Slashdot Mirror
Night Vision Goggles vs Pirates
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."
Theater pirates may get lots of press, but most of the stolen copies freely available are taken right from the studios themselves.
Have you Meta Moderated t
does it really stop our favourite cinema employee videoing it for us/letting us in for free?
correct me if im wrong... but the only reason to use infra-red goggles would be to spot the lil distance finder beam that most camcorders use for their auto-focus.
if thats the case all the pirates have to do is cover that up with a bit of tape & focus manually, right?
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.
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.
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".
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
.. because in a few years time (3-6 ?) there will be video quality recorders which can hide in the centre of a persons glasses.
I'm not promoting piracy here, just saying that they are completely wasting their time - if they really want to "maximize profits with their combined synergies" then they would simply reduce the price.
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
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.
yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
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.
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
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.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
I heard a story about a guy with a Ferrari or Lambroghini in the 80s who had some night vision goggles and would drive by speedchecks at 150+ for laughs. The story went that he did it a few too many times and they put up a barrier to see what it was and there were little pieces of car+driver all over the road. I'm pretty sure it's an urban legend, but it made for an interesting story.
I got to use a gen 4 or 5 (lab prototype NVG in the late 90s) you could have read or driven with this it was amazing (about the size of a credit card). Even cooler, though, was the scope off a stinger missle. It was as big as an old camcorder (the full size VHS ones). But you could see all sorts of stuff (studs in the walls), the recently turned off lights, and of course the people. Looking back it was impressive that they passed all of this around in a crowded dark lecture hall.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Notice how little mainstream press there was about the DVD screener(s) being traced back to comp copies given to members of the Academy.
Most modern night vision gear contains circuitry to protect against bright flashes of light (a previously effective method for disabling night vision). Leaving a bunch of IR transmitters around would merely result in them getting confiscated, and possibly your ass getting permanently thrown out.
A much better suggestion is the use of a fibre-optic lens that would be hooked into a recorder under your coat. The optics could then be attached to something inconspicuous (like a lapel pin). Of course, that seems like a lot of work to go through just to record a movie for your "warez" buds.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
So what if the ushers catch them. What happens then? Do they just kick them out of the theater? They'll just show up for the next show. What should happen is that police are notified and 10 of them swarm in, yank the guy out of his seat, and then make sure that the first ones caught get 3-4 years in jail. After a while, the others will get the message. And it's cheaper than issuing night vision glasses to every movie house.
When I worked at a theatre the biggest pirate was the theatre manager. Every once in a while I'd see him in the projection booth copying the films via a mirror reflector. We once had to get a new print because he would cut out so many frames that the film lost five minutes - I have no idea what he was doing with the frames.
As an usher you could bet I wouldn't be wearing those goggles, either. It was bad enough doing the Will Rodgers collections and stopping people from bringing in outside food. For what they paid, let them do their own undercover missions.
( $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/
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.
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.
Actually, the law states that you cannot put security cameras in places where their is an expectation of privacy. Including dressing rooms and bathrooms. Given that you're expected to change in a tanning booth, I would imagine it would fall under the dressing room category... sounds to me like the woman needed a better lawyer.
As far as theatres go, I doubt there's any argument to be made there about expectation of privacy, and I can't really imagine more than a handful of people boycotting movies because of this level of surveillance.
Frontline recently ran a show, "The Day the Music Died," about the demise of the recording industry at the hands of money people. (as opposed to music people) I missed it, but supposedly it is on the PBS website, though I haven't had a chance to search for it, yet. Your points highlight the rise of money people (as opposed to movie people) in the movie industry.
For that matter, perhaps we can at least partly blame the whole DMCA, copyright, etc mess on the rise of the MBA. Figure a media exec more comfortable with money and legal instruments than with the media, itself.
IMHO, this isn't limited to the media industries, to give 'business method patents' for one example.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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.
Could you flood the theater with infrared light and badly pollute the light reflecting from the filmscreen? Wouldn't that render caming useless? Or emite it from the edges of the screen, or from behind the screen.... You could at least lower the image quality to unnacceptable levels.
-My cat's name is mittens
...to complain about anti-piracy measures these days, one forgets this is perfectly fair and legit. I can't say I think this is going too far at all. It is illegal to tape a movie in the theater, it always has been, and everyone knows it. I can't see how anyone but people who want to pirate the movie early would be upset about this in any way. They're not affecting the operation of any equipment you own, they're not placing heavy restrictions on copyrighted material that also prevent some forms of fair use, they're not invading your privacy (hey, keep your Harry Potter in your pants, this is a kids movie), nothing.
I can't see one reason to complain here other than "it's the MPAA". Doesn't give them an excuse to pull some of the other crap they're trying too, but I think they deserve to be praised when they do something right. Perhaps they'll make note of it and start getting it right more often?
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
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.
I predict that the policy will last until the first story about it being used to catch people who sneak in outside food. That will cross the line, in the general public's perception, between defending their legitimate business interests and protecting unreasonable greed.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
or, have IR emitting from the front of the theatre, toward the audience... cameras, will wash out in the light...
but shouldn't affect the audience.
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.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
You'd have a hard time seeing past the light of the movie. Night vision is good stuff, but, an image intensifier is blinded by bright light. As an example, my neighborhood has no street lights. WHen it's dark, my gen 2 nvd sees quite well. However, if a neighbor has a porch light on, I can't see the front part of their house with it.
Pointing an IR LED at it would indeed blind it. I can't look in the mirror with my NVD when the IR illuminator is on. A TV remote is enough to light up an entire room.
There's a fun solution to that problem:
http://www.glarkware.com/securestore/c181844p16288 268.2.html