Slashdot Mirror


DRM Flub Prevented 3D Showings of Avatar In Germany

Fraggy_the_undead writes "According to German IT news site heise.de, yesterday several 3D showings of Avatar couldn't take place (German; Google translation to English), because the movies were DRM protected such that there had to be a key per copy of the film, per film projector, and per movie server in the theater. The key supplier, by the name Deluxe, was apparently unable to provide a sufficient number of valid keys in time. Moviegoers were offered to get a refund or view an analogue 2D showing instead."

386 comments

  1. Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just keep trying to micromanage everything, you DRM-loving assholes. Best-laid plans of mice and men ...

    1. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Exactly which mice plans was he really honing in here on? The best laid ones go aglay, some of the worse laid ones are okay? Some of them get through? He was fucking off this trolley! “See, mice also make plans, unbeknownst to most people. They plan to get cheese! They run, they scamper Oh, one’s fallen over! No cheese today Oh, plan two: they’ve got three, another one’s got a stick, he’s gonna put the stick into the mousetrap No, he’s broken the stick! What a jessie! Plan three – Oh, they’ve got a flip chart now! Very serious there’s a lot of mise surrounding the meeting, and they’re having a discussion Oh, good plan this, probably! Their best laid plan, I believe -Eddie Izzard

    2. Re:Defective by Design by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not film. It's digital. Think a big, honkin' flash drive

      Your sig is somehow appropriate.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Defective by Design by couchslug · · Score: 1, Troll

      Just another reason to avoid theaters and download a ripped copy instead.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:Defective by Design by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      You'd be hard pressed to find a film projector today, it's all digital.

      Although, you apparently didn't even bother to read past the headline, the summary should have made it obvious with the line "and per movie server in the theater."

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    5. Re:Defective by Design by bilbravo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No it isn't.

    6. Re:Defective by Design by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      LOL...yeah, not reading the whole article on slashdow...who'd a thunk it?

      :)

      Seriously, interesting. I've not been in a theater projection room in quite awhile, and honestly I don't go out to see movies that often anymore (I have a much better system at home, with no idiots in the audience with me, and a fully stocked bar). But the past times I've been out...I would swear they were using real film projectors, and these aren't all old old theaters. I mean, unless they have the little hair dancing on the edge on the digital projectors just to make it realistic...

      I'm thinking I've actually not seen a digital projector in a movie theater. Is this prevalent in the US, or just in EU?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Defective by Design by BetterSense · · Score: 3, Informative

      His confusion is not surprising considering the annoying tendency to keep calling all motion pictures 'films' even if a piece of celluloid was never incorporated in the production, distribution, or showing. We even have skateboarders calling their videos "films". At the same time some people actually still make films. Please, can we call things what they are?

      Motion picture/picture/movie--a series of pictures that appear to move when viewed in quick sequence.

      Video--an analog or digital electronic encoding of motion pictures.

      Film--a piece of thin cellulose or plastic, that may contain pictures. Once upon a time, all motion pictures were films, because that's all there was.

    8. Re:Defective by Design by sbeckstead · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      No it isn't you insensitive clod I make my living from those films thank you very much.

    9. Re:Defective by Design by pnewhook · · Score: 3, Informative

      Film--a piece of thin cellulose or plastic, that may contain pictures. Once upon a time, all motion pictures were films, because that's all there was.

      You forgot to say 'has vastly superior resolution to a digital movie'

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    10. Re:Defective by Design by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Informative

      The first run place I go is still film. If you are in the middle in the top 5 rows, you can hear it going clickety clickety.

      The image is still superior to digital for me. There's no "grid".

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    11. Re:Defective by Design by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      By their own petards gehoisted they are!

      Of course, this could be simple incompetence, too.

      I suppose it might be troublesome finding sufficient de-ethicals to work on their cultural apartheid projects.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    12. Re:Defective by Design by aynoknman · · Score: 1

      Your irony meter is apparently malfunctioning.

      --
      We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
    13. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And, even in this economic climate, you in the film industry are still employed while we in the IT industry have our jobs farmed out to overseas sweatshops. Yeah, "piracy" is really threatening your industry isn't it?

