Slashdot Mirror


Theaters vs. Camcorders, Round 27

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."

260 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Prosecution by webguru4god · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Prosecution by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    2. Re:Prosecution by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Prosecution by BCoates · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Prosecution by Alsee · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Prosecution by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Okay, you're the one that doesn't know what you're talking about. While it's true that there are not special copyrights for digital and analog works and there is only one set of copyright laws which the DMCA modified, almost all of the modifications it made were with regards to digital work (or the design of boats, though that is hardly applicable here). See a summary or the full text.

    6. Re:Prosecution by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Actually, I stand corrected. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=110027&cid=934 0281 explains that there are analog encryption schemes, which I did not know. There are essentially 4 parts to the DMCA: one is WIPO treaty commitments changing a couple small aspects of enforcement and registration, one is on the design of boat hulls, then there are the two parts that we are concerned about, the bit with the ISPs given safe harbors and such, and the encryption bypassing. The third part still is digital, but the forth I see now would apply to analog devices as well.

    7. Re:Prosecution by hearingaid · · Score: 1
      You're wrong.

      There are more people downloading movies on P2P now than selling them. It's gone into the millions of people. There aren't millions of people selling pirated movies. Come on.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    8. Re:Prosecution by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Oh, the old 'daughter before she dies' ploy....nice.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
  2. poor taste by ralphmyers · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should be fined just out of poor taste.

    --
    D
    1. Re:poor taste by DrEldarion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While the plot (and especially dialog) of the movie was pretty poor, the visuals were absolutely awesome. It's one of those movies that you just watch because it looks pretty and sort of turn your brain off.

    2. Re:poor taste by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      While the plot (and especially dialog) of the movie was pretty poor, the visuals were absolutely awesome.

      And with CG content being standard these days, if the plot sux and the visuals are "average" by today's technology and such, what then makes this movie worth seeing? And, are there any parallels between eye candy and heroin?

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    3. Re:poor taste by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 3, Funny
      While the plot (and especially dialog) of the movie was pretty poor, the visuals were absolutely awesome. It's one of those movies that you just watch because it looks pretty and sort of turn your brain off.

      as opposed to the other Hollywood movies that are mentally stimulating. i will admit The Day After Tomorrow was enjoyable, mostly because it showed L.A. being destroyed

    4. Re:poor taste by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

      "They should be fined just out of poor taste."

      Everybody in my theater was fined $8. :(

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:poor taste by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      ...the visuals were absolutely awesome.

      Sorry, but I was laughing too hard to notice. Really. My son got embarassed by my laughing at the places where the science/plot/dialog were so stupid that one had no other choice (and there were plenty of these). Kids these days...

      --
      That is all.
    6. Re:poor taste by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Seeing manhattan flooded with two stories of water and then seeing the statue of liberty up to her waist in SOLID ICE made the movie worth seeing... ;)

    7. Re:poor taste by KC7GR · · Score: 1

      The visuals for the weather effects were awesome. However, the 'digital wolves' really stank. I've met more than a couple of wolves, and seen a whole pack of 'em going about their daily routines, and I can say with confidence that they do NOT move like the movie showed.

      There were other faux pas, behavior-wise. Wolves are, by nature, very timid critters where people are concerned. You make any sort of sudden move or loud noise and, if they're not backed into a corner or you're not threatening a mom and cubs, they'll run away. Fast!

      Then again, it seems to be a Hollywood requirement that any disaster movie needs to be equipped with SOME sort of allegedly people-eating animal. I guess wolves just happened to be handy at the time.

      Keep the peace(es).

      --

      Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

      Blue Feather Technologies

    8. Re:poor taste by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      There were other faux pas, behavior-wise. Wolves are, by nature, very timid critters where people are concerned. You make any sort of sudden move or loud noise and, if they're not backed into a corner or you're not threatening a mom and cubs, they'll run away. Fast!

      How about if they're starving ? The scene made it obvious that they were after food (eating the food on the tables before attacking the kids).

    9. Re:poor taste by nyseal · · Score: 1

      OOH you hit a nerve! I too wish LA would just die....

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    10. Re:poor taste by KC7GR · · Score: 1

      Still didn't look right. Besides, there was another big technical error right in front of us poor movie-goers. Think about it for a minute.

      --The kids were after food themselves. They found such in the ship's galley.

      --All they had to do was throw a whole bunch into the room where the wolfies were. There was far more in there than they or the other survivors could carry, let alone eat. The canids would be busy enough dealing with it that they would ignore anything short of a direct threat or an attempt to take food away.

      The point I'm trying to make is that Hollywood went way overboard with that whole scene, just to make it look like Poor Humans vs. Big Bad Wolves. Just plain awful...

      --

      Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

      Blue Feather Technologies

  3. IR - varmth by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

    --

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

    1. Re:IR - varmth by webguru4god · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:IR - varmth by jpmkm · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:IR - varmth by doctor1 · · Score: 1

      I think they are already using some type of anger emitters there. I'm normally a nice guy, but everytime I hear some @$$holes cellphone ring in the theater, I have this overwhelming urge to twist their head from their shoulders, and shove the phone in the newly-created bloody cavity. Honestly, it's the anger emitters fault...

      --
      Astronauts in weightlessness of pixilated space, exchange graffiti with a disembodied race. - Rush
    4. Re:IR - varmth by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      What do you think all the salt in the popcorn topping is for? It makes me pretty damn thirsty.

    5. Re:IR - varmth by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 4, Funny
      I'm normally a nice guy, but everytime I hear some @$$holes cellphone ring in the theater, I have this overwhelming urge to twist their head from their shoulders, and shove the phone in the newly-created bloody cavity.
      . . . but being a Slashdot poster, you have to settle for sending them a ringtone that crashes their phone?
    6. Re:IR - varmth by filmsmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      I never saw the flick, but I was under the impression it was subaural, not subliminal, in Josie.

      fs

    7. Re:IR - varmth by cardshark2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm normally a nice guy, but everytime I hear some @$$holes cellphone ring in the theater, I have this overwhelming urge to twist their head from their shoulders, and shove the phone in the newly-created bloody cavity.

      Jeez bud, settle down will ya? I don't carry a cell phone myself, so don't think I'm one of your nemesises, but a ring could easily just be an honest mistake. If you had the very same visceral reaction to someone actually answering the phone and talking in the theater, I'd be a little more understanding. As long as they realize the mistake and turn it off immediately, what's the big deal? Take a chill pill dude.

      Much worse is the fellow who brings his children and allows them to talk throughout the movie. A guy with a little girl allowed her to completely ruin LOTR III for me. That's deliberately inconsiderate and rude, and it makes me pretty angry, but I didn't do anything about it. She kept asking questions, because she didn't understand everything that was going on and sometimes she couldn't make out the dialogue. I felt sorry for her, plus I figure he knows it's rude, my telling him isn't going to fix anything. I also have a real aversion to being a snitch.

      Anyway, I got off my point, but it is that a ringing phone is likely just an accident, not a deliberate slight. Learn to lighten up a little bit, life's too short to go around peeved at everything and tilting at windmills. You'll live longer if you do. It's a proven fact.

      --
      WWJD? JWRTFA!
    8. Re:IR - varmth by bot24 · · Score: 1

      BlueJack!

    9. Re:IR - varmth by filmsmith · · Score: 1

      nice try

      And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you pesky cowards!

      fs

    10. Re:IR - varmth by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      Hey, Adam! Congratulations on getting a submission posted! (Sheesh, don't I feel silly initiating a greeting with admiration of one's exploits on slashdot. :p) How goes it? God bless! /me (spamplz@comcast.net)

    11. Re:IR - varmth by azmatsci · · Score: 1

      IR doesn't work like that. Short wave IR, or near-IR, is what the goggles and night cameras use to 'see.' Long wave IR is emmitted as heat.

      --
      I stole this sig.
  4. yes! by teknokracy · · Score: 1

    Exactly... I noticed how IR can be seen by camcorders, so why not have a few IR floodlights that would eliminate camcorders? Anyone not using a modern camcorder isnt going to be doing it for internet release anyway, so why bother with other methods. Besides, why would I want a crappy cam of a move? Telesync and DVD-Rip all the way!

    1. Re:yes! by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the problem would be that it's trivially easy to put an IR filter in front of the lens?

      But ya, Cams suck. I watched a few to see what they looked like, and the quality is poor, the audio sucks, etc.

      If you've got a kickass 5.1 surround system with a DLP projection system, there's no reason to waste your time with "copies from theatres" anyway.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    2. Re:yes! by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      I've got a kickass 7.1 system(10K+) which I don't even like to watch anything lower quality then a DVD on. You can really tell a difference on just the sound alone from a copy you download VS a DVD. Not to mention Dolby Digital >>>>>> Pro Logic

    3. Re:yes! by Knightmare · · Score: 1

      Oh Ya! well I have a n 8.1 system.... we could go on with this all night, seriously. What other than stroking your ego did your post do? I think I will re-iterate the previous posters point and while I am at it add 2.0 and put a $$ figure on mine. *ugh*

    4. Re:yes! by LafinJack · · Score: 1

      Not everybody has that option, though. I know it's a small market, but for those of us stuck out here in Iraq, all we can get for DVDs is the finest Taiwan bootlegs from the Iraqi storefronts. Mail is three weeks each way, so Amazon or Netflix are impractical.

