Foiling Cinema Pirates

minesweeper writes "According to this Associated Press article, in fighting the piracy of advanced-screenings of movies, Hollywood has deployed agents with night vision goggles and placed metal-detectors at theater entrances. Nevertheless, video cameras are still being smuggled in and the recordings smuggled out and onto the Internet. Now, the latest attempt to fight piracy will be to show the movie with a particular flicker, imperceptible to the viewer in the theater, but making any video recording unwatchable. Quoth the article, 'Cinea LLC, which created an encryption system for DVDs, and Sarnoff, a technology research firm, are developing a system to modulate the light cast on a movie screen to create a flicker or other patterns that would be picked up by recording devices...'"

Comments

How sad

[Hemi Rodner]

You mean I won't be able to download those pirated movie captures? So sad.. they are much better than DVDs, since you can actually feel like you're in the cinema. You hear the croud laughing, crying or eating popcorn, and see all the late people who block your vision.

I truly hope pirates will get over this obstacle.

Maybe 10 years ago..

[Nathan Ramella]

But are telecine/cam records really what's hurting the film industry? Sounds like a lot of effort for very little pay-off.

Granted there's always a market for somebody who would like to see the Matrix Reloaded captured on someone's pen-camera, but is that really the demographic that the movie industry is losing money from?

Re:Maybe 10 years ago..

[mythr]

I'd be willing to bet that the flicker would change in rate as time went on. Sure, you could match it for a minute or two, but then it'd go out of sync and you'd get a ton of flicker again. As long as it changes more quickly than it's possible for the person to keep up, then their tactics will work.

It's also possible that they're just alternately showing frames later/earlier than their usual times. I'm not sure of the exposure time on most cameras, but it's probably less than half of 1/24 of a second (the time between frames on film). Moving frames by that small of a time it slightly would probably not be noticeable by most, unless they were actually looking for it.

Why is this a problem?

[zakath]

I don't really understand why this is a problem for the film industry. Watching a semi-focused and shaking image of a movie with mono sound on my TV in no way substitutes for going to the theatre for a movie experience. Not to mention the time it takes to d/l from any p2p service. It is nothing like MP3 music which, although not perfect, at least provides comparable fidelity to the 'real thing' you can buy on CD.

Three Words

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Epileptic
Seizure
Lawsuit

Re:Screeners are crap

[Zone-MR]

I think you got screeners and cams confused. Cam copies are poor quality recordings of the cinema screen using a hidden camera.

Screeners - which you mentioned are copies from media (usually DVD) sent to rental stores, etc well in advance before a film starts showing. They have perfect quality, and dont differe much from the final DVD excapt that they may lack some extra/bonus features.

Ever seen a recording of a computer monitor?

[Peter Cooper]

With people out there who say they can hear the difference between a CD and an MP3, I wonder if people won't complain about this, even if they can't see it.

If you get a camcorder and record a regular CRT and play it back, you'll see all sorts of crazy flickering on the recording. That's because the screen only updates X times per second, and that doesn't always correlate up with how often the camcorder takes a shot.

Generally, people can use a CRT without seeing this flickering. Although if you use a lower refresh rate, most people get headaches, and some will notice flickering or just sense something is 'wrong'.

At the right refresh rate, you could recreate this effect while annoying only perhaps 0.5% of your audience, and if it's just for a few preview screenings, it might be a good idea for them.

Infrared light

[jetmarc]

One very simple possibility to deny bootleg videos is to install a high power
infrared light source. Most video cameras pick up infrared just as good as
visible light. Thus the bootleg copy is just garbage.

However, photography accessories include infrared filters, which may cut down
on quality (hey, what quality???), but enable the bootlegger to continue his
job. Also, to my knowledge there is no study about the medical effects of
beaming high wattage infrared light right into the eyes of cinema visitors
(including children).

Marc

Re:I wonder if they really can make this 'invisibl

[tamyrlin]

Personally, I think that a movie seen at a theatre flickers quite badly even today.

If you are bothered by a 60Hz monitor with a white background you are probably going to be bothered by a white scene in a cinema as well. I hope that this technology will not worsen the effect too much.

Mod Parent Down - Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they use a genlock to get the TVs and monitors to match the scan rate of the film camera.
The reason Apple Macs used to be seen so much in films is simply that Macs have always had a genlockable video output (along with Amigas), whereas PCs require more work to genlock.

I can't believe you people.

[falsified]

The MPAA is planning on using a technique that will protect its rights over the works its member studios have produced.

This technique doesn't involve subpoenas to ISPs to get the identities of p2p users.

This technique doesn't involve scare tactics targeted at network admins.

This technique does not involve arrests, fine, or prison sentences.

This technique does not involve some cockeyed "protection scheme" that renders the product absolutely useless in certain circumstances.

What the fuck do you guys want?