (#9303940)
    The next step will be to add a "record mode" to the night vision goggles to aid prosecution.
    Shortly thereafter, someone in the movie industry will publish the footage. Reality cinema arrives when we pay to see this footage. Finally the loop is completed when pirates copy this footage.
  • by dark-br ( 473115 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:50AM (#9303988) Homepage
    To put it simply: Good

    Taking a camcorder into a theater is breaking the law. If they can spot people with night vision goggles, that's great. They shouldn't be doing it.

    Completely setting the MPAA aside, this is blatant copyright violation. It's clearly prohibited, and no one can reasonably feign ignorance on this. How many people reasonably take the camcorder for purely personal viewing with no intent to distribute the copy?

    If it's for personal viewing, they can wait, spent $4 more, buy the DVD, and be legal.
  • by misleb ( 129952 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:06AM (#9304200)
    How many people really want to watch a pirated version of a movie? I mean, one that was done using a camcorder as opposed to a leaked original Yeah, there are fanatics who just can't wait to see the latest release of whatever movie, but does this really satisfy them? Seems to me that pirates are just cheating themselves out of seeing the movie for the first time the way it was meant to be seen.

    I could go to the theater and watch the movie with great sound and a huge picture or I can download it and view it sitting at my desk or on a laptop LCD. How is the latter even an option? WTF? I know the theater is expensive, but jeez. Don't cheat yourself.

    -matthew
  • by MagicM ( 85041 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:12AM (#9304287)
    1. They lose money from people making bootleg copies.
    2. Bootleg copies are made because the movie is released early in the UK.

    Why go through the trouble of trying to prevent (1), when it's a lot easier to prevent (2)? What's the deal with the 4-day delay anyway? Do they need the extra 4 days to translate British to American?
  • Long Term Solutions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MojoRilla ( 591502 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:39AM (#9304582)
    Although this cloak and dagger stuff is interesting and will be reported widely, the real problem still remains. People are going to pirate movies. No matter what technologies are used to avoid this, people are going to come up with new ways of defeating it.

    The reason people pirate movies is probably similar to the reason people pirate compact disks. They want the product in a more convient format, or they want the product at a lower price.

    Long term, here are some suggestions to movie studios to avoid piracy. Most of these require the studios to look past the short term bottom line, and try to serve their customers.

    1. Release the movie simultaniously world wide. By releasing movies on different days in different parts of the world, movie studios create demand for piracy. It is understandable that a languague translation might take extra time, but there should be no other delays in movie releases.

    2. Get rid of region coded DVD's. These are simply pissing off legitimate users of your product. If you want to reduce piracy, make your product available as conviently as posslble.

    3. Release the DVD the day the movie is released in the theater. Doesn't have to have all the special features. That way people who can't get to the theater get the product they want.

    4. Stream movies over the internet. If the consumer wants to watch movies on the internet, give them a way of doing it legally.

    5. Lower prices for movies. If studios want to capture the low end of the market, they need to lower movie prices. Video games can have play times of upwards of 120 hours, yet cost $40. If an average video game lasts only 60 hours, that is still only 66 cents per hour of entertainment. Movies last two hours, yet cost $8. That is four dollars per hour of entertainment. They can make up any lost revenue through merchandising, product placement, enhanced DVD's, etc.

    The big problem with almost all of these suggestions is that the cut into revenue sources, such as pay-per-view, TV premieres, etc.

    In the long run, customers will demand more convience, just as they are doing with recorded music. The studios will have no choice.
    • by Christ-on-a-bike ( 447560 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @12:06PM (#9304873)
      I agree except for this:
      5. Lower prices for movies. If studios want to capture the low end of the market, they need to lower movie prices. Video games can have play times of upwards of 120 hours, yet cost $40. If an average video game lasts only 60 hours, that is still only 66 cents per hour of entertainment. Movies last two hours, yet cost $8. That is four dollars per hour of entertainment. They can make up any lost revenue through merchandising, product placement, enhanced DVD's, etc.
      These are completely different markets. Movies are social entertainment in a dedicated venue; video games are personal entertainment in the home. Distribution, retail sales and theatre maintenance are very costly. This would only be exacerbated were worldwide simultaneous releases to become the norm.

      If you're into arbitrary metrics for 'value', why not consider $ per square foot of display area? I have a feeling that the movie theatres might beat your gaming rig on that one.

Sentient plasmoids are a gas.

Working...