      Older movies (a couple years old) are direct copies of the DVDs and thus DVD quality. But then there are the cams, copies of Hellboy, the Punisher, Kill Bill 2, movies that aren't out on DVD yet - or even in theaters, sometimes. Some are pretty good quality, some have popcorn and people laughing in the background (the Ladykillers) and are virtually unwatchable. Others have people getting up in the middle of the movie to go to the bathroom like in the Day After Tomorrow... though for that one they may have been leaving the theater entirely.

      So yeah, I forgot what I was going to say originally, but not everyone has the option of getting pristine DVDs to use on their high-end systems. I don't blame you, I'm just envious. ;)

      --
      we are building a religion
      a limited edition
      we are now accepting callers
      for these pendant key chains
    5. Re:yes! by teknokracy · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Cams have prevented me from wasting $10 on a movie i dont want to see. You get to drive a car befre you buy it, why not that way with a movie?

    6. Re:yes! by azmatsci · · Score: 1

      Not true. Data shows that at near-IR wavelengths still 50-80% of the energy gets through with the built-in filter in place.

      --
      I stole this sig.
  5. This won't help... by Mz6 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:This won't help... by polecat_redux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 with various forms of pleasure, I'm sure I can find something more valuable to do with my time than watch Brad Pitt kill a few people.

    2. Re:This won't help... by radixvir · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:This won't help... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:This won't help... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      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 it more when you can see all the details.

      So I like to watch movies in the theater. I don't buy concessions, and I guess I'm taking advantage of those people for whom a movie just isn't a movie without $6 worth of popcorn and a $3 soda, who are the ones really paying for that fancy movie projector that I enjoy so much.

    5. Re:This won't help... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      When it's a guy chanting the same story in Greek, it's high literature.

      I've been trolled, I know it, but... there are a number of differences between the Homer's story and what Hollywood produced. For one, Achilles was having a very passionate affair with his mate Patroclus which is why, when Patroclus is killed instead of him., Achilles is so wracked with guilt and anger. In legend they were even buried together.

      Now, I haven't seen the film yet, so correct me if I'm wrong, but is Brad Pitt shagging Patroclus?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    6. Re:This won't help... by casuist99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 theaters rip us off for a 64-oz soda (or whatever a LARGE is today). Maybe that's a good thing considering the sheer amount of calories a non-diet soda that size contains.

      We all know the syrup and carbonated water doesn't cost anywhere near what we even pay at McDonald's, but we pay it anyway. Until there's a complete price restructuring for all soft drinks (fountain drinks cost less for Schwepps vs. Coca Cola brands for example), I think we don't have much cause to go after the concessions prices that keep the theaters open. If you don't like their price, don't buy their sugar. Movie prices are another matter, of course.

    7. Re:This won't help... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Oh, there were massive differences between the Iliad and Troy. I was mostly just baiting you.

      In this version Patroclus has become Achilles' beloved cousin, which made us all snigger. Me perhaps most of all; I once played Achilles in Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida, and Thersites calls Patroclus "Achilles' bitch". Literally.

      There are some even more vigorous differences between the book and the the movie, not the least of which is the time frame, both that the war has been compressed from ten years to a month, and that the movie covers events before and after the Iliad.

      Many characters meet different ends than legend tells. I'll avoid spoiling them, but you could really hear the gasps from those who had read the book going, "Wait a minute, THAT kind of changes things!"

      Yet (I know you didn't ask, and I'm getting increasingly off-topic), I actually quite enjoyed it. It _was_ pretty much just summer fare, and rather devoid of literary merit. But they got many things right, and you could tell that when they tinkered with the story, it was deliberate and not out of ignorance.

      They had deliberatly decided to tell the story without the gods, as a war movie (appropriate, given that there's reason to believe that the events are true, to at least some degree). When we see Thetis, she's up to her hips in the ocean, seeking shells to make a necklace. Is she a nymph, or just a woman? You can read it either way. That's my favorite example where it was clear that they knew the story and worked around it without working against it.

      On the other hand, I could reel off a hundred massive differences, and if you love Homer's text seeing the movie may just tick you off. But I really liked the performances: Pitt as Achilles, Peter O'Toole as Priam, and especially Eric Bana as Hector.

      I wonder if we could get Mel Gibson to make The Iliad, in the original Greek.

    8. Re:This won't help... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Rather than trying so hard to stop pirates, why don't they focus on giving people more incentive to go to the theaters?
      This same simple minded nonsense of blaming the victim again... (Not to mention, better movies *increase* the incentive to pirate.)
    9. Re:This won't help... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Speaking of the better & bigger nature of movies at the theater vs tv. Why do some people spend $5 to $10 to see a movie, only to sit all the way in back, even when the theater is over half empty?
      I can only think of two reasons, and one I'm not shure of. The first is couples who want a little privacy. The other is I've heard Critics who get in for free are expected to sit near the back so paying customers can sit in the better seats.
      If I'm paying to see a movie at the theater I want to see it BIG not tv sized.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    10. Re:This won't help... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Oh, there were massive differences between the Iliad and Troy. I was mostly just baiting you.

      Then you Sir, are a master baiter. But not as much as the other guy who replied to my post. Now HE is funny (from a distance).

      Anyway, as you clearly know what you're talking about and you still liked the movie, then perhaps I will go and see it... although I think I prefer this version.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    11. Re:This won't help... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "The picture is far better on a movie screen than it is on your TV"

      Yah, but I hardly watch TV anyway.

      Nowadays most PCs can easily manage games and other stuff at 1024x768 85Hz.

      While the movie rez is better, the 24 fps rate really sucks. Especially the pan shots, it looks like the picture is rippling down. For some reason it's not quite like a game which dropping frames - the image really does seem like it's "rippling/tearing".

      I suppose dropping frames at 85hz means the picture is still drawn pretty fast, but the time between new pictures is longer. Whereas the 24fps film mechanism has its own quirks.

      --
    12. Re:This won't help... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Dunno. I have one friend who likes to sit absolutely in the back row, and I think it's because she prefers to have a wall at her back. We've never sat in the next-to-last row. Personally, I don't like it because the projector can be really loud from there.

      I guess it's all just a matter of taste. I like to sit in a place where I can stretch my legs out, which usually means the front row (but in a stadium theater, there are usually two front rows, the second of which is at a reasonable distance from the screen.)

    13. Re:This won't help... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Now THAT's funny.

  6. Good! by devphaeton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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:

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
    1. Re:Good! by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      I agree. IR lens filters should be paid for.

    2. Re:Good! by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    3. Re:Good! by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Good! by jfengel · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Good! by bit01 · · Score: 1
      i don't feel everything should be free.

      Agreed, but it doesn't follow that things should be monopoly expensive either.

      While I don't do it myself I have no problem with a little civil disobedience while IP law is such an ass.

      ---

      It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
      It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
      Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

    6. Re:Good! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And how many people go out and buy a "proper version" or see a movie in the theatres after watching one of these screeners?

      What is a screener? Aren't those the DVDs that are sent to the Academy members? They aren't the ones that are the camcorder captures.

      Regardless, I'd have to say that the number is probably about 25%, maybe 50%. If the movie really sucks, I'm not going to waste the time on it, no matter what the cost. Having it in low quality doesn't help. If it is any good, I would then want to see it is a high quality version.

      I saw Braveheart three times in the theater. It was a very good movie. However, the battle scenes would be greatly reduced in effect on the small screen. So the response was to see it again. If I had seen a capture of that movie, I would certainly have watched it in the theaters. However, if I'd seen a capture of Jason X, I'd have not seen it in the theaters. It wasn't worth my time to see in any form, so I have not, nor will ever, see it.

      But I think that you don't care. You aren't asking the question because you want an hones answer. You are asking the question because you already think you know the answer.

    7. Re:Good! by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      Me, for one.

      There is just no substitute for the big screen experience. I'd love to be able to pre-view a few questionable movies before I shell out $10.

      The pirate DVDs that I've seen are of generally poor quality, and some are just downright irritating to attempt to watch.

      I can tell you that downloading albums from Napster (back in the day) caused me to actually go and purchase 5 CDs that I would not have just based on the over-hyped radio hit played on corporate heavy-rotation stations.

      I wish I still had that choice. Instead, I'm forced to evaluate based on one song, with a heavy amount of skepticism involved in my judgment.

    8. Re:Good! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Funny


      I've no really strong opinions on this at the moment, but looking at the situation from a pragmatic point of view, isn't the pirating a good thing for the studios?

      By passing around these low-quality versions, the studio gets free publicity by people wanting to see the movie 'properly.'

      The only time they really lose is if the movie is crap and they were just relying on the marketing hype to... oh, yes, I see why they're bothered.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    9. Re:Good! by andr0meda · · Score: 1


      I know I'm gonna take a hit for this, but..

      As long as there are pirates, there will be free speech, and ultimately, better software, security, and more rights. Pirates are those people who make it possible for the poor man to experience a part of modern culture, which economic law and society has denied him. They are the opposition forces of society to the corporate globalist oppression of the free virtual world.

      I don't defend stealing in general, but I do not believe in digital 'property' (especially not if it is being made public in theatres), hence digital information can not be stolen (or bought), only protected.

      In the end, digital freedom is inevitable, and anything standing in it's way will make society ugly and complicated, and will eventually make it collapse.

      --
      With great power comes great electricity bills.
    10. Re:Good! by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I don't do it myself I have no problem with a little civil disobedience while IP law is such an ass.

      I love people who rant on about "civil disobedience" in regards to IP, and then also try as hard as they can to do so without getting caught. The whole point of civil disobedience is to point out the injustice regarding a situation by purposely breaking the law in public and facing those consequences in a public setting so that the general populace might change their opinion.

