Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Patents

Theaters vs. Camcorders, Round 27 351

Posted by michael from the body-cavity-search dept.
ackthpt writes "CNN is reporting two people, one in Los Angeles and one in Canada, were caught recording The Day After Tomorrow in cinemas, while a third got away. No mention if night-vision goggles, as previously mentioned, were of assistance." Reader azmatsci writes "Tuesday Sony was issued a patent for technology that will attempt to block camcorder recordings in movie theaters. Funny to me because I just came up with the same idea and discovered it while doing a patent search. Only problem with the idea is it will only block camcorders that use CCD recorders, which are sensitive to IR light. Another jamming idea which probably work for all camcorders can be found here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Theaters vs. Camcorders, Round 27 More

Theaters vs. Camcorders, Round 27

Comments Filter:

  • Prosecution (Score:4, Interesting)

    by webguru4god ( 537138 ) * on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:21PM (#9339661)
    What kind of provisions does the MPAA have, most likely under the DMCA, to prosecute people who are caught recording movies in the theaters? Will these people go to jail, or just get a slap on the wrist?
    • The DMCA starts with the word Digital and refers only to methods of copyrights protecting digital works. Most movies in theaters, although originally created using digital equipment, are shown as analog and as such are not covered by the DMCA.

      They are, however, covered by traditional copyright law.

      • Re:Prosecution (Score:5, Interesting)

        by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:56PM (#9340036)
        Which brings up the fact that there are new laws in CA and I guess other states/countries or whatever that explictly say somthing to the affect that "Its against the law to break the copyright law with a camcorder in a movie theater" or the equivalent in legal speak. I'm sure I'm with most /.ers being against very silly specific laws like this, especially when there are broader laws that already exist and cover the crime.

        I also think that if I were the MPAA I would go after the people distributing the copies in black market vs trying to get them in the theater, since a) many screeners and whatnot are leaked from studios anyway and do not use camcorders, and b) that is where the $$$ is and c) there are more people selling copies vs recording copies and when you put heat on the sellers then they wont sell and then people wont record.

        Plus, it is an easier conviction with existing laws to go after the sellers when they have X numbers of blatently illegal copies of a movie vs. the guy that might be filming the movie for his dying daughter that cannot get out of the house and really would love to see the 3rd Harry Potter movie before she dies.

      • Re:Prosecution (Score:5, Informative)

        by BCoates ( 512464 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @06:17PM (#9340197)
        You don't know what you're talking about. The DMCA is an act that made substantial changes to copyright law, and it affects all copyrights. There are not special copyrights for digital vs. analog works, and there is only one set of copyright laws in the US: Title 17 of the US Code. [cornell.edu]

      • Re:Prosecution (Score:4, Informative)

        by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @06:26PM (#9340281) Homepage
        The DMCA starts with the word Digital

        True...

        and refers only to methods of copyrights protecting digital works.

        FALSE!

        The DMCA does *NOT* restrict itself to digital. For example there does exist analog encryption. Circumventing analog encryption is just as criminal as circumventing digital encryption. Distributing analog decyption devices is just as criminal as distributing digital decryption devices.

        About the only part of the DMCA that is restricted to digital materials is the internet notice and takedown proceedures, and that is not actually a legale restriction, it is merely an implicit restriction because there do not exist any analog materials on the internet.

        If someone were to make internet hardware that could carry analog data (rather difficult, but not impossible), then the internet notice and takedown proceedures *would* apply to analog materials as well.

        -

    • Up to no good. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @06:12PM (#9340154) Homepage Journal
      Will these people go to jail, or just get a slap on the wrist?

      Assuming 'Intent' must be proven, maybe a quick ransac^H^H^H^H^H^Hsearch of their homes by the gest^H^H^H^Hauthorities could turn up a system and evidence of previous nefarious activity. I'm sure somewhere beyond the usual warning 'Use of recording devices is forbidden, yada yada yada' there are some teeth to back the warning up.

      I also doubt 'Fair Use' has a twig to lean on here..."Hey, I was just capturing it in case I missed a part and wanted to rewind and see it again *during* the movie."