    14. Re:Defective by Design by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We even have skateboarders calling their videos "films". At the same time some people actually still make films. Please, can we call things what they are?

      Good luck with that. In the English (and possibly others') language, increase in a popular term's usage tends to lower the syllable count; highly popular terms tend to be reduced to a single syllable. "Automobile" is correct. "Car" is the popular reduction. As long as it's indicative and unambiguous in popular understanding, the word with the fewest syllables wins.

      Thus "Film". One syllable. "Video" - three. The term's origin is interesting, but non-essential if its identification is understood.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    15. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I didn't know 3D rips were available.

    16. Re:Defective by Design by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      "Vastly" superior? That's a bold statement. Care to back it up?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    17. Re:Defective by Design by loren · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Some interesting points to think about:

      • You make a film called "The XYZ Picture"
      • Millions of people download "The XYZ Picture" and see it for free without paying you a dime
      • Most of these millions of people wouldn't have paid to see in the first place. Lets say a few thousand that would have paid to see your picture don't because they found it for free yes, this costs you real money
      • Some of these millions decide to see it in theaters for various reasons:
        • it's more fun to go see it in a large groups with their friends
        • The prefer a big theater viewing experience
        • or maybe they just like the over-buttered movie theater popcorn

        and many of these people wouldn't have even known about your movie unless they found it online for free This is money you got from movie piracy that you wouldn't have gotten if it couldn't be downloaded

      • many of these millions tell the friends about it, and they go to the theater to see your movie. again more money you got from free movie piracy as advertising
      • Many of these millions decide that your movie isn't good enough, or worth the time / effort to go see in theaters, but they really liked it or want to see all your behind the scenes stuff, so they decide to buy or rent the movie on DVD when it comes out These are even MORE sales you can attribute to free movie piracy as advertising

      And here is the very delicate and sensitive philosophical question

      • Do the few thousand movie tickets you lost in sales to piracy cost you more than...
      • ...the many thousand more tickets you sold because of the free advertising that movie piracy provided?

      I honestly think this comes down to those movie makers who make really mediocre films being afraid that they'll loose their shirts to those movie makers that produce quality content that thrives on word of mouth advertising.

      What do you think?

      --

      Loren Osborn

      Software isn't software without source code. -- NASA
    18. Re:Defective by Design by qmaqdk · · Score: 1

      Film--a piece of thin cellulose or plastic, that may contain pictures. Once upon a time, all motion pictures were films, because that's all there was.

      You forgot to say 'has vastly superior resolution to a digital movie'

      The resolution may have been higher, but that doesn't mean it looks "sharper". Production quality and optics make a big difference. Just look at the difference between big and small budget Hollywood movies of the sixties and seventies.

      --
      My UID is prime. Hah!
    19. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    20. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is not understood by many. When I hear the term film, I think of those old movie reels, the things we used to put in cameras and the tape-like thing inside a cassette. Maybe it is an age thing, those who are old enough to remember those items recognize the term means something else.

    21. Re:Defective by Design by whoda · · Score: 1

      All the indy theaters around here use film.

    22. Re:Defective by Design by EdZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dependant entirely on the projectors used, the film used, and the cameras used to shoot the film. For example:
      A film shot on 65mm with really good cameras and lenses picked to work well together, projected from a brand new 70mm print, will look better than a digital film projected from a 2k projector (and arguably better than 4k).
      A film shot on 35mm with grab-the-cheapest-you-can-find cameras and lenses, projected from a 35mm print that has done the rounds between several film festivals, will look far far worse than a digital film projected from a 2k projector
      It's a lot more complicated than "X is better than Y".