      Those that record movies in secret and distribute the results using technology to keep themselves anonymous are just filthy pirates, not great champions of social justice.

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    11. Re:Good! by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Quite a few given the low quality of a telesync. They're still cam jobs and very hit and miss even within their low quality range. The only way to see a decent version of most films remains the cinema during the time you'd concider a telesync.

      We're not talking screeners here; a screener uses a prerelease DVD or so as a source, and are a *completely* different ballgame.

    12. Re:Good! by bit01 · · Score: 1

      breaking the law in public

      That's just semantics. If enough people are "breaking the law" it's pretty damn visible, as is happening now with downloading, despite the fact that individuals are quite sensibly trying to stay invisible.

      Since the media/IP cartels are using their enormous financial resources, partly accumulated through broken law, to game the legal system even more now, it's not unreasonable for citizens to use the relatively minor resources they do have (individual anonymity) to make their point. I do agree with your implied point that people should lobby more pro-actively.

      filthy pirates

      No, just sensible people who think they are being overcharged by a cartel.

      ---

      It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
      It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
      Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

    13. Re:Good! by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

      No, just sensible people who think they are being overcharged by a cartel.

      Ok, so which media company is currently breaking the law, as you implied? And is Hollywood entertainment such a necessity in life that their actions can even come close to be justifiable? This isn't medical supplies. It's not food. This isn't even oil or any other fuel. These are movies, for Pete's sake.

      These people just want free stuff. Period. They're cheap, and they should admit it.

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    14. Re:Good! by Geekbot · · Score: 1

      How is South Park the Movie low brow? A musical political satire focusing on censorship and it's toll on children as their real problems are ignored while activists witch hunt for a scape goat? It's kind of an artsy indy type movie I thought. Great music though. That really was a shame what happened with Phil Collins winning. I used to like him, but his Disney song had nothing on the music from South Park.

    15. Re:Good! by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      I love all our priveleges and i dig our open source OSes and software, but i don't feel everything should be free.

      I believe they're in trouble for recording the film, not sneaking in without paying...

    16. Re:Good! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Bingo. You hit the nail on the head.

      Over here there are plenty of pirated movies available. But for the recent LoTR, the theatres were filled for _months_. There were queues even two months after I watched it - a colleague made a mistake of trying to go watch it without booking and - no tickets.

      Even if you think LoTR isn't that good, it's good enough to fill the seats, and so it's good enough.

      But why doesn't Hollywood just make movies which fill the seats? Why do they even do crap like Kevin Costner stuff[1]?

      Pixar manages to fill the seats. Plenty of people went to watch Finding Nemo. AFAIK all their movies have done well (even here).

      I mean it's not like Hollywood does arty-farty stuff well, so why bother. Just stop pumping out stuff which doesn't sell. And stick to the stuff which does - heroes vs villains - save the world, girl meets guy, quests etc.

      If Hollywood loses money it's not because of pirates. It's because they are so out of touch with their customers. Probably because most of the directors, producers, actors, writers etc live in the Hollywood world, which is very unlike the world everyone else lives in, different moralities, different priorities. Look at Bollywood - they know their audience.

      Same goes for the music industry. Love songs sell. Sure the cynical amoral music producer may find it sickeningly boring, but hey in the old days I bet they were just as cynical, but they were cynical enough to just keep churning that stuff out, and made big bucks doing so.

      Maybe they're trying to make the rest of the world into cynical amoral wretches like themselves. And they're willing to lose money doing so. And someone just has to take the blame for it.

      My personal preference: if I'm going to watch something on the big screen, I'd prefer a big story, larger than life or different. Not something similar to watching the neighbours or my colleagues ;). Bad guys winning, pointless violence? Heck there's plenty of that in the real world so there better be good reasons to spend 2 hours and _pay_ to see that on screen.

      [1] Even Dances with Wolves was crap. It probably sold in the US because of the guilt trip factor.

      --
  7. What about IR filters? by hellraiser943 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:What about IR filters? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Next on the legislative agenda: If you get caught selling IR filters that can be fit onto camcorders, you'll end up sharing a cell with Tommy Chong.

    2. Re:What about IR filters? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:What about IR filters? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      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)

      Don't modern autofocus systems rely upon IR tracking to gauge distance? Even a proper filter if properly scrambled wouldn't erase the need for manual focusing of the camera, a behavior which would likely get someone caught.

    4. Re:What about IR filters? by damiam · · Score: 1

      Professionals don't sell cam bootlegs. Telesyncs or screeners only, generally.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  8. Another solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    suggested by Paul Reubens, formerly PeeWee Herman; Cinema in the nude.

  9. Infrared wouldn't work... by Otto · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Infrared wouldn't work... by jdreed1024 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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, depending on what your refresh rate is.) Except I know several people who experience physical pain given a low-enough refresh rate. Even 60-65 Hz can make them cringe. If they're introducing artifacts at regular intervals into a movie, I could easily imagine this affecting a whole bunch of people who would then be unable to attend movies. That would be poor. (Though pissing off your audience seems to work for the RIAA, so who knows?)

      Really, it would be a lot less effort to start smaller. All pre-release copies of a movie (maybe even all prints, but then 1-to-1 mappings become harder) should get their own watermark. Something small, that's only in a few frames, like a cue dot. Barely noticeable unless you're looking for it. And then when a movie gets released on the 'net, look for the watermark, and then go find the person who leaked it, and force them to watch Gigli or From Justin to Kelly over and over with their eyes forced open like in A Clockwork Orange. I imagine movie piracy would decrease by at least 50%, if not more, if the screeners, projectionists, etc were all held responsible. The average joe with a camcorder can't do a TeleSync. Besides, nobody wants to download movies filmed with a camcorder. They're shaky, the cameraman is often eating popcorn or slurping soda, or talking, or whatever.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    2. Re:Infrared wouldn't work... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    3. Re:Infrared wouldn't work... by suyashs · · Score: 1

      They will just install metal detectors in movie theaters...it would be like going to the airport, except instead of box cutters not allowed, it will be camcorders not allowed...

      --
      http://chrono.posterous.com/
    4. Re:Infrared wouldn't work... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      They should probably do this with screeners, where people should naturally be less picky about image quality, but not with full theater releases. That way A: it is more difficult for pirates to figure a way around the encoding, having less access to it and B: Once the real free-for-all starts, paying movie goers get their full quality's worth. But the pre-release screeners get caught, giving the movie companies a chance to release bad movies and still get good opening weekend numbers.

      Speaking of technological improvements, why do we still have cigarette burns on movie screens? You would think for half the cost of this technology, they could have found a spot SOMEWHERE on the off-screen portion of the film to signal a second reel.

  10. magnets! by ncurses · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    Help! I'm being repressed!
    1. Re:magnets! by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Aaaah, my pacemaker!"

      Do I have to say more?

    2. Re:magnets! by ydnar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, at least you'd take care of the evil elderly pirates with pacemakers.

    3. Re:magnets! by ctime · · Score: 1

      Hmm...lets see, what else do people usually carry around with magnetic media applied to them which would be wiped out..oh yeah, credit cards.

      Actually, it might be amusing to see the collection of rings, keys, lose change (oh wait, nm) and people with pacemakers stuck to these magnets you describe.

    4. Re:magnets! by wojci2 · · Score: 1

      What a nice idea. That should put a stop to people taking calls on their mobile phones too. :)
      /w

      --


      /wojci
    5. Re:magnets! by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      "Aaaah, my magstripe credit/bank cards!"

    6. Re:magnets! by Secrity · · Score: 1

      Cool, watch the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) folks have a field day when theaters fry patrons' wheel chair electronics, pacemakers, and hearing aids. A mag field big enough to fry camcorders would also fry cellphones, pagers, many watches, PDAs, calculators, and most any other electronic device.

    7. Re:magnets! by igrp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Aaah, my driver's license... No, wait, congratulations. You just intentionally destroyed government property.

    8. Re:magnets! by BCoates · · Score: 1

      how would a magnet destroy a camcorder?

    9. Re:magnets! by NTmatter · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine that the iron being ripped from your haemoglobin by the ubermagnets would probably gum up the inner workings as the shards of the camera hurtled through the soft flesh of the owner. It worked for Magneto in X-Men, didn't it? That'd stop the piracy...and it'd create new jobs for those who have to clean up the resulting mess.

    10. Re:magnets! by Alsee · · Score: 1

      My 35mm FILM camera is immune to magnets! Muahahaha!

      It's always amusing when high tech security solutions fail spectacularly against the lowtech attack.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    11. Re:magnets! by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Can your 35mm film camera record 2 hours of video? Can you even bring in that much film without being noticed?

    12. Re:magnets! by bot24 · · Score: 1

      What about memory based cameras? What about the DVDHandicam? What about 802.11g wireless enabled recording?

  11. Hollywood Greatest Weapon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Keep releasing bad movies no one wants to bootleg.

    1. Re:Hollywood Greatest Weapon... by blanks · · Score: 2, Funny

      Won't work, the riaa has been trying this for years to stop music theft. No one will steal if its bad music, yet people will still listen to it.

    2. Re:Hollywood Greatest Weapon... by Talking+Toaster · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the very article we are discussing is people trying to tape The Day After Tomorrow. Still, dispite how bad the movie was, it was worth the money to see Los Angeles destroyed and New York turned into a giant ice skating ring. Just ignore all the acting and it is a very enjoyable movie.

      --
      Howdy Doodly Doo!
      Anybody want some Toast?
  12. Better Idea by Ann+Elk · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Better Idea by TopShelf · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Regarding your sig - there may be no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and and "E", so throw ME the damn ball!