  • poor taste (Score:5, Funny)

    by ralphmyers ( 551567 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:21PM (#9339662) Homepage
    They should be fined just out of poor taste.

  • IR - varmth (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mick Ohrberg ( 744441 ) <{mick.ohrberg} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:22PM (#9339668) Homepage Journal
    Interesting idea - crank up those IR emitters enough, and people will get hot, and need to go buy more drinks. Maybe the big soda companies have a stake in this too?

    • Re:IR - varmth (Score:5, Funny)

      by webguru4god ( 537138 ) * on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:24PM (#9339698)
      Maybe the watermarks that they are including in some films could also be ads for popcorn and soda so that all a pirated copy would show was snack ads, and the consumers would get a nice dose of subliminal advertising ala Josie and the Pussycats.
    • Yes, that is a very good idea. Spend lots of money on a very powerful IR emitter array to jam camcorders and heat up the audience. Or they could just turn the air conditioner down a bit and save lots of money.

  • This won't help... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mz6 ( 741941 ) * on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:22PM (#9339679) Journal
    A quick browse through some of the bit-torrent sites shows the vast majority of movies that are still in theaters ("Tomorrow" included) are TeleSync and Screener copies. So, while being able to stop camcorders from actually recording the cinema from your seat seems like the best solution, it still doesn't stop those that are getting the feed directly from the projector booth or those that have other means of obtaining the film.

    I am not sure what the best solution would be. It's very hard to stop piracy on these types of thigns because of how many hands they cross when being produced. Most movies created these days require outside influence for CGI enhancements. From there it gets shown to have the music soundtrack added.. Include test audiences (and those that screen it for them), previews to movie theater employees and you have so many leaks along the chain you sometimes don't know where to start. This also isn't all inclusive of the movie industry either... The music industry suffers the same fate, albeit the music is a lot easier to take than a full-length movie.

    • Are there just a lot of geeks among reviewers who want information to be free? Are they selling them? It's strange to risk your job over something like this.

      • Re:What's their motivation? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mz6 ( 741941 ) * on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:30PM (#9339764) Journal
        I am not a pirate, so I am not sure of the many ways they can get their hands on it.

        I would imagine that a pirate can pay said person to get the film. However, you bring up an interesting point... Where does the pirate get his money from? Surely not if he's going to release the film on the Internet. Does he sell them? And, if so, perhaps the person that buys turns around and floods the Internet with it?

      • Re:What's their motivation? (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Didn't you see that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry becomes a bootlegger and then George decides to try it? It's for the chicks, of course.
    • Rather than trying so hard to stop pirates, why don't they focus on giving people more incentive to go to the theaters? I don't download movies on the Internet, but at the same time, I refuse to see them at the theater. For one, the economy of the whole enterprise is entirely asinine - they expect me to pay close to $10 for 2 hours of (hopefully) entertainment, all the while pocketing 90% of it and forcing the theaters to make up the expenses by gouging us on concessions. And two, as inundated as we are
      • Funny: when it's Brad Pitt killing people, it's lowbrow summer movie season. When it's a guy chanting the same story in Greek, it's high literature.

        The picture is far better on a movie screen than it is on your TV, at least until they start printing high-definition DVDs, and it's far bigger than your TV. The sound is usually better, too, unless you've gone to great lengths to set up a top-notch sound system. You may not want to see Brad Pitt killing people, but if you're going to, I'd think you'd enjoy i
      • I know I would love to see the prices on movie tickets go down, too. The problem I see with this is that the way Hollywood seems to track movie attendance is by DOLLAR AMOUNT of tickets sold, not TOTAL NUMBER of tickets sold.
        That's just something to take into consideration for distribution companies to begin charging less. I'm not even positive the number of tickets sold is tracked any longer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I know the news media certainly doesn't report it.