    23. Re:Defective by Design by besalope · · Score: 5, Informative

      # Digital:

      • 720×480 (520 lines): D-VHS, DVD, miniDV, Digital8, Digital Betacam (pro)
      • 720×480 (400 lines): Widescreen DVD (anamorphic)
      • 1280×720 (720 lines): D-VHS, HD DVD, Blu-ray, HDV (miniDV)
      • 1440×1080 (810 lines): HDV (miniDV)
      • 1920×1080 (1080 lines): D-VHS, HD DVD, Blu-ray, HDCAM SR (pro)
      • 10,000×7000 (7000 lines): IMAX, IMAX HD, OMNIMAX

      # Film:

      • 35 mm film is scanned for release on DVD at 1080 or 2000 lines as of 2005.
      • 35 mm original camera negative motion picture film can resolve up to 6,000 lines.
      • 35 mm projection positive motion picture film has about 2,000 lines which results from the analog printing from the camera negative of an interpositive, and possibly an internegative, then a projection positive.
      • Sequences from newer films are scanned at 2,000, 4,000 or even 8,000 columns (line measured the other directions), called 2K, 4K and 8K, for quality visual-effects editing on computers.

      Wiki Source
      So.. 6,000~8,000 lines instead of 1080p (or 7000 for digital IMAX). It's VASTLY superior.

    24. Re:Defective by Design by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      You need to use 2 cameras.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    25. Re:Defective by Design by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not any more.

      The "resolution" of file is dependent on the chemical properties of the film, the amount of light (size of the lens), and the physical size of the film.

      The "resolution" of a digital image is dependent on the electronic properties of the sensors, the amount of light (size of the lens), and the physical size of the sensor array.

      Someone could, in theory, make a film camera that is higher resolution than a digital camera by making a huge honking lens and a huge honking piece of film. Then that same person could make a digital camera with even higher resolution by making a digital camera with an even bigger lens and bigger sensor. And on and on we can go.

      But at this point, the industry has decided on digital. Even if someone records video on film, the first step is to scan it. So in effect, everything is digital. You can't easily adjust color, lighting, and add CG effects with film.

      This obsolescence of film was solidified when George Lucas decided to film Star Wars Episode 1 in all digital. It was the first major movie that skipped the step of recording to film then scanning. It saved money and time, and improved the quality. Since then, even indie has gone digital. I don't think anyone is working on pushing film technology any longer. There's just no point in doing it only to have to spend the extra time and money to have the film scanned.

    26. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could have put 70mm film in there too.

    27. Re:Defective by Design by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, if you read the source you cite, you'll notice that only the original camera negative has "up to" 6,000 lines. By the time the film is printed and shipped to the movie theater, that has been cut down to around 2,000 lines.

      According to this Wiki source, modern digital projection systems have up to 2,100 lines. Also, digital movies don't degrade when they are projected like film does, the lamps in digital projectors are often brighter than the ones used in film projectors, and the image is more stable onscreen (because there is no film to jump around in the gate, as in a traditional projector) -- so the viewer's experience of digitally-projected movies can, in fact, be superior to that of traditional film.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    28. Re:Defective by Design by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm IT for the Movie industry at least my industry didn't outsource!

    29. Re:Defective by Design by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Most of these millions of people wouldn't have paid to see in the first place.
      Then they shouldn't have gotten to see it in the first place.
      Just because you wouldn't pay for it doesn't mean you have any business getting it at all!

    30. Re:Defective by Design by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yea, but I bet you get wobble and snow and all sorts of other annoying shit.

      And the framerate is still horrible. I wish NTSC would go away. (this last bit has nothing to do with film vs digital()

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    31. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Avatar cost US $300 million to produse with an additional $150 million spent by Fox to promote the movie. They will protect their investment as far as possible. Yes, they are dicks. But, it's their money at stake.

    32. Re:Defective by Design by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Uh, either way the 35mm film is still better. Just because the content on it is crap doesn't mean the film is.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    33. Re:Defective by Design by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      parent clearly underestimates how poorly minimum wage theater kids treat 35mm film. Handling is at best "poor" in order to maintain film quality. Film falls off the camera on the floor all the time, gets stepped on, wrinkled, jammed in the projector, has frames cut out and gets taped back together.

      IMAX is the exception because they demand better operators and that the film be handled better.. but with all the "regular" venues showing Imax-lite now I bet those films get tore up terrible.

    34. Re:Defective by Design by ottothecow · · Score: 1

      Films don't do NTSC....films are even worse....I hate the flicker when film projects bright white scenes...that is gone with digital.