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    2. Re:Better Idea by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      Right... Excuse me while I try out the exit.

    3. Re:Better Idea by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Yuuuck! Those seats are bad enough sometimes, but you want me to sit in the same butt-print as several other people have done for a couple hours each?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:Better Idea by Eristone · · Score: 1

      More offtopic-ness signature silliness but couldn't resist...

      There may be no "I" in team, but there is in "WIN"...

      (We now return you to your comment browsing, already in progress)

  13. IR Filter by ifreakshow · · Score: 3, Informative

    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 astronomy using hot mirror

    1. Re:IR Filter by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Doesn't even need to be high end. You can get simple IR filters for pretty cheap. They sell them (and UV, and others) for DV Cams all over the place.

  14. What's their motivation? by Thinkit4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    -I am an elective eunuch.
    1. Re:What's their motivation? by Mz6 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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?

      --
      Hmmm.
    2. Re:What's their motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    3. Re:What's their motivation? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Did you see the episode of Seinfeld that didn't suck so bad I wanted to set everybody involved with the show on fire?

      Neither did I.

      Hate that fuckin' show. But I'm not bitter or anything. : )

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:What's their motivation? by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Did you see the episode of Seinfeld that didn't suck so bad I wanted to set everybody
      > involved with the show on fire?
      >Neither did I.
      >Hate that fuckin' show. But I'm not bitter or anything. : )

      I used to watch it because it was on before Larry Sanders, but some of it was ok. Sure, the Jerry/Elaine thing was a bit Friends, but Kosmo Kramer is a work of genius!

    5. Re:What's their motivation? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Kramer was, on occasion, amusing. However, George made me want to kill everybody related to him. Just to clean out the gene pool. Even though he's just played by an actor.

      Any time George opened his mouth, or, like, breathed? I wanted him to spontaneously combust after being doused in Clorox. That would have been SWEET.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    6. Re:What's their motivation? by womby · · Score: 1

      it is not nessecery to be a reviewer to get screeners sent, when I was still in the UK I was a member of BAFTA. I worked for an advertising agency 10 years ago in there tech support department and the annual bafta signup drive went round and I put my name down, for 8 years I just kept renewing my subscription, my last subscription fee was around $75 and for that I got to watch films at the bafta cinema for free, drink at the bafta bar (tax free alcohol).

      Anyway the point of this is that I have every film released over the 7 - 8 year period on vhs and later DVD, all for my consideration.

      --
      **** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
    7. Re:What's their motivation? by damiam · · Score: 1

      Someone (friend, family member, coworker) could easily "borrow" a reviewer's screener copy for a couple hours to rip it, without the reviewer ever knowing.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    8. Re:What's their motivation? by iranai · · Score: 1

      I'm not a pirate... I consider myself one of Robin's "mery men"; Taking from those who have and giving to those who don't ^_~

    9. Re:What's their motivation? by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Any time George opened his mouth, or, like, breathed? I wanted him to spontaneously
      > combust after being doused in Clorox. That would have been SWEET.

      I think he gets killed in the film Jacob's Ladder, if that's any consolation.

  15. Taping The Day After Tomorrow? by GrnArmadillo · · Score: 4, Funny
    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 of the thing for those who are up for a little MST3K style ribbing at it.)

    1. Re:Taping The Day After Tomorrow? by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      Actually terrible movies are the *REASON* to pirate it. In southern california here movie tickets cost 9.50$, so to take your g/f to the movies costs 20$ and if you'd like some food, that will cost you 5- 10$ a person. FUCK THAT. For that money I'd better get to see a damn good movie. But of course they all SUCK. My father wanted to see Van Helsing, it was one of the worst pieces of trash I've ever seen in my life.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  16. Defeatable, as usual? by PktLoss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Defeatable, as usual? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      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...

    2. Re:Defeatable, as usual? by malfunct · · Score: 1

      That or they could do what people have been doing to record TV screens for ages and feed the camcorder a proper sync signal.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

  17. whatever... by HBI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can you say "waste of time and money"? Who is going to choose a camcorder copy of a film over actually seeing it? That's right - those who weren't going to see it in the first place anyway.

    If I can't at least check out the film beforehand i'm probably not going to pay at the box office either. Hollywood has pretty much set themselves up for this, with all the crappy movies they let out the door yearly.

    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.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:whatever... by Arcanix · · Score: 2, Funny

      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).

    2. Re:whatever... by FattMattP · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    3. Re:whatever... by HBI · · Score: 1

      Neither do I, but you can put together a somewhat adequate surround sound rig for fairly cheap ( $500) today.

      The difference between that and the average theater is not all that much.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    4. Re:whatever... by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      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.

      Okay, well, while you're busy raging against the machine and sticking it to the man, the rest of us will be in the theater watching the huge monster screen and listening to the booming sound and having a much more worthwhile movie experience.

    5. Re:whatever... by Arcanix · · Score: 1

      It's true that the majority of the theaters sound hasn't really improved greatly while home sound has. The IMAX theaters are the only ones that still really impress me, I saw Return of the King on an IMAX screen and the sound was intense...

    6. Re:whatever... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      it's just that I don't have a 100 foot screen and 30,000 watt sound system at my house

      I don't have one in my local theatre either.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    7. Re:whatever... by HBI · · Score: 1, Funny

      I hope you enjoy the gum on the floor, the stale popcorn and the sticky soda mess. Also, the asshole teenagers behind you grabassing and making noise.

      Besides, the sound rig in most theaters is not that great. Getting sodomized by the movie industry is an additional negative.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    8. Re:whatever... by netfool · · Score: 1

      Who is going to choose a camcorder copy of a film over actually seeing it? That's right - those who weren't going to see it in the first place anyway. Yeah, this is kind of like the whole sharing music thing right? People who download music were never really going to go out and buy it right? In fact, I bet if it was impossible to to share any type of music or video what-so-ever, those same people would still never, ever go see a movie or puchase a song they may have potentially been able to donwload for free. Wishful thinking. I know plenty of people that have decided not to go out and see a movie because they've already seen it on their computer, or opted not to buy a cd because they already downloaded the songs - even if the quality isn't as great.

      --
      Left 4 Dead Gaming Group - http://www.l4dgg.com
    9. Re:whatever... by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 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.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    10. Re:whatever... by misleb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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).

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    11. Re:whatever... by FattMattP · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.
      --
      Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    12. Re:whatever... by HBI · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I fail to see how this could ever reduce the viewership of a good movie. It'll certainly reduce the viewership of a crappy movie. Then again, isn't that the ultimate goal?

      I'm not welfare for bad directors or bad scripts. I don't want to pay for crappy films.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    13. Re:whatever... by bckrispi · · Score: 1
      Another benefit:
      • Not having to sit through a 2-3 hour film as the inconsiderate jackoff behind you translates the entire film into spanish for his dozen relatives

      This reason alone has practically kept me out of the theatre for two years.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    14. Re:whatever... by pavon · · Score: 1

      Most of the sheeple don't have the willpower to do so, sadly.

      Why do people have to add that snide remark? There are many good reasons for people to prefer movies to renting at home and, while you presented a good argument for renting, people will still disagree with you. Furthermore, even if someone does agree with you they can't be activists about everything. There are way too many just causes to fight for and one has to pick what is most important to them. The fact that people have different opinions and priorities than you does not make them idiots or apathetic slaves. And even if they are, calling them that won't help convince them of your view :)

    15. Re:whatever... by mikeboone · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

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

    16. Re:whatever... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      >The only benefit is a big screen and decent sound system

      You don't even get this anymore, a lot of the time. For instance, when I saw Shrek 2, the right front audio channel was out. Completely dead. It was incredibly annoying. I don't even bother telling the staff anymore because 99.99% of the time they give me a funny look as if I'm being overly picky, or they don't know what I'm talking about.

      Also, a lot of the times, the projector is ever-so-slightly out of focus.. Just enough to give you a headache as your eyes try to compensate while you watch the movie. Again, you don't dare tell the manager, because they'll mess with it and make it worse 75% of the time.

      At least when you watch at home, you can fix any problems you run into, and if you have halfway decent equipment, the experience will surpass commercial movie theaters quite often.

      Not to bash 35mm; a properly configured, calibrated movie theater projecting 35mm will totally blow away any home DVD setup every time... but the "properly configured, calibrated" part is extremely rare nowadays. {:(

      -Z

    17. Re:whatever... by ozric99 · · Score: 1

      It depends on the DVD player you use. Some will ignore the "no-skip" bit and let you fastforward or jump straight to menu. Other players will take great joy in mocking you as you sit there frantically pressing menu for the first few minutes. :(

    18. Re:whatever... by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      Generally most theatres I've been to do not have good speakers at all. They just put out a lot of noise, and low quality noise. Problem is most people don't notice because they don't have very high end stuff at home to notice the difference.

    19. Re:whatever... by emarkp · · Score: 1
      Getting sodomized by the movie industry is an additional negative.
      Well your theater sounds a bit different than mine...
    20. Re:whatever... by HBI · · Score: 1

      heh heh heh

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    21. Re:whatever... by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      I saw a camcorder screener of Toy Story 2. Had never seen the first one.

      I now own all the Pixar stuff on DVD and am eagerly awaiting "The Invicibles".

    22. Re:whatever... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      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.

      Can anyone recommend a good Open Source / Freeware / Shareware / Paid DVD player that allows you to skip the "unskippable" ads? If I'm not mistaken, the ads are unskippable entirely through contractual implementation requirements, not any technical jiggery.