        Another thing - we seem to think

    • Re:This won't help... (Score:4, Informative)

      by radixvir ( 659331 ) * on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:43PM (#9339907) Homepage

      there arent any screeners available for that movie yet, its mislabed. but all a telesync is is a cam with an external audio source (ie the handicapped seat). but you are right in that the people recording usually are in on it with the projectionist. these people arent the same people who leak the stuff on the internet, these people are in the business and sell the copies on the street. the people who release on the internet just pick up the copies off the street and release them.

    • There's no magic bullet that solves all of the sources of an in-theaters movie leaking its way to the Internet at once. There's going to need to be a different block installed for each possible source.

  • Good! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by devphaeton ( 695736 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:23PM (#9339681)
    Maybe i won't have a popular opinion on this, but i'm happy they were caught.

    I love all our priveleges and i dig our open source OSes and software, but i don't feel everything should be free.

    Let the slashdot hypocracy follow:
    • I agree. IR lens filters should be paid for.
    • Simple Solution: Do not release a movie at all! If you lock up the reels in a dim dark vault then no one will EVER be tempted to copy it. Works for music too. Personally I voted with my money by only going to 3 movies in the last decade. but then, I do not watch television either. Make decent movies-music-TV and folks might be inclined to purchase. "intelectual property" seems to be an overstatement when it comes to the current crop of productions...
      • So... you don't think there were any more than three decent movies or television shows produced in the last decade?

        I voted with my money by going to see movies that I knew would be worth the money, such as Lord of the Rings. I also paid for other, less "decent" movies that would be enjoyable and entertaining.

      • Re:Good! (Score:3, Informative)

        by jfengel ( 409917 )
        Oh, man, if you skipped Love Actually, you really missed out.

        Yeah, the world is full of crummy movies. But I've seen literally dozens of movies that made me extremely happy, from Branagh's Henry V to South Park (that is, great literature and lowbrow silliness).

        Shrek also ruled.

  • What about IR filters? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hellraiser943 ( 769496 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:23PM (#9339684) Homepage
    I do not know too much about camera filters, but I have heard of ones to block IR. Would that not make the system pointless?
    • Don't need a "camera" filter. Browse through the Schott Optical catalog and find the bandpass you need to reject. Order the proper diameter. ??? Profit! (sorry, couldn't resist)

      Sure, you drop a couple hundred bux on it, but you're a professional right? You're going to reproduce and resell these things on every street corner for $5 profit a pop. It's a small price to pay - probably less than the projectionists cut of take.

    • My cam has a tinfoil lens hood, it is impervious to all attakcks!

  • Infrared wouldn't work... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Otto ( 17870 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:23PM (#9339693) Homepage Journal
    As they'd just stick an IR filtering lens on the thing. Problem solved. Cheaply too.

    The thing with varying the framerate to introduce distortions sounds cool, but probably overly expensive for the limited scope of the actual problem itself.

    • Re:Infrared wouldn't work... Neither will timing (Score:5, Informative)

      by jeffmeden ( 135043 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:40PM (#9339874) Homepage Journal
      Modern digital handheld camcorders can use extended exposure to essentially mimic the human eye's perception, making the frame timing rather useless unless you alter it so much that it looks bad to the eye too. technology simply advances too fast, they wont be successful til they stop the gear from getting in front of the screen in the first place. Add that to the fact that camera rips certainly arent the only source of leaks, this technology will be rather pointless eh? find a cure for cancer or something!
      • exactly.. and because of this arms race and inability for people in charge to see the wood for the trees, it'll end up like the situation we have with audio CDs (or is consumer opposition reversing the tide yet?), where they're f**ing up quality that humans can perceive in the name of "copy protection", but all that's happening is they're pissing of their customers (you know, the people who pay to go see movies) and not stopping piracy, as someone gets a clean un-fucked-up copy (either before the protection
    • The thing with varying the framerate to introduce distortions sounds cool

      No, it sounds terrible. Like those CDs that had high-pitched audio to prevent copying, and ended up eating people's speakers.

      They claim they got the inspiration by noticing that computer monitors and TVs film poorly and have lines progressing down the screen (because the camera is filming faster than the screen can refresh, and is catching it in mid-frame. The image on your screen is being redrawn 60-85 times per second, dependin

      • They already do this.

