Slashdot Mirror
Camcorder Jamming Devices Announced
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.
..because we all know how those high-quality camcorder-bootlegs are robbing millions from the movie producers.
camcorders to rip off content, ok, nice, who cares.
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.
Not evil. Misguided. Remember that you should never attribute to malice what is perfectly explainable by stupidity.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Because neccesity is the mother of invention.
If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
While I understand that the media conglomerates are opposed to people stealing their content (which costs millions of dollars to create), most people who purchase $2.99 "ShakyCam" copies of new release films off the street probably wouldn't have the money to actually *go* to the movies and spend $8.50 on a ticket, $6.50 for popcorn, and $5.00 for a soda.
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.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
The trouble is that, with this particular problem of movie pirating, it has to be 100% effective or it's no good.
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.
Kevin Fox
Yeah a laser pointer should do it as shown in this article.
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.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Ok.. let's see.. he want -every- cinema to install this gadget which no doubt will cost money, and might degrade the image quality..
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!)
Frame misalignment, their protection scheme if I understand correctly, is easily defeated. Simply adjust the "shutter" speed of the recording device to a longer duration. This will eliminate blank captures they intend to project.
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...
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.
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.
How does a guy get a name like 'Winky?'
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.
The problem is that because it's been so convenient to steal things in the past, people have become used to it to a point that they -actually- believe that breaking the law with a computer is a world away from, say, lifting a sweater from a department store. They'll come up with all sorts of arguments to justify it of course..they'll likely say that software isn't a tangible good so it isn't the same as stealing a physical object, some even make the ridiculous argument that software in its most basic form is composed entirely of electrons, and that no one can claim electrons. I think it'd be kind of difficult to find any consumer item that's electron free :)
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.
"They even throw an unrelated jab at Microsoft" ...as if that somehow adds substance or credibility to the article.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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.
-30-
i hope everybody noticed they got a $2 million dollar grant from NIST to develop this technology.
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
Cripes, even a lawyer wouldn't agree with you.
.. its copyright infringement.
.. should we just call these people 'theives' and arrest them? Or should we start understanding that theft != copyright infringement? Nobody ever wants to be robbed, but there are times where authors do not mind the supposed act of 'theft' .. er, copyright infringement.
..
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.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
Where are those screeners coming from? Well, the film industry of course!!!!!