      Personally, I've just been ripping the raw files to disk with DVD Decrypter, and just watching the movie portions, but it would be nice to cut out the ripping phase.

    23. Re:whatever... by Avian+visitor · · Score: 1

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

      No... But instead you are subjected to five 30 second FBI warnings in five different languages (and your player won't let you skip them).

      I have also seen a number of rented DVDs that include trailers for "comming soon" movies that are played before the movie and you also can't skip through them.

    24. Re:whatever... by JoshNorton · · Score: 1
      I've also noticed a few that appear to be 4:3 stretched out to 16:9. Nothing like that to drive home the point that you're watching television commercials.

      And why do they assume that I care what NBC is showing next season? Or what Shakira's 'live' album is going to be like?

      --
      "Stupid! Stupid stupid stupid stupid! I touched the hot wire right there - I'm an idiot!"
  18. Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  19. Counter Night Vision by CHaN_316 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    "There is no spoon." - The Matrix
    1. Re:Counter Night Vision by kettch · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
  20. Colour CCD cameras by advocate_one · · Score: 4, Informative

    have a blocking filter that will defeat this technique. Surely camcorders will have it as well...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  21. Alternative method by nebaz · · Score: 1

    Using this might keep people from being able to use a camcorder too.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
  22. Oh... yay! by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
  23. Not good... by Mz6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This wouldn't be such a good "view" for films such as "Star Wars". 300 naked star wars geeks, doing light-saber battles and fighting evil.. it's just too much for my eyes!

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:Not good... by shut_up_man · · Score: 4, Funny

      "...doing light-saber battles..."

      "I see your Schwartz is as big as mine..."

    2. Re:Not good... by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Gyrating and thrusting while chanting "this isn't your fathers lightsaber".

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:Not good... by Ann+Elk · · Score: 1

      Just stay away from the Harry Potter flicks...

  24. Linux programmers source of problem again,,,, by FerretFrottage · · Score: 4, Funny
    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...

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

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
    1. Re:Linux programmers source of problem again,,,, by phreakmonkey · · Score: 1
      [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 programming language on multiple platforms.
      -PM

    2. Re:Linux programmers source of problem again,,,, by tarballedtux · · Score: 1

      Is that a blatant stab at saying Linux programmers are evil. I bet "DVD John" (I think thats what is pseudoname was) did some win32 programming, maybe even some Mac. I know us Linux folk are evil cause we are different than CNET/Microsoft Bendovers. Funny I saw a MS ad at the top of the article. Maybe Slashdot shouldn't have blatantly biased material as much. I'm all for opinion, but that article was annoying. --tarballedtux

  25. The laws about camcorders in theaters... by rthille · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    1. Re:The laws about camcorders in theaters... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

      Honestly, do you actually feel that it is OK to have camcorders in movie theaters? Strangly, it is people like you who think it is OK to steal, but get pissed off when someone steals from you. I take it you have no problems handing over your cell / laptop / iPod / paycheck / wallet / cash to some mugger who thinks they need it more than you? Same thing.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    2. Re:The laws about camcorders in theaters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Strangly, it is people like you who think it is OK to steal, but get pissed off when someone steals from you.

      How is recording something considered stealing? Its not that hard to get the idea across in your mind that you are making a copy of something (poor at that). Even though you might not come out and say it, you are sure implying that you feel that copying a movie is the same as mugging someone, and it's not that hard to see the difference between the two.

    3. Re:The laws about camcorders in theaters... by bpatterson · · Score: 2, Funny
      "make me want to make a fake camcorder out of a block of wood and some paint and see if I can get arrested..."

      Yeah, I think you should try making a wooden gun and getting on a plane too. Let me know how it goes for ya. --

    4. Re:The laws about camcorders in theaters... by rthille · · Score: 1

      I think that the laws which cover copyright violations should be enforced against people who make copies of movies with camcorders in movies. I think that laws about possessing a device which may be used to commit a crime is prior-restraint.

      If I'm bike-touring and I've got a video camera on the trip with me and I want to see a movie should I leave the ~$1K camera in my tent, or take it into the theater with me?

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    5. Re:The laws about camcorders in theaters... by rthille · · Score: 1


      Well, prior to 9/11 would you have worried excessively about someone's child walking onto a plane with a squirt-gun?
      Not to mention that a camcorder is hardly a threat of violence.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  26. How is Sony going to do it? by cr0sh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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")...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    1. Re:How is Sony going to do it? by jjoyce · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. Sony Music was complaining about MP3s while their electronics division was looking at making MP3 players. People used to talk about this all the time on /. back in 1999 or so. It's tough to stay organized when your company is so big.

    2. Re:How is Sony going to do it? by Mochatsubo · · Score: 1

      damn near impossible to bypass it? How about buying a camcorder from a different company?

      You are a genius.

    3. Re:How is Sony going to do it? by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      damn near impossible to bypass it? How about buying a camcorder from a different company?

      Congratulations, you just violated the DMCA!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:How is Sony going to do it? by ianr44 · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess I'm just going to keep my current camera then...

    5. Re:How is Sony going to do it? by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      "Damn near impossible" is not the same as "impossible" - buying from another company is certainly a possible way around the issue. This of course assumes Sony doesn't license/sell/give away the technology in the first place. Actually, it assumes that whoever Sony buys its chipsets from doesn't sell to other consumer product manufacturers as well.

      It also assumes that Sony doesn't lobby for (and get passed) legislation (an amendment to the DMCA, perhaps?) that requires this functionality in all digital recording devices (whether camcorders, digital still cameras, MP3 recorders, or any other digital recording device - laptops, PDAs, etc). I can easily see a future where bootleg concert audio recordings are a thing of the past...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  27. no need to record the audio by mcguyver · · Score: 1

    They could dub sound from Independed Day onto the Day After Tomorrow and end up with the same movie because they are virtually the same movie.

    Plot sploiler for both movies. Crazy scientist/pilot discovers threat to mankind -> authorities don't believe him -> mass destruction ensues -> authorities realize the err in their ways -> scientist/pilot risks own life to save others -> people are saved -> presidency personally thanks scientist, says mankind should unite to protect itself against evil.

    1. Re:no need to record the audio by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

      I would say that it's not the same because in DAT, they are trying to feed us some bullshit to surrender our freedom to extreme socialist environmentalists. I didn't see anything like that in ID.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  28. Insiders by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

    I don't think it is as much these evil pirates out there risking their money and freedom to shoot in dark theatres just so they can put it on the Internet and get caught later. I believe that it is the people from the industry that leak the movie to their friends that eventually put it up for download. Most copies on the p2p networks are very good quality copied either from screeners or with a nice sturdy tripod - one that only a movie theatre employee would setup after hours during a "special" viewing. I know theatre managers that let their friends in and organize special shows for the unreleased movies. And it would be a surprise to Sony, but the night vision stuff is just another toy for the 16 year old kids who work at the theatres to play with.

  29. Pirate this by Piewalker · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked, circulating these less-than-quality camcorder copies on the Internet can only increase the hype and exposure for the film itself in terms of media: articles written about the pirating of the movie by newspapers and television spots reporting the abuse that happen to mention the film's name one more time (that includes SLASHDOT...and. People who really want to experience the film will go see it and pay money for it...and yes, even those people who download those crappy copies will shell out 10 bucks to see Harry Potter because they want to see the REAL version, not the pirated version with crappy quality. After all it's a family event. So preventing camcorders filming is cutting into the bottom line box office.

  30. Re:Infrared wouldn't work... Neither will timing by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

  31. Better ways for theaters to fight back by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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 . Now that's the way to see the movie.

    1. Re:Better ways for theaters to fight back by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      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 deploy IMAX on a wider scale. You'd think the flat-screen at a movie theater should be extinct by now...

  32. TWO DAYS FROM NOW by Piewalker · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The wolves were the dumbest thing about "The Day After Tomorrow." Did the wolves freeze too? WHO CARES! Dennis Quaid was much better in "Dinner With Friends."

  33. higher ticket prices? by Zed2K · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  34. Aluminum Foil by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It's not just for hats anymore!

    And the last part of the name is quickly becoming more and more ironic, what with RFID chips and all.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Aluminum Foil by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Aluminum foil???

      Hmmm, somebody must have Scotty's secret formula.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  35. my patent by Xzzy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just sumbitted a patent for this jamming device.

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

    1. Re:my patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's an interesting idea--and I applaud your dedication to finding a solution here--but the flaw in your design is that it essentially requires voluntary compliance on the part of the pirates. And, frankly, there's no reason to expect them to comply.

      In fact, it's rather like the evil bit in TCP/IP packets, which is almost never used by viruses and worms. Yes, it's a GREAT idea, and would make firewalls a lot easier to maintain, but the criminals have no incentive to actually USE it.

  36. bollocks by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:bollocks by misleb · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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 they see it. Sure, there are reviews by critics, but most people don't trust movie critics.

      I doubt the movie industry is all that worried about people previewing good movies. Seeing a low bitrate, camcorder 'net download of a good movie will only make people want to see it in the theater.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    2. Re:bollocks by xkenny13 · · Score: 1
      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.

      Some are, some aren't. I've seen some copies that were so good, I though they were screeners ... that is, until someone got up in the middle of the movie and cast a shadow on the screen.

      I think the studios are right, and this IS a problem that's cutting into their profits. I don't know how easy it will be to solve those problems, though. Someone who is friends with the projectionist will probably be able to get a copy without the infrared interference around. It may slow 'em down, but I doubt it will stop them all.

  37. I'm reminded of... by DarkRecluse · · Score: 1

    ...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.

    --
    --"It's Bradford Company, slash your last name, dot your first name"
  38. Another Method by barva · · Score: 1

    Why don't they play the movies at different refresh rate. Just like a when you record a computer monitor with a video camera, you see black line crossing the video every once in a while. This is because the refresh rate of the computer monitor exceeds the refresh rate of the video tape recoder. Remember the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem? If they go faster, the human eye won't see a difference, but the cam will record the annoying line.

  39. Cheap IR removing filter solves that. by jamonterrell · · Score: 1

    See Subject =)

    --
    I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
    1. Re:Cheap IR removing filter solves that. by GTRacer · · Score: 1
      Re: Your sig.

      After what you just made me do to "decode" your message, I don't know if I want to ask you anything!

      GTRacer
      - You're #1

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
  40. blind chamber? by a1bert · · Score: 2, Interesting

    will whole theater go blind after starring 3hours at strong IR source?

  41. It's a pointless exercise.. by InternationalCow · · Score: 1

    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 software, or
    - modify the camcorder in such a way that its image acquisition becomes as slow as a human's (not sure if that can be done, anyone here with an understanding of camcorders?)
    It's the usual senseless paranoia of the greedy big media trying to rake in every last penny that can possible be wrung from a movie release, causing us consumers more headaches than anything else. And it STILL won't prevent people from ripping DVD's and spreading the copies. So they will be losing money (but not much methinks) anyway.

    --
    ----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
  42. Isn't there a cheaper solution? by riptide_dot · · Score: 1

    Movie theatres are already pretty tight about people bringing in food and snacks from other places into the theatre, but they can't stop/don't notice the people who bring camcorders?!? That big box of Hot Tamales seems like it would be whole lot easier to smuggle in and enjoy than a camcorder would be to smuggle in and use.

    Of course, I know there are always going to be exceptions - like the guy who goes to the movie theatre that his buddy works at and therefore knows that he won't get checked on while filming the video - but, as some previous posts would indicate - there's ways around everything, including a security system built into the motion picture itself.

    Wouldn't it be easier for the MPAA to force the theatres to enfore their security better? And maybe provide for penalties for security that is lacking?

    --
    I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
    1. Re:Isn't there a cheaper solution? by phorm · · Score: 1

      I'm somewhat of an amateur photographer, and tend to carry my digital camera around with me almost everywhere. The case I carry it in is pretty standard though, and could easily carry a camcorder. Every time I bring it through the theatre with me (leaving it in the car is just inviting theft), I wonder if somebody will call me on it and want me to book it at the front or check it for video capability. So far though, no problems, I walk right in.

      Of course, in the US now I could apparently be charged for even bringing it into the theatre - since it is capable of recording video (but would suck for such and need a 1GB+ card at least)... but so far no problems with that around here.

      I think most theatre personnel are more concerned with checking your ticket than your bags. Try dealing with a lineup of long coats, bags, etc etc on opening night when people are cramming to get into Harry Potter or whatever is out recently.

    2. Re:Isn't there a cheaper solution? by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      I'd think it wouldn't be that difficult to smuggle in a minidv camera. I've never been searched going into a movie for food or anything and me and my friends frequently go to big releases at the ultra screen on opening nite too. On that same note, i can fit 4 20ozs and 4 boxes of candy in my pants (cargo shorts), but thats what they get for having a target next to the theatre with an aisle marked "Movie Box Candy" at half the price...

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  43. A real problem, but not a geek problem by RobertB-DC · · Score: 2, Informative

    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 playing.

    The problem, in this case at least, isn't us geeks. Our bittorrents and mp3s and such are an entirely different issue. The camcorder copies go straight to the underground economy, sold off the back of a truck at a flea market where if you don't habla el lingo, you'd better watch yourself. And the folks buying these goods often don't know the difference between pirated and legal: they're just buying it, just like they'll buy fake Nike shoes at the next stall.

    That's the problem they're trying to solve. They're not trying to bust geeks, they're trying to bust criminals who will sell pirated copies of movies for hard cash.

    By the way, my daughter and her friend both got informed, in detail, about what piracy is. My daughter now tells her friends "No, you can't borrow my CD to burn a copy, 'cause my dad won't let me." That's good enough for now.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:A real problem, but not a geek problem by HBI · · Score: 1

      That kind of marketplace has existed since the early 1980s (obviously not for DVDs - VHS tapes). I was in Fresno, CA once at a flea market and saw a bunch of stands selling this type of stuff. Every so often you hear of a big bust of distributors of such things, usually when they get just a little too large and too profitable.

      If that is the target...I can't help but think this is lame. I'm into capitalism, but this is like trying to rip off old people on medications (woops, we already do that!) or taking away ice cream from a little kid. The people that would buy this stuff aren't going to do so by choice. I mean that if they had the real studio DVD or VHS tape available they'd buy that, assuredly, but it's probably not because this type of pirate specializes in new releases. They aren't going to turn into a groundswell of new theater customers. Some bean counter probably thinks so, though.

      I don't doubt you are right, but I can't think well of the tactic or the goal. As long as the content producers keep doing stuff like this, they are going to be perceived as evil.

      You don't shit on your customers, in other words.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:A real problem, but not a geek problem by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt you are right, but I can't think well of the tactic or the goal. As long as the content producers keep doing stuff like this, they are going to be perceived as evil.

      You don't s*** on your customers, in other words.


      Busting the customers of the pirates would be evil, as you described. But I'm all for busting the pirates themselves, both the guy at the flea market and the guy in the theater. Both of them know what they're doing is wrong. Unlike the legal grey area of P2P, these people's goal is to make cash money, not to set information free. They're stealing.

      A guy sharing files from his computer may have erased *potential* sales -- I have trouble calling that "theft". But a guy selling DVDs from the back of his pickup is erasing *actual* sales -- which sounds like "theft" to me.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  44. Will they ever do their homework first? by D4C5CE · · Score: 2, Informative
    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"
    2. Search Google for "photosensitive epilepsy"
  45. Quality of cinema recordings isn't an issue by bugnuts · · Score: 1

    The second method of causing distortion or a pattern just doesn't matter. People don't watch pirate copies for movie quality, they want to get the plot and often, the script. It's hard to transcribe something without a recording.

    The IR method is useful, as almost all pocket movie recorders use CCD.

    I still don't know why people lug in these cameras. Just get something like one of these or one of these.

    Basically, only an idiot gets caught from such low tech detection (NVG, gimme a frikkin break).

    1. Re:Quality of cinema recordings isn't an issue by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      bah, second link didn't work... another eyeglass camera.

  46. Re:Folks, get a thesaurus by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Funny

    It embiggened him.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  47. Laughable quote. by AC-x · · Score: 1

    This is taken from the news.com.com.com article, talking about digital projectors

    "But the technology has raised concerns that audience members might eventually create high-quality copies of movies using handheld video cameras smuggled into theaters."

    Rriiiiigggghhhhhttttt, so I'm going to be able to take a wobbly handheld camcorder into a movie, sit behind some tall bloke, and magically record an ultra-high quality digital copy of a movie.

    I guess some people just hear the word "digital" and suddenly get reality confused with a load of RIAA/MPAA propaganda.

  48. All i want to know is... by sinner0423 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Which one of you got away? Was it extremely difficult to escape the grasp of buttery fingered, 8.25/hr ushers?

  49. Up to no good. by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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."

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Up to no good. by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      Intent doesn't have to be proven. All that has to be proven is that you did it. Catching you with your camcorder switched on and pointed at the screen is more than sufficient :-)

      Also, previous nefarious activity proves nothing, and is usually not even admissible as evidence. The fact that you've done it before doesn't prove you did it this time. Now, to a reasonable person, it makes your guilt more likely, but lots of reasonable things are not allowed in court. Commonly, only evidence directly proving or disproving guilty is allowed.

      IANAL but I will take that LSAT this summer. How's that for a disclaimer? :-)

  50. Good quote gives great idea: by kid_wonder · · Score: 1

    "Machines see the world more closely to reality than humans do." Schumann said.

    Perfect, just jack straight into my visual cortex to get the "raw feed".

    The human line-out.

    --

    "Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
  51. Harry Potter and the Pirates of Azkaban by kyoko21 · · Score: 1

    Just read it here.... It's also on surpnova too if you really don't want to pay for it. :-/

  52. Mr. Valenti, this is highly illogical. by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Every single week, I read about yet ANOTHER movie that has had 'the biggest box office opening weekend EVAR!!1!!111'

    If piracy was such a problem, wouldn't box office openings be down?
    Spending millions on anti-piracy technology, when it seems that more and more people are seeing the movies, seems, well, stupid.

    1. Re:Mr. Valenti, this is highly illogical. by polecat_redux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, part of that is simply due to inflation and the increased proliferation of theaters, as well as the greater volume of movies released (let's be honest, the more movies you release, the greater the chance you have of hitting a blockbuster - the movie industry certainly doesn't rely on any other factor to ensure quality).

  53. and I hope they get in trouble by curator_thew · · Score: 1


    I mean, just what other reason do you have to use a camcorder in a cinema?

  54. What is the point? by cardshark2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    WWJD? JWRTFA!
    1. Re:What is the point? by ChuckleBug · · Score: 2, Funny

      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?

  55. They're not losing money by emorphien · · Score: 1

    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. The company predicted that its efforts could cut movie piracy by 50 percent.

    Riiiight. Tell me another one. This is just as bas as the BS the RIAA feeds us. They're no losing any money I bet because many of the people who are trading/buying these illegal copies wouldn't buy the real thing anyway.