        Miramax did it with Kill Bill (1 and 2). If you look, they put annoying little red dots (Cap Codes) all throughout the film:

        http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/200 3_ thb/031023_thu.html

        The end result is that it apparently caught a couple pirates, and probably pissed off a lot of people who can see the dots easily (they're really obvious on high-contrast areas of the film).

        N.

  • magnets! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ncurses ( 764489 ) * on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:25PM (#9339707)
    Or the movie companies could require the theaters to do what they did in cryptonomicon: put really big magnets in the doorways, so that all of the camcorders are destroyed. They could even post a sign about it to avoid being sued.

  • Hollywood Greatest Weapon... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:25PM (#9339708)
    Keep releasing bad movies no one wants to bootleg.

  • Better Idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ann Elk ( 668880 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:25PM (#9339711)

    Instead of trying to prevent copying, cinemas should just force all viewers to strip naked before entering. As an added benefit, if the movie is boring, the audience can devise their own entertainment.

  • IR Filter (Score:4, Informative)

    by ifreakshow ( 613584 ) * on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:27PM (#9339731)
    I don't know how effective the sony method would be. It seems like a dedicated person could filter the IR. I know that they do this in astronomy when using a CCD to look at stars and in high end photography:

    high end photography using filter [photoshot.com] astronomy using hot mirror [k3pgp.org]

  • Taping The Day After Tomorrow? (Score:4, Funny)

    by GrnArmadillo ( 697378 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:27PM (#9339737)
    Why would they WANT to pirate it? Steal it perhaps to destroy it and save humanity from its scourge, but propagating the thing? Evil!

    (And here's an amusing summary/parody [livejournal.com] of the thing for those who are up for a little MST3K style ribbing at it.)

  • Defeatable, as usual? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PktLoss ( 647983 ) * on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:28PM (#9339749) Homepage Journal
    In terms of putting UV projectors behind the screen or off to the side, cant you just get a UV filter and put it over the lens, to filter out all the ultra violet light?

    And in terms of messing with the projection rate. All of the things they seek to exploit stem from the fact that the human eye doesn't see descrete frames, it sort of blurs them togethor. Couldn't the people using the camcorders decrease the shutter speed to accomplish basically the same thing?
    • Yes, however capturing anything less than 30 frames per second would lead to sub-par viewing on a TV. They don't need to get the camcorders to be recording nothing, they just need to make it so that the resulting video is too annoying to watch...

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:29PM (#9339758)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I'll wait for the DVD and rent. They get minimum $$ out of my pocket, which is my goal. Most of the sheeple don't have the willpower to do so, sadly. Things might change if they did.

      It's not that I don't have the willpower, it's just that I don't have a 100 foot screen and 30,000 watt sound system at my house (yet).

    • Re:whatever... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FattMattP ( 86246 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:45PM (#9339928) Homepage
      I'll wait for the DVD and rent.
      Renting the DVDs has a lot of benefits over going to the theatre:
      • It costs the same or less to rent a movie than to see it in the theatre. All of your friends can come over and you can all watch it without having to pay more.
      • You can start the movie when you want to instead of waiting for it to begin.
      • You don't have to worry about getting a good seat and you and your friends can sit together (not always possible in a crowded theatre).
      • No ringing cell phones and crying children.
      • You don't have to be subjected to 30 second commercials before the previews and the movie.
      I find myself going to the theatre less and less. The only benefit is a big screen and decent sound system and that doesn't hold much appeal compared to all of the down sides one has to deal with.

      The thing that pisses me off the most is movie theatres that are showing several 30 second commercials after the slide show and before the previews. It pisses me off because I paid almost $10 to see the movie but now I'm a captive audience practically forced to watch these commercials. If I'm going to have to see ads, why isn't the movie free?

      I figure that having captive eyeballs to see your 30 second spot is easily worth $10 per person who sees it. So for each commercial I have to view before a movie, I consider myself entitled to watch one for free that I've downloaded from the net.

      • Re:whatever... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by gmhowell ( 26755 )
        It costs the same or less to rent a movie than to see it in the theatre. All of your friends can come over and you can all watch it without having to pay more.

        I don't have any friends, you insensitive clod! And my crappy living room only has room for two sofas.

        No ringing cell phones and crying children.

        Nope, ringing regular phone, and crying child. Hardly a net gain.

        You don't have to be subjected to 30 second commercials before the previews and the movie.

        What movies are you getting on DVD? Seems l

        • Re:whatever... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by FattMattP ( 86246 )
          Seems like every movie I get makes me sit through an ad or two, some trailers, an FBI warning, an Interpol statement, and the beginning of some seriously lame ass animated menus.
          I haven't encountered a DVD that wouldn't let me skip previews. I've also yet to see a DVD that has ads (not previews) on it. Just to clarify, when I say ads I mean ads like you'd see on television. You can tell they're video to film transfers as they are usually fuzzy.

          • Re:whatever... (Score:3, Informative)

            by mikeboone ( 163222 )
            Several DVDs we've gotten through Netflix have several minutes of trailers you can't skip. All they let you do is hold down the fast forward. I think Universal was the company that set up their DVDs that way.

            I bitched about this stuff yesterday in my blog [boonedocks.net].

            I'll still take DVDs over going to the movies, but the DVD experience could be better.

      • Re:whatever... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by misleb ( 129952 )
        I'm with you. Those ads are a downright insult. I may stop going to the theater just because of that. It is ridiculous. Of course, DVDs will probably go the same route. Many already have ads that you can't fastforward through (not being able to fastforward your OWN DVD in itself an abomination).
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Can you say "waste of time and money"? Who is going to choose a camcorder copy of a film over actually seeing it?

      There's a huge flea market in the no-mans-land between Dallas and Grand Prairie, Texas, where you can buy just about anything you want. A friend of my daughter brought over "Freaky Friday" and "Freddy vs. Jason" the week they hit theaters -- she told me her mom bought them there. The image was grainy, the soundtrack muted, and of course there were no DVD extras -- you put it in and it started

  • Idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:31PM (#9339777)
    Here's an idea: Security metal detectors! Homeland security will happily oversee who has what when entering the theatre. This will also reduce terror.

    Tickets will now read "seating at 6.45. Movie starts at 7.00. Please be here two hours prior to the show due to security measures."

    And this must work, since I haven't seen people recording movies on airplanes.

  • Counter Night Vision (Score:5, Funny)

    by CHaN_316 ( 696929 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:31PM (#9339786)
    When filming a movie, get a buddy to sit with you with a camcorder as well. Activate the night vision on the camcorder, and scan for the evil anti-piracy guys using night vision. When you spot one of them, and they spot you, activate your camcorder's 1000 candle spotlight and aim at guy, and run for it.

    Hmmm... this sounds like a really good Splinter Cell mod. Splinter Cell: Theaters VS Camcorders.
    • I'm going to start sitting there with my (non camera)cell phone held up in front of me. Then when they come after me, all they will find is a (non camera)cell phone with a picture on the screen (sent by someone with a camera phone) of a hand with it's middle finger extended.

  • Colour CCD cameras (Score:5, Informative)

    by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:33PM (#9339812)
    have a blocking filter [unc.edu] that will defeat this technique. Surely camcorders will have it as well...
  • Using this [schoolnet.co.uk] might keep people from being able to use a camcorder too.
  • FINALLY I can get my 700mb copy of the DAY AFTER TOMORROW in NIGHT VISION... does this mean I can watch the movie in pitch black and it will be all green and cool and stuff?

    This is a dream come true, what a way to save $6 that's for sure.

  • Linux programmers source of problem again,,,, (Score:4, Funny)

    by FerretFrottage ( 714136 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:37PM (#9339850)
    The movie studios have been in search of a new DVD encryption scheme since the industry standard, known as CSS, was cracked by Linux programmers in 1999... [com.com]

    Damn those Linux programmers, if we just had Windows virus/worm writers to worry about, the world would be a much safer place.

