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.

14 of 582 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What about lasers blinding cameras? by aridhol · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And how would you use these without also blinding your audience?

    --
    I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
  2. It took about... by f97tosc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    3 days after the US release until Epsiode 1 VCDs where widespread in South East Asia. The producers must have taken the very first flight out after the first showing, and then started large-scale dupliation immediately.

    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

  3. Unfortunately by wiredog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Jamming cell phones in a theater/restaurant/library/etc is illegal. Violates FCC regulations.

  4. Macrovision? by c.derby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The company "will modify the timing and modulation of the light used to create the displayed image such that frame-based capture by recording devices is distorted,"

    This is basically how macrovision works for VCRs.

    --
    -- derby
  5. $3 Billion and 50% cut in piracy by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to their grant, the movie industry loses $3 billion a year to piracy and that Cinea's system will cut piracy by 50%. Considering that most piracy comes from insiders and not the theater camcorder person, how did Cinea come up with 50%? Was it through market research? Nope: It's "our own estimate." Well, that makes me feel better.

  6. Instead of Jamming them... by RebelTycoon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    WHY don't they look for them? Cams aren't the smallest of shapes, a little enforcement of theatre policies would go a long way.

    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!

  7. Re:Why embed the signal into the picture at all? by Speare · · 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.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  8. Re:Don't forget... by oldmacdonald · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I really don't understand why people hated the DIVX thing so much. People are perfectly happy to rent a videotape for $3 and have to return it in a day or so, why not get a DIVX DVD for $3 and simply NOT have to return it?

    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.

  9. Great news! by gpinzone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now with all the amatures with handhelds out of business, we can now get professional rips of new movies by organized crime syndicates! No longer will we have to sit through grainy VHS camcorder copies of Hollywoods latest tripe. The mafia (asian and otherwise) will now have a viable buisiness model for peddling their illegal wares. Throw in P2P networks as a method of distribution for the geeks and we can't loose! Thank goodness for copy protection!

  10. The key to success... by TheTomcat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    is this paragraph:
    "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

  11. Love the math by TheTomcat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I love their math:
    "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

  12. DIVX threatened the new DVD format. by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I didn't hate DIVX because it let you "rent" discs and throw them away. I hated it because it was potentially affecting the library of movies available on regular DVD. When DIVX came out, DVD was just starting to become popular. It really had the potential to totally make or break the success of DVD as a format.

    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.

  13. $3Billion by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Has any studio actually put the $3Billion in "piracy losses" into their annual statement?

    If not, they should shut the fuck up, or prove the statement.

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  14. Not "digital" copies at all by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The camcorder-jamming project comes as directors, including "Star Wars" legend George Lucas, are creating movies designed for digital projection that aim to provide sharper and more astounding visual effects than traditional film. But the technology has raised concerns that audience members might eventually create high-quality copies of movies using handheld video cameras smuggled into theaters.
    The fact that the camcorder and the projector are both digial is irrelevant. It is not a digital copy because movie screens reflect photons, not bits. The projecter is a D/A converter and the camcorder is a A/D converter.

    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).