    --


    Presently here, but not there.
  56. A quote from the article by cardshark2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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?

    --
    WWJD? JWRTFA!
  57. paparazzi blocker? by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered if there was a way to make a similar device that I could use to fend off the Paparazzi. My goons aren't allowed to cause bodily harm to annoying photographers, so is there a device I could carry a that would destroy their film without hurting them and not be considered vandalism? Something that gives off a energy in the range that will enter the lense/shutter and overexpose the film, but isn't visible to the naked eye?

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  58. Magnets! Always with the Magnets! by Talking+Toaster · · Score: 1

    When I read the grandparent post, I was mainly thinking of people with laptops. Pacemakers didn't occure to me. Maybe because none of my grandparents had them. Of course, being a Talking Toaster makes having a pacemaker a moot point.

    I'm suprised I didn't think of credit cards. Just about everyone has an ATM and/or Credit Card these days. Hopefully Principal Skinner doesn't work for the MPAA.

    --
    Howdy Doodly Doo!
    Anybody want some Toast?
  59. Perfect solution by tfcdesign · · Score: 1

    Airport styly security checkpoints for theater goers. OR register camera purchasers at time of purchase and create a nation wide data base so that when you buy tickets, they check your name against the database and they spot check you if you are not clear.

    1. Re:Perfect solution by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

      I'll bet Donald Rumsfeld wishes there had been a registration database of digital camera purchasers. I wouldn't count that idea out just yet.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    2. Re:Perfect solution by tfcdesign · · Score: 1

      Donald Rumsfeld? Why would the Secretary of Defense care?

  60. Re:Infrared wouldn't work... Neither will timing by real_smiff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 is applied, or by figuring out how to remove it). I already find the dots ("crap codes") annoying - i go to the cinema for the great picture and sound - if you take that away, what's the point? i urge the industry, just in case anyone's reading, not to get into this arms race, for their sake and ours (speaking for the movie-going public, not for pirates). While you're at it, remove the damn "don't copy" messages, and do more simultaneous worlwide releases, please.

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  61. Failing to see what's the big deal by unicorn · · Score: 1

    Especially about the first part of the posting. I assume this is just the /. kneejerk reaction to *any* kind of copyright enforcement, that doesn't involve someone violating the GPL? Someone is doing anything at all to prevent piracy, so it's a bad thing by definition?

    Just because someone is enforcing their legally given right to control distribution does *not* make them an evil entity. It really doesn't.

    God knows there's a hue and cry when someone does something w/ linux and doesn't share the code. You can't have one, without the other.

    The same laws that make the GPL legally enforcable, make other copyright laws legally enforceable too.

    --
    "Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
  62. DVD-R Camcorders by cft_128 · · Score: 1

    Not to mention all the other problems mentioned (pacemakers, credit cards, etc) a DVD-R camcorder would circumvent it if it was only strong enough to wipe the magnetic media but not strong enough to damage electronics (not even sure if that would be possible in the scale we are talking about).

    --

    Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

  63. UV filter by default by emarkp · · Score: 1

    Indeed, I have a UV filter over all my lenses by default, simply to protect the lens. I suspect IR filters would work just as well.

  64. I am not a pirate either... by dark-br · · Score: 1

    I've stoped killing ppl and attacking ships for their cargo a while ago.

    1. Re: I am not a pirate either... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      People love to make this joke on Slashdot, but it really just makes the poster look uneducated.

      The word "piracy" has been used for at least two centuries to refer to copyright violation in addition to the nautical meaning. This sense of "pirate" is some new attempt to defame the practice.

      Here's the entry from Webster's 1828 dictionary:


      PI'RATE, n. [L. pirata.]

      1. A robber on the high seas; one that by open violence takes the property of another on the high seas. In strictness, the word pirate is one who makes it his business to cruise for robbery or plunder; a freebooter on the seas.

      2. An armed ship or vessel which sails without legal commission, for the purpose of plundering other vessels indiscriminately on the high seas.

      3. A bookseller that seizes the copies or writings of other men without permission.

      PI'RATE, v.i. To rob on the high seas.

      PI'RATE, v.t. To take by theft or without right or permission, as books or writings.

      They advertised they would pirate his edition.


  65. Outbreak by robogun · · Score: 1
    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.
    Add to that:
    • Not catching colds and worse when some sick bastard decides to sit behind you and sneeze and cough for 2 hours.
  66. Random frame rate? by Tajas · · Score: 1

    I am just wondering, what about different framerates based on the amount of movement on the screen, something like 24-30FPS or something similar to help deter the smaller camcorders that people sneak in. If you imagine a CRT computer monitor flickering because the refresh rate doesn't sync up to cam the same could probably be done (or similar) to to movie theatre projections (as crappy as they are). Btw Hollywood, if you guys use this idea I want royalty fees ;-)

  67. Tinfoil by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  68. D'oh! by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    Hah, blinded the attendant!

    Oh, oops, I just gave away my location to everyone not wearing night-vision specs, owing to lighting up a literal spotlight in a darkened theater in the middle of a movie...

  69. both jamming techniques will will fail by kop · · Score: 1

    Trying to jam a normal camcorder with IR is useless, most videocamera's are filtered against IR light. If they are not go get a filter in a camera shop

    The second scheme probably relies on slightly changing the flicker frequency of the light in the projector. You know the effect from trying to film a computer monitor, bands of different brightness will appear or the image on the monitor wil flicker when seen trough the camera.
    This is allso not really a problem. They will not be able to put the frequency of this flicker below 50 fps since it will become noticeble to the eye and it could "set off" epileptic people into a spasm.
    Most film is shot at 24 fps, so simply selecting a low shutter speed wil eliminate the flicker and the remaining brightness jumps can be taken care of with a virtualdub filter.
    Next DRM scheme please! This one is useless!

  70. My $0.02 + Concessions Surcharge by Noxx · · Score: 1

    You're crazy if you think they don't track the number of tickets sold, especially with the modern computerized box office. They track everything, whether Entertainment Tonight reports it or not. The local theaters have to know exactly how many people watched each film and at what times, because they shift films from the high seating capacity theaters to the smaller screens down the hall based on projected sales.

    Also, as anyone who has worked in a theater can tell you, they lose money big time on ticket prices but recoup the difference (plus some) at the concession stand. If they drop the concession prices, tickets would skyrocket. So let the sheep pay $4.50 for their sugar-water, and either be grateful for the ::shudder:: cheaper tickets or just wait for the DVD.

    For those theaters who offer them, afternoon matinees are usually discounted. Good alternative for families because you skip the evening crowds, and the kids aren't all cranky from staying up late and pissing off the other patrons.

    --
    Study everything, you'll find something you can use - Jason Bourne
  71. keep complaining... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    Talk to a manager. Tell him that it ruined your experience. Tell him exactly what the problem was. He'll write it in a log. Get him to give you a readmit pass. The theater people don't care because for every readmit pass they issue, that's $8 that they don't send away to the studio.

    The way they handle the complaints, they don't usually fix the problems right away unless it's a catastrophic failure. Usually they'll just log the complaints and then have the tech guy check it out the next day. Also, they know that only 1-5% of people are going to complain and get readmit passes.

    Of the 8 or so movies I've gone to see in the last 6 months or so, about 3 of them I've gotten readmit passes for. Something or other was screwed up (gum on screen, bad sound, excessively jittery projection, etc). Unfortunately, it's hard to get your $9.25 back because the content sucked.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  72. Yes I do by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Number one, it's copyright infringement, not theft. Look up theft in the dictonary, if the difference still isn't apparant, I'll explain it to you. More important, however, I should be allowed to take my personal property in with me. While the act of taping a movie may be illegal, simply having a cam corder should not be. I should basically be allowed to have any item that isn't already illegal with me, and not have it be illegal just because this happens to be a movie theatre.

    This goes double because the day soon approches when things like PDAs will be able to record movies. They have cameras on them now, flash cards are getting bigger, and soon the technology to capture motion video will be on them. That would then make them illegal. So you are telling me that a PDA, which most people that have them carry everywhere, should suddenly be a felony to carry in a theatre? That's bullshit, and a really bad precident for laws.

    1. Re:Yes I do by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of give me a fucking break. A camcorder is a legal device. You may freely buy and use them without a license, background check, or second look. We receantly purchased two digital ones for work and it was as easy as going to the store and picking them up. What's more, the police saw me playing with them in the lab and did nothing more than watch with idle curiosity as I hooked them to projectors and broadcast their image while they waited to talk to the person they'd come to see. Why? Because they are LEGAL.

      Drugs are illegal, simply having them is prohibited. Doesn't matter where you have them, it's illegal. Thus if the cops catch you, you are in trouble. The substances themselves are banned, any use or distribution aside.

      I should think the difference is quite apparant. The problem is that they want to make it illegal just to have a camcorder in a certian place. You walk in a theatre with one, suddenly you're a felon. That is stupid. Having a gun on you doesn't make you a murderer (and is legal in most states), having a camera on you doesn't make you infringe on copyright.

      I have no problem with the recording of films being illegal, I have a problem with simple possession of a camera being illegal. As I noted this is more of a problem since more devices are going to be cameras as time goes on.

  73. Different jurisdictions by Dirtside · · Score: 1

    Can anyone explain why copyright laws should have anything to do with the criminal court system, and not be handled in civil court, like patents and trademarks are? Why is there a difference?

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  74. Movies are less than 30fps by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    They are 24fps, have been pretty much since the beginning. When converting them to NTSC they are slown down to 23.976fps, then a telecine procedure is applied to bring them to 29.97fps. For PAL, they usually just speed them up by 1fps and leave it at that.

  75. They're worried about the Day after Tomorrow? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

    My god, why don't they worry about movies that people actually want to see!

    The Day After Tomorrow? I'd rather watch static.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  76. The shakedown by bpatterson · · Score: 1

    I went to the Midnight showing of the latest Harry Potter and after finding out that people had been standing in line since 6:00 PM (6 HOURS?!? Jeeze...) I decided to go see Kill Bill Vol 2. But as I came out of my flick, I saw that the lines going into Harry Potter were having all bags searched and people being frisked. One geeky looking character was asked by the security folk to accompany a theater official to the office and was forcibly ejected from the theater about 20 minutes later. When I talked to him in the parking lot, he said they had confiscated his DV camera, taken his picture and ID'd him, and threatened to arrest him. Turns out he was a college student who apparently has been successful at this in the past. Guess an evening at the movies will involve the rubber glove treatment for anything on opening night from now on. As if the forcible gropings at the airport aren't enough... ---

  77. EMP by Czmyt · · Score: 1

    This might work too as it's not supposed to affect the people in any way! (Directly, that is.)

  78. IR filtering not necessary by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 1

    While most of the cheap single CCD cameras are over-sensitive to IR light, get your self a decent 3CCD unit (I have a Panasonic MX500 which is about the cheapest 3CCD there is) and you'll find that they have no sensitivity to IR at all.

    The prisms that split the incoming light into red, green and blue, simply don't pass the infra-red spectrum at all.

    And, as an added bonus, you get a *much* better picture with richer colors and better dynamic range.

  79. Tomorrow's news? by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 3, Funny
    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.

  80. A Copyright Protection Device... by Branch_Dravidian · · Score: 1

    ...and it takes pictures too! I guess people won't be too pissed about cameras that randomly malfunction whenever they catch some random noise from somebody's cell phone or wireless network... Either that or getting mad about it will be illegal...

  81. Re:Oops! I double posted! PLease remove this post. by Dahan · · Score: 1

    No problem, I'll get right on it.

  82. Funny... by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

    I read a thread on here about a year ago, and it inspired me to come up with a great new device: An array of IR bulbs placed behind the movie screen. Since CCD cameras pick up infrared light as BRIGHT WHITE LIGHT, it would make the recorders non-functional. Since humans can't see IR light, it wouldn't affect their movie going experience what-so-ever. However, since CCDs see IR light (it's how night-vision cameras work) they would see the array lights and make the video imperceptible.

    Here's an experiment to try - Point an IR remote at a video camera and see what happens. Here's a hint: BRIGHT WHITE FLASHES from that little device is what happens.

    How did I get the idea... hrmmm... lemme see - Oh yeah, it was based on an article I read here on Slashdot last year!

    I will a link to the article when/if I find it.

    I'm not trying to stifle innovation here, I'm just pointing out that you can't claim originality to and idea that was posted publicly a little while back.

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  83. My method is fooolproof! by Chuqmystr · · Score: 1

    In order to stop the nucience of camcorders in theaters I reccomend body cavity searches at the door and don't stop until you reach the backs of their teeth! Those seen walking into the theater yapping away on a cellphone and/or with small screaming children in tow are some of the most likely suspects.

  84. Did M$ buy out C|Net? by Tokerat · · Score: 1

    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. The recording industry, meanwhile, was stymied last year in its bid to create a music copy protection system when academic researchers defeated a proposed watermarking standard.
    So, Ken Brown isn't full of shit, Jon Johansen wrote the kernel!

    Seriously, how the hell did that get stuck in there? DeCSS was written in standard ANSI C, wasn't it (if not, forgive me, it has been a while since I gazed apon it)? Also, last I looked, DVDJon was one guy.

    C|Net has however, seemed a bit biased before, but it's not as if they've never reported on the subject before. (<rant>Only brainless morons would buy the "com" domain so they could actually have "news.com" as their .com, which even made the circular file in the Department of Redundancy Department.</rant>) It's like reading "T3" for the latest news on tech. Sure you hear all the current topics, but only because it's what everyone else is talking about...
    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  85. damn, i thought i had the idea before them... by bmfs · · Score: 1

    this is what i suggested last year!
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=65970&cid=6077 631

  86. Getting rid of camcorder recordings is easy... by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    Just sell the movie to moviegoers on the way out of the cinema!

    The overwhelming reason why pirates can sell their crappy recordings is the insanely stupid idea that US moviegoers should get first dibs, then overseas moviegoers, then US rental customers, then overseas rental customers and only then can people in the US *buy* the movie (as can the rest of the world with code-free DVD-players).

    This leaves a several month gap which the pirates can - and will - fill.

    Therefore: Drop the gap and sell the movie as well as screen it everywhere from day one. Problem solved!

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  87. Got away! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > while a third got away.

    Jebus H., how hard can it be to corner someone in a theater? There are only 3 exits.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  88. Going to the cinema vs. watching from DVD by Gadzinka · · Score: 1
    There's even more reasons not to go to the cinema.
    • The last theatre I was in, had air conditioning set too low. This plus all the shit living in not cleaned regularly air conditioning gear gave me and my wife worst flu for the last couple of years.
    • The cinema gear in most ``mass market'' theatres is poorly managed and generally in poor condition. Missing speaker from surround set, noises and cracks in audio, badly focussed picture. Add to this that if you go to the theatre on the impulse basis and buy the tickets before the show you have to watch it from third row, far left or right. This way my 20" TV and slightly better than usual 4+1 computer speakers give me better experience. When I buy video projector, it will be much better than usual cinema conditions.
    • Fscking ads! Last time ads and previews were literally over 20min. This is fscking ridiculous, I've alread paid for the ticket and it wasn't cheap either. When you count this amount of advertising as money spent for wathing it equal the price of the ticket it is 20pln for ticket and 20pln in watched, targetted advertising -- 40pln. It's $10 for a movie, $20 when I go with wife. Forget renting, we can buy ``Top 10'' DVD for this money and watch it till our heart's content. That's half a DVD per movie if you don't count the commercials but for me the inconvenience of watching this crap is worth even more than what I paid for the movie.

    Robert
    --
    Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
  89. Drive-in theater by hypertex · · Score: 1

    Most of the comments, both pro and con, are moot if you consider bringing your car to the movie. Tailgate party, anyone?

    1. Re:Drive-in theater by UncleRage · · Score: 1, Redundant

      From a standpoint of "Pro Pirating", it's a damn shame that there simply aren't many drive-ins left. Considering that one of the major problems with pirated movies is sound, that would easily be handled in the drive-in route as most drive-ins use(d) fm transmission for their audio (walkman headset with output placed into recorders mic input plug).

      From the Corporate/Hollywood standpoint: Thank god that there simply aren't many drive-ins left!

      --
      #SickNotWeak
  90. Sony's Cam Infrared interference patent by Stavr0 · · Score: 1
    Funny, I'd just thought of this a few days ago, but there's also an easy way to circumvent this 'Imaging prevention method and system': Infrared-block visible-pass lens filters

    File this patent in the "Press shift key to bypass copy protection" bucket.

  91. RFID by hypertex · · Score: 1

    Thanks to Walmart, most item sold will soon have a tag. Camcorders could have one installed at the factory.

  92. EMP by Egekrusher2K · · Score: 1

    I have an idea. Put a sign outside the movie theater stating that you are not responsible for any damage that may come to electronics that are brought in to the theater. All electronics, including cell phones, pagers, etc., must be left in the car. Then, at all the movie premiers, emit a low level EMP every 5-10 minutes to disable any electronics equipment. Granted, this would kill anyone with a pacemaker, but old people scare me anyways. You'd also have to shield the camera room. Hey, it could happen, cap'n.

    --
    Listen to my experimental-industrial-techno!
  93. Once had a related idea. by TheLink · · Score: 1

    I thought of a way to make it harder for paparazzi to take photos of stars etc. The stars wear a device around their neck, which flashes like a camera flash whenever it detects a flash from cameras. That could screw up the exposure of conventional film cameras.

    But with the advances of digital photography tech pretty soon (even now) flash use could be optional under normal lighting - flash only used if you want/like the effect.

    --
  94. Not feasible by cr0z01d · · Score: 1

    It would need to be a really fucking strong magnet.

    The DoD once built a degausser strong enough to wipe a hard drive, but it made the lights dim and bent the disk platters. Try an experiment yourself: take a floppy, stick it to the refrigerator with a magnet, leave it there a few days, then try reading the data. It will likely still work (unless it was broken in the first place).

  95. testing continues by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

    the testing continues, as of right now, the process cause viewers eyes to bleed, and a green substance resembling guacamole to come out of the ears...

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
  96. IR Camcorders and CCD's by BubbaJonBoy · · Score: 1

    All CCD's are sensitive to IR. They have a blocking filter internally to prevent it from fuzzing the image as IR has a different focal length than visible light. Matter of fact the Sony NightVision cameras simply moves the IR filter out of the CCD path and turns on an IR emitter to turn it into a miniature and low powered nightscope. So IR could never be the answer to blocking recording in a theatre.
    Regards,
    BubbaJonBoy

    1. Re:IR Camcorders and CCD's by azmatsci · · Score: 1

      Again, not true. Without the filter in place, the camera gathers twice the energy than with. the actual energy (light and IR) recorded at a certain wavelength changes. With the filter inplace, the ccd still sees 50-80% of the IR light in the near IR.

      --
      I stole this sig.