      --
      Bottles.
    35. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best-laid plans of mice and men ...

      Obligatory Eddie Izzard video.

    36. Re:Defective by Design by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      "Automobile" is correct. "Car" is the popular reduction.

      I'm not so sure that car would be incorrect. I believe they both are correct, car is a subset of automobile.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    37. Re:Defective by Design by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Sure, digital is WAY more convenient and flexible for all the reasons you describe.

      HOWEVER, shooting the same scene with the same lens, with digital vs film (even more true with traditional 70mm film), you can resolve way more detail on the original source film than you can on digital.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    38. Re:Defective by Design by jbezorg · · Score: 5, Funny

      -- so the viewer's experience of digitally-projected movies can, in fact, be superior to that of traditional film.

      ... provided, of course, you have the DRM key.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    39. Re:Defective by Design by pnewhook · · Score: 1
      I'd also point out that IMAX (film) is 70mm, but the film is sideways increasing frame size even further over 35mm film. Vertical resolution of IMAX is about 2.6x that of 35mm.

      So if 35mm can resolve 6000 lines, an IMAX film can be resolved to about 15600 lines.

      So yes, vastly superior to current digital capabilities.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    40. Re:Defective by Design by Tycho · · Score: 1

      Fast motion like a quick pan usually end up looking like jerky poo at the 24fps used in 35mm film. The frame rate is too low and one no longer sees the action as a smooth continuous motion, but as more of a slide-show kind of effect occasionally seen on some 3D computer games with substandard hardware. The 60i that NTSC offers is an improvement, but the 60p available with HTDV is better. Interpolation of frames can make fast motion on 24p films appear less jerky, but it is still no substitute for having actually filmed more frames to begin with. If you'd like we could also argue about the relative color gamuts available to the initially recorded film or the digital sensor. Then there is the actual color gamut of the film used edit the movie and the film used for master print for the movie. Then there is the color gamut of the mass produced copy of the film of moderately crappy quality that is sent to the theaters. For home viewing, the color gamut used for recording to DVD format and Blu-Ray format, and the color gamut of the LCD, CRT, DLP, or Plasma display used to display the movie in a home are also points to consider.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    41. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

      Some indication of which fucking comment you are replying to needed

    42. Re:Defective by Design by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Just because you don't have enough bits for a good resolution in the digital format doesn't mean the bits are bad, either. :P

    43. Re:Defective by Design by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Most of these millions of people wouldn't have paid to see in the first place. Lets say a few thousand that would have paid to see your picture don't because they found it for free yes, this costs you real money

      Unless you're paying them to watch the movie, it isn't a cost. You might as well argue that Pepsi is costing Coca Cola money, because some people aren't paying Coca Cola for their softdrinks.

      I didn't get the last pay-raise. That's not costing me money. I'm just not getting as much money as I could have gotten.

      Now, if they are downloading it off of my own website (pay what you want), it IS costing me money if they don't pay, but otherwise it is, at most, reduced revenue. That isn't to say it isn't a problem, but it isn't a cost (i.e. expenditure).

    44. Re:Defective by Design by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure that car would be incorrect. I believe they both are correct, car is a subset of automobile.

      Agree, I did not mean to imply otherwise. "Car" has become a correct form, derived from a slightly larger form of the word. From the Oxford English Dictionary:

      car

      noun 1 a powered road vehicle designed to carry a small number of people. 2 a railway carriage or (N. Amer.) wagon.

      -- ORIGIN originally meaning wheeled vehicle: from Latin carrus.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    45. Re:Defective by Design by Tycho · · Score: 1

      The another option might be having the government fund the movie industry and accepting that movies will be copied and traded. The idea would be treating movies and music like a public good like the military, law enforcement, health insurance in some countries, or the Park Service, for instance. A public good is something that everyone can derive utility from, and does not disappear when utilized. As a result, public goods do not suffer from issues related to scarcity as a traditional scarce good. However, public goods are something that is difficult for some of its users to be willing to pay for outright. The government through taxes comes to mind as a source of money. In the case of movies, the low cost of hard drive space, faster computers, and higher internet speeds along with the ability to make perfect copies has resulted in a situation where movies are no longer the scarce good that they once were. Additional law enforcement directed at those committing small time not-for-profit copyright infringement is unlikely to work, and not even likely to be tolerated by the population at large. On the other hand, the government could also fund movie production, either directly or indirectly through funding non-profit non-partisan funding organizations. I realize that government funding may sound unpalatable now, but lets talk in 15 to 20 years after your energy is worn down by fruitless attempts to make movies a scarce good again. (Hint: DRM is entirely incapable of solving the problem. If a movie needs to be decrypted in order to be played, someone will figure out how to decrypt the movie using a separate unauthorized method and then will have an identical unencumbered copy.)

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    46. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that information (movies, in this case) has value.

      The rich-and-powerful remain so by maintaining control over things that have value.

      Free exchange of information means "they" do not get to control it, nor create artificial scarcity for it, nor hold a monopoly over it.

      Thus, free exchange of information is seen as a threat to wealth and power (in the eyes of those who have wealth and power).

      Their desire to maintain control is a logical consequence of this.

      Petty musing about how much more money one might make by letting the commodity be free and uncontrolled tastes like weak sauce compared to the obvious advantages of being able to maintain total control over all information at all times. Good luck ever convincing "them" to give up this fight.

      So that's what I think.

    47. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you have any data to back up your claims?

    48. Re:Defective by Design by westlake · · Score: 1

      Most of these millions of people wouldn't have paid to see in the first place. Lets say a few thousand that would have paid to see your picture don't because they found it for free yes, this costs you real money

      You haven't shown any real numbers here.

      But I would suggest it defies logic and experience that the geek would take a pass on the Hugo Award winning sci-fi blockbuster.

      This was Wall-E's year - running in competition against the likes of Iron Man and The Joker - and better than this you don't get.

      many of these people wouldn't have even known about your movie unless they found it online for free

      Unless you really have been living in grandma's basement all these years, you have heard all about Avatar.

      The same could be said for any significant theatrical release by the majors.

    49. Re:Defective by Design by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "No it isn't you insensitive clod I make my living from those films thank you very much."

      On percentage of theater revenue or are you on salary?

      If the first, you don't need my money.

      If the second, you get paid no matter what I do.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    50. Re:Defective by Design by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      to each according to his needs from each according to his abilities right comrade? Yeah, I really want the government funding my movies. And you still aren't getting it about the DRM being discussed. The DRM that failed in this case is used to prevent the theaters from ripping us off for our playout fees not to keep the consumer from copying it.

    51. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That whole notion of "free publicity" is lame and overused by cheap-ass people to mitigate piracy. They don't want your "advertising", they do just fine with that on their own.

    52. Re:Defective by Design by timlyg · · Score: 0

      Oooo I love those keys.
      When can I get the key for hotdog? for hamburger? for Chuckycheese?
      I just feel bad eating these without them keys everytime.

    53. Re:Defective by Design by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      We even have skateboarders calling their videos "films". At the same time some people actually still make films. Please, can we call things what they are?

      Skates are cartilaginous fish belonging to the family Rajidae in the superorder Batoidea of rays.

      Boarders of fish? I'm so confused! Why oh why did you not call things by what they are?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    54. Re:Defective by Design by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Why do you think the 65 mm of Baraka Blu-Ray was scanned at 8K ??

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraka_(film)
      http://barakathefilm.com/index-flash.html

    55. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, in even worst case scenario. e.g. Gigli ... Even they made money due to piracy.

    56. Re:Defective by Design by darthflo · · Score: 1

      According to this guy, 35mm gets you approximately 6K lines. Throw in two analog transfers (raw to intermediate, edited intermediate to actual projection material) and you're down to the equivalent of maybe 4K.

      Then again, you could get one of these for slightly more than you planned to spend on actual film and enjoy perfectly lossless digital (re-)production in 4K from shoot through projection. At a measly $20k this pretty much kills the argument for 35mm film if you ask me.

      70mm remains untouchable until 16K becomes popular; which I'm guessing will be around the time high-end home cinemas switch to 2K. Some time after that, somebody will have an affordable 16K cam with a 70mm or so sensor. After that, analog filming will be fair game.

    57. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an interesting theory, full of unsubstantiated claims. Now come up with an experiment to test it. Without actual testing, you're just yammering.

      Most of the interesting questions come from quantities, not the rationale. As an example: "many of these millions tell the friends about it, and they go to the theater to see your movie. again more money you got from free movie piracy as advertising" Your use of the word 'many', and subsequent references implicitly assign a large quantity to word-of-mouth theatre goers and to DVD-purchases that I don't see a serious defense for.

      So how would you test quantities? I can think of some testing that would be suggestive, but nothing definitive. I would expect a good test would require a decent quality feature film to test with, and generally those aren't created with experimentation in mind (more of a 'making gobs of money' frame of mind). However, my knowledge of psych and statistics are limited compared to those who do this for a living.

      My point is, however, that your theoretical millions have no data to back them up. Even if you only come up with a good test for your theory, I'll take you more seriously. Until then, yammer on.

    58. Re:Defective by Design by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Film's 24fps.

      My brain formed on film. It understands film.

      When they try to go for "reality" on digital, it looks fake to me. And there is the difference between "more realistic" video and film.

      Just like there is a difference between a painting and a photograph.

      Digital is okay for a pixar film. My brain doesn't map out digital flaws tho- it highlights them.

      I've never been aware of wobble, snow, etc. I do see the print id dots sometime, now that I'm aware they are there.

      Film has the effect of heightened reality, of chocolate milk+ (i.e. baileys irish cream).

      Digital still feels a bit sterile to me at this time.

      I'm sure they will get it down with time... or people who are used to film will die.

      Oddly, I watch tons of TV on my computer and it's not an issue there. Really only on huge screens. Perhaps they just need higher resolution.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    59. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're paying them to watch the movie, it isn't a cost. You might as well argue that Pepsi is costing Coca Cola money, because some people aren't paying Coca Cola for their softdrinks.

      That's not parallel. Pepsi vs. Coke is compentition on a level playing field. You're talking about competing with someone when you are providing exactly the same thing for much cheaper, but didn't have to pay to produce it. That is hardly a level playing field.

      I didn't get the last pay-raise. That's not costing me money. I'm just not getting as much money as I could have gotten.

      Actually, it is costing you money. If nothing else, cost of living and inflation are continuing, so being paid the same wages this year is actually less valuable to you. In any case, if you were contracted a raise and did not get it, that is sufficiently a 'cost' to take your employer to court over. I think we can agree to the cost here too.

      Now, if they are downloading it off of my own website (pay what you want), it IS costing me money if they don't pay, but otherwise it is, at most, reduced revenue. That isn't to say it isn't a problem, but it isn't a cost (i.e. expenditure).

      Ohhh! You think expenditure is the only kind of cost. So it isn't a cost if someone breaks your window until you decide to fix it? How about if a former employee exposes company secrets? Or a customer badmouths you to your other customers? Your view of cost is silly.

    60. Re:Defective by Design by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume this leads to positive free advertising? Look at the wolverine movie. Any nerd could download it and watch it before it was released. Turns out they did. There was no 'network effect.' This didnt help the movie at all. It probably just hurt it. While there are good arguments for copyright reform and fixing IP laws, this one just aint one of them.

    61. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are justifying.

    62. Re:Defective by Design by haruharaharu · · Score: 1

      This obsolescence of film was solidified when George Lucas decided to film Star Wars Episode 1 in all digital. It was the first major movie that skipped the step of recording to film then scanning. It saved money and time, and improved the quality.

      Well, given the final product, it could hardly have worsened the quality.

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    63. Re:Defective by Design by TikiTDO · · Score: 1

      To put this in perspective: you just completely ignored his well constructed argument for why these millions of people may net you MORE money than a movie that was not pirated at all, just to address an ideological concern that these random people simply should not have it, thus it is wrong. I ask you then to explain to me, and the rest of the world the following questions:

      What benefit does your system offer, that overrides the good of the system proposed by loren? Who benefits in your situation? Is there more money flowing somewhere that I'm missing? Who is to say that people should have not gotten to see it, some words on paper, do you have anything a bit more concrete?

      Also, payment of money is a concept made up because it is convenient to have the ability to assign a specific value to a specific object. That, however, does not mean that payment cannot happen in other ways, for there are lots of items of value in the world. For example, if your word was able to get 10 people to actually see the movie, then couldn't you say that the net effect is that these words were really worth 10 people worth of movie tickets sales? You were under no obligation to give your recommendation, but in doing so you paid your dues. So, now I must ask: what has value in your world? Obviously cash is worth something, and most likely gold, but what about gems, or perhaps oil, how about other minerals, maybe the products constructed from those, and why not the ideas that go into making these products. After all, the major corporations pay pretty well for these ideas, and have for a very long time. Of course if ideas are worth something, then it's not a far reach to say any words may be.

      So I could reasonably argue that by downloading the movie, watching it, and recommending it to your friends, perhaps even writing a review online you more than paid off your debt. Think on it.

    64. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternatively, you could ask "Do the few thousand extra ticket sales you can attribute to free word-of-mouth advertising from piracy make you more than the few thousand movie ticket sales you lost to piracy?" Without hard numbers for both those values your argument is worthless.

    65. Re:Defective by Design by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      You could have put 70mm film in there too.

      70/65 mm (the images are stored on 65mm with audio tracks on the side) film isn't widely used for projection. It was pretty much limited to the Imax-style of theatres which were the ones that switched to digital first. It has sometimes been used for filming but the cost is prohibitive, especially when compared to the current high definition cameras.
      35mm remains the main medium for film (movie) diffusion to theatres at the moment. Until digital formats finally overtake it one of these days.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    66. Re:Defective by Design by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      There's one more thing.

      Most of the millions of people decided your moie is hopeless utter crap. These who would buy the DVD or go to the theaters from curiosity, won't, because they know it isn't nearly worth the money. These are lost sales to people who can't be suckered into buying your crap.

      Oh noes! Piracy is killing the cinematography!

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    67. Re:Defective by Design by RingPeace · · Score: 1

      Film has meant "a series of pictures that appear to move when viewed in quick sequence" for many years you may not like it, it may not be totally logical but thats is the way English works.

      Btw I never call it a motion picture or a movie, I have always called it a film.

    68. Re:Defective by Design by ultranova · · Score: 1

      No it isn't you insensitive clod I make my living from those films thank you very much.

      So by downloading a ripped copy instead of going to a theater, I'm not only getting a superior disinfected version, but also make it less likely of reading malpunctuated "insensitive clod" posts from you in the future? Win-win!

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    69. Re:Defective by Design by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      I went to see one of the three Star Wars prequel movies in Digital.

      It struck me then that R2D2 was pixellated and had aliasing/dithering issues because his bright white robotic exterior was so much brighter than the surrounding background on the screen. Also you could see the lines around individual pixels on the white surfaces, looked like he was wearing graph paper.

      I was also thinking at the time that the Sony projector I had just bought for the office would look better, not that we projected our quarterly reports on screens THAT big.

    70. Re:Defective by Design by Narpak · · Score: 1

      The image quality in a cinema, or at home on a Blue-Ray, is at this point at such a level that it hardly matters IF film can be of a higher quality under optimal conditions. And with the digital standards sure to improve further over the next couple of decades, I feel a return to a renewed version of film is unlikely.

      As mentioned above digital also has significant advantage when it comes to long term storage, not to mention organizing/sorting. One could argue that digital only last as long as it is maintained on one server or another; but the same could be said for film. At least with digital the quality should remain consistent for the duration of our civilization.

    71. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grew up in the midwest and we always called them movies. Maybe because I grew up listening to this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Movies

      Film was something mom needed for her camera so she could take birthday pictures. It does sound a bit weird to hear about "keys for the film".

    72. Re:Defective by Design by ath1901 · · Score: 1

      Talking Motion picture/talkies--a series of pictures that appear to move when viewed in quick sequence with synchronized recorded sound .

      Fixed that for you. Confusing film/movie would be just as bad as confusing movie/talking movie, right? The talkies were a bigger revolition than the transition to digital.

    73. Re:Defective by Design by slim · · Score: 1

      His confusion is not surprising considering the annoying tendency to keep calling all motion pictures 'films'

      FWIW, in British English, 'film' is the generally accepted word for a motion picture. The BFI will not become the British Movie Institute any time soon. BAFTA (British Acadamy of Film and Television Arts) will not become BAMTA.

      There is a distinction made between "Film" (as in a feature film) "short film" and a TV programme, which would not normally be referred to as either a movie or a film in Britain.

    74. Re:Defective by Design by slim · · Score: 1

      That doesn't tell us much.

      So it's standard to scan 35mm film at 2000 lines.

      At that resolution, does the grain of the film show?

      It depends on the film and processing. In many feature films the grain is visible - it's a feature. But film grain granularity is the closest you'll get to "resolution" in analogue world.

      For a real comparison, we'd need dots-per-square-mm versus grains-per-square-mm at the same projection size.

      Resolution of domestic display/distribution technologies is not relevant. We need the capture capabilities of pro cameras.

    75. Re:Defective by Design by johncandale · · Score: 1
      Film is analog and doesn't have resolutions. Number of lines are only there by the choice and availability of technology used to scan them for dvd's and tv. Watching a 35mm print in a theater does not have 'lines'

      It's widely agreed 35mm prints have more 'information' then any digital format. When you see a lot of movies you can intently tell when the projector is a digital and when it's film, Digital is always a lesser quality picture.

    76. Re:Defective by Design by Tycho · · Score: 1

      No, I was thinking of something more like this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

      It also details several possible solutions. Public and private grants are options, there are still others. I wouldn't mind government funding of movies, it would probably mean less output of abysmal quality from Michael Bay, like Transformers 2. In any case, the problem is that movies and other video recording have the same barriers to exchange as they once did. They are no longer scarce goods, unless there is an attempt to make them scarce through DRM. However, DRM will never entirely secure information. When DRM does its half-assed job it ends up decreasing the utility of the product for for legal purchasers

      In any case, would you say that you worship Ayn Rand or do you prefer to just say "Heil Hitler"?

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    77. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus "Film". One syllable. "Video" - three.

      ..or "Vid". One Syllable, and what people are actually saying.

    78. Re:Defective by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude you never, ever get laid, do you?

    79. Re:Defective by Design by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      In any case, would you say that you worship Ayn Rand or do you prefer to just say "Heil Hitler"?Neither, I prefer to be civilized and respect the law as it is written and/or intended to be enforced. Yeah less abysmal quality (doubtful), and much easier to sensor for anti-state sentiment. Easier to keep the sexual content down to the currently accepted state church approved levels. Much easier to get the message across about all those state approved causes. And the language can be far more tightly controlled. Just look at what the BBC produces.

    80. Re:Defective by Design by Tycho · · Score: 1

      Meh, my preference would be that laws (and law makers) recognize the reality of a situation as well as the general long and short term goals of the society at large, but not to the exclusion of individuals. This does not imply a hands off approach in all cases or the necessity of laws in all cases. In other words, some in our society seem to like the idea of shaping society, and give quick, easy solutions. However, these individuals often do not seem to understand the technical problems that make implementations of their solutions complicated and annoying for legitimate users. These implementations end up impeding the product's usability for legitimate users but do not significantly impede illegitimate users, like commercial pirates. I'd also like to come out and say that selling an infringing copy of a copyrighted work for monetary gain is a far worse act than noncommercial copyright infringement.

      All and all I'm not sure that creating a film board that handed out grants for film making would be a bad thing, assuming it was shielded from political pressures. While PBS doesn't produce a great deal in the way of dramas or comedies, news programs on PBS like "Frontline" and science programs like "Nova" are far superior to similar counterparts by the commercial US news media and shows on the "Discovery Channel", respectively. I also find it hard to compare the programming on commