Slashdot Mirror


Disney Encrypting Screener DVDs to Prevent Piracy

Sascha J. writes "Disney is continuing their war against piracy. To their Oscar reviewers they now send out special encrypted DVDs, which can be played only on a DVD player of the "Cinea" series. From the article: "The DVD players are encoded with recipients' names, and screeners sent to those people are specifically encrypted so they can be seen only on those particular DVD players." Yet, Disney is alone on this. Sony and Universal Pictures said they won't follow that step."

13 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. How is this a solution? by FauxReal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So what keeps people from recording the output and distributing that?

    1. Re:How is this a solution? by MMMDI · · Score: 5, Informative

      I can't answer for Disney or Sony, but I get a good deal of screener DVDs for review purposes. I get about 10-12 per month from the many labels of EI Cinema (Seduction Cinema, Shock-O-Rama, Video Outlaw, etc.), as well as 2-3 here and there from Lions Gate.

      With those companies as the basis for my statements, the screeners for direct-to-video films and about-to-hit-DVD films are fully-featured with all of the bonus materials and menus that you'd get if you purchased the DVD. Some things may change when the DVD hits stores (bonus features added, changed menus, things of that nature), but generally, they're the same thing you'd purchase from your retailer of choice.

      Screener copies of movies that are currently in theaters or are about to hit theaters are bare-bones. You get the typical piracy warning before jumping to a very simple menu (with nothing more than "Play Movie" as an option), or it goes straight from the warning into the movie.

  2. My thought by cuerty · · Score: 5, Funny

    Making movies almost imposible or very hard to view for reviewers it's the best marketing choice.

    Yeah, take this as irony.

    --
    >Linux is not user-friendly.
    It _is_ user-friendly. It is not ignorant-friendly and idiot-friendly.
  3. Disney? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because Pirates just can't resist a 0-day release of Cinderella.

  4. geez, come on... by clambake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just put a big, slightly visible watermark across the entire screen of the name of the guy you sent the DVD to. Like, just a 4% opaque "EBERT AND ROPER" diaganal across the screen. Then when it's turned to video, it'll either have to be blurred out, and thur ruin the film, or you've caught the guy whol let it out of his hands... How hard is it people!?

    1. Re:geez, come on... by sacbhale · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thats not a big problem at all...u just need 2 or 3 different sourses...combine the feeds using a noise canceling averaging algorithm and u can easliy remove the markings and get a clean print.

      another option is to use the same amount of opaqueness and put a block covering up the text making it just a rectangular block. No need for 2 feeds in this one...just a good algo...

      Besides people really dont mind having blocked out patches on video so much...
      a lot of people download even telesync versions of movies which are missing parts of the screen...

  5. Sony & Universal are no better... by Brent+Spiner · · Score: 5, Funny
    Sony and Universal Pictures said they won't follow that step
    No, I hear that Sony and Universal are making the reviewers watch the movies from jail, and letting them out when the movie is officially released.
    --
    Reality test... am I dreaming?
  6. Better idea! by Carraway · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a better idea. Instead of encrypting their DVDs, just mail them out along with a little note saying that the last guy to be caught pirating screeners died in police custody. I think pirates will get the hint.

  7. Secure delivery by Centurix · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they're going to this much length to protect their content, they should just get a bunch of armed security guards to personally deliver the DVD within a sealed DVD player chained to his arm. Train the security guard on how to plug the thing directly into a TV.

    --
    Task Mangler
  8. My father was sent one of these by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    as a reviewer for BAFTA about this time last year.
    I'm not impressed.
    Ours is actually connected with a composite video lead rather than scart and every few minutes black bands begin to appear across the picture, which I assume is some sort of an anti-copying measure but also somewhat ruins the film.
    The machine was difficult to set up, requiring registration, which is a pain, especialyl when you have to call a call-centre which is only open during US West Coast office hours. (which isn't really anyone's fault). The biggest issue, however, is the fact that, to my knowledge, he hasn't actually recieved any films which need to be watched using it.
    As an ordinary DVD player it's worse than the first one that we ever had - it takes a good 30 seconds to start up and then obeys all the 'do-not-skip' tags, which isn't too bad for screeners because they generally go straight to the film, but with ordinary DVDs it's a torturous wait every time you want to watch it, at least you could fast forward with VHS.

    Basically, the machines are a pain for everyone and it was a really bad idea on the part of Disney.

    --
    FGD 135
  9. Digital watermark, rather by haggais · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, the wonders of modern technology suggest a rather simpler solution. Digital watermarking of video streams is a fairly well-developed field, with several companies offering working products. The "invisible" watermark is some extra bits of "payload" added by some transformation of the images -- nothing which perceptibly degrades image quality -- and can be recovered again by some simple transformation of the data.

    Algorithms exist which embed this information "visually", in the sense that it is distirbuted across the whole or much of the image, and it survives "classic" image processing such as resizing, lossy compression, and recolouration of the image (not to any degree, of course, but you'd be ruining the movie before you got rid of the watermark), rather than just being a few specific bits which can be deleted or edited. Some of these techniques are also intended to be tamper-proof, in the sense that without the watermark-creator's key it is very hard to know how to remove or alter the watermark.

    Such a watermark would seem to be much better than a glaring visual signal, for tracking down the originator of a leaked copy. It wouldn't stop viewers enjoying their leaked copies, but the leaker could be held accountable.

  10. Re:Idea by bgog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dude, they arn't talking about regular DVDs. They are talking about 'Screeners' These are DVDs of the movies that are nomiated for an Oscar. The members of the acadamy then watch them and vote. Most of the movies have NOT been released on DVD yet.

    The trouble they have with these is that people leak them. When their movie is released on the internet 2 months before the DVD is available to buy it can really hurt them. So they have been playing with stuff like digital watermards and stuff JUST for the screeners.

    Now I'm with most slashdotters when it comes to fair-use. I don't want my damn DVDs encrypted or copy protected. Not because I want to steal them but because I may want to back them up or put them on my computer. Anyway I'm with the studio's when it comes to the screeners. They have sent pre-release versions of thier product to a limited set of reviewers and they don't deserve to have their movies released prematurely onto the internets.

  11. Re:Idea by glesga_kiss · · Score: 5, Funny
    sod the oscars. Let the people decide! This is America aint it?

    Yeah! Lets make the oscars once every four years and only allow two crap movies to enter!! ;-)