    • [quoted from news.com]

      The movie studios have been in search of a new DVD encryption scheme since the industry standard, known as CSS, was cracked by Linux programmers in 1999.

      Yeah, no kiddin' FF. I mean- to me that comment is just as acceptible as saying "since CSS was cracked by 'spic programmers in 1999." Geez. It's not like you can use the Linux KERNEL to crack CSS... so how exactly were the programmers who cracked CSS "Linux" programmers?

      Last I checked, C was still a a valid and viable programm

  • make me want to make a fake camcorder out of a block of wood and some paint and see if I can get arrested...

  • How is Sony going to do it? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cr0sh ( 43134 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:38PM (#9339853) Homepage
    Sony, in addition to film and audio distribution, also make camcorders. How much you want to bet that they are simply going to integrate into their camcorders some kind of wireless "switch", and sell transmitters to the theaters? They could then license this technology to all the other camcorder manufacturers (or if the problem is big enough, give it away?). You might say "Well, I will just bypass it, like with mod chips" - if integrated at some low chip level, without external antennas (or using the "ground" plane as an antenna) - and more powerful transmitter (to make up for the embeddedness) - it would probably be damn near impossible to bypass it (although nothing is a "sure thing")...

  • Better ways for theaters to fight back (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:40PM (#9339876) Homepage
    Here's a more honest way for theaters to fight back - better quality.

    Tonight, at the Sony Metreon in SF: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in IMAX [fandango.com]. Now that's the way to see the movie.

    • IMAX is a very interesting idea when you think about it as "copy protection" because IMAX movies are all about the 3-dimentional 180 degree presentation screen that just can't be replicated on a flat screen of any kind.

      Of course, the bigger selling point for IMAX is simply that "the theater experience" is all about having the more expensive screen and sound technology that even rich people can't afford to run in their home theaters. It's a little surprising theaters haven't yet felt the survival need to de

  • higher ticket prices? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zed2K ( 313037 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:42PM (#9339897)
    Great so they can jack up the ticket prices even higher to pay for the "jamming" camcorders for the very very small percentage of theaters or people that try to record that way?

  • my patent (Score:4, Funny)

    by Xzzy ( 111297 ) <sether@@@tru7h...org> on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:49PM (#9339959) Homepage
    I just sumbitted a patent for this jamming device [tru7h.org].

    We'll see how it goes. In tests so far it's been 100% effective.

  • bollocks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @05:49PM (#9339964) Journal
    Wait wait hold the fucking press, cinema recordings are crap, infact they are so crap i actually don't think i could ever bring myself to watch one. If someone gets ripped off buying one then thats their problem, piracy (ie selling for profit) is bad and we have police that go around stopping it, but the only purpose of filming off the screen and putting it on the net is so that people can see the film before it comes out in their country.

    Who the hell cares if someone watches a film before it comes out in their country? better yet, who the hell cares enough to stick nightvision in cinemas and go to all the trouble to try and stop cameras from working (which is just an up-hill battle that will go through round after round of expensive research and cheap ways to circumnavigate it).

    And giving out serious charges and prision time for this is just total fucking bullshit on the highest level. I can understand listening to an mp3 instead of a CD, i can understand watching a divx instead of a DVD, but if someone actually seriously wants to watch a poor quality cinema video then they're either too cheap to even go to the cinema (so dont bother chasing them) or they are total fanatics who need to see star-wars the very second it comes out and who will likely go and see it in the cinema about 20 times aswell.

    I believe in stopping things at the source but this just takes the piss, chuck people out if they have cameras but dont do this to your customers because some of us arnt sheep who will take your bullshit excuses and give you their money just like they take bushes bull shit excuses and wave their flags around or take blunketts crap as he says "duuhhhh i think we should have id cards because they help fight terrorists" or listen to the fucking criminal israeli government as they say "yeah that vanunu is evil, kidnap is ok", some of us don't give jack about jay-lo's failing career or ben afflecks right to have 3 jets, the cinema industry is just becoming shitty like all the other industries and soon they are going to wake up either to a society of sheep who will buy their DRM or a society of people who say fuck you and boycott every

    ok im going to sit down now.

    • Re:bollocks (Score:3, Insightful)

      by misleb ( 129952 )
      Who the hell cares if someone watches a film before it comes out in their country?

      Perhaps the movie industry is afraid that people will see just how bad most of the movies are and they won't go see them in the theaters? Just look at the piece of shit film the people got caugh recording.... Day After Tomorrow. Who in their right mind would go see that movie in the theater after seeing what a piece of shit it is? I think the movie industry relies on people not really knowing how good a movie is before th

  • ...one of the more recent "Terrible Terry Tate" Reebok advertisements, in which Terry's company had looked into other fields of athleticism for productivity boosters. Needless to say the Biathalon skier/shooter did not work out very well.

    Expect rollerblading ushers with NVG's and long rifles by July 4th.

  • blind chamber? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by a1bert ( 114762 )
    will whole theater go blind after starring 3hours at strong IR source?
  • to design ways of jamming camcorders. As correctly pointed out by others here, most of us will want to view a decent DVD and not settle for crummy Digicam vids. Second, the jamming technique that is supposed to block all digital camcorders from recording relies, if I read between the lines correctly, on modulating brightness and perhaps color in a way that the human visual system will not grok but that will definitely show up on CCD. Now, how long would it take to either
    -color/brightness correct in softwar

  • Will they ever do their homework first? (Score:3, Informative)

    by D4C5CE ( 578304 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @06:02PM (#9340098)
    Playing weird tricks, using millions of moviegoers as guinea pigs...?!

    I hope the next time an idea like this starts to shine like a bright strobelight in its inventor's mind, at least they'll have a look at some hardly known websites like these:

    1. Search eBay for "infrared filter" [ebay.com]
    2. Search Google for "photosensitive epilepsy" [google.com]

  • All i want to know is... (Score:3, Funny)

    by sinner0423 ( 687266 ) <sinner0423@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Friday June 04, 2004 @06:10PM (#9340146)
    Which one of you got away? Was it extremely difficult to escape the grasp of buttery fingered, 8.25/hr ushers?

  • What is the point? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cardshark2001 ( 444650 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @06:26PM (#9340278)
    The quality of a camcorder recording is already crap! Both the sound and video are usually awful. Does anybody really buy these things *instead* of going to the movies? A friend of mine bought the LOTR bootleg when he went to NY, as a gift for me to tide me over until the DVD came out, but I couldn't even bear to watch it, it was so bad.
    • This is what I've always wondered. It's been alluded to here, but I haven't seen anyone really answer the question: Who the hell says, "Well, I'm not going to go the the theater or rent/buy a DVD because I can get a shitty copy made with a goddamned hand camera at a theater for free?" It's like deciding not to go out to eat because you can find something edible in a dumpster. How does this lose the industry money?

  • A quote from the article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cardshark2001 ( 444650 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @06:31PM (#9340331)
    The practice known as "camcording" -- a misdemeanor crime in California -- allows video pirates to steal relatively high quality copies of films within hours or days of their release.

    Relative to what? Taking a crap on celluloid?

    Do ya think that maybe the MPAA had a little influence on this reporter?

  • Tomorrow's news? (Score:4, Funny)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @11:26PM (#9342205)
    In other news, the MPAA today announced that when moviegoers leave the theater, they are escorted down a hallway to an execution chamber, where each is shot. By implementing this innovative new patent pending procedure, the MPAA will ensure that its valuable intellectual property will be protected from piracy because people won't be able to tell their friends what the movie was about, or that it sucked, or anything else that might prevent higher ticket sales.

    Days after the initial implementation of this procedure, movie ticket sales have fallen to nearly $0, proof that piracy is responsible for reduced MPAA profits. The MPAA is going to begin suing individuals while lobbying the government to pass more stringent laws regarding movies, because the Constitution states that the MPAA has a God-given right to eternal perpetually increasing profits, and the government has a duty to guarantee that those profits increase by a satisfactory amount each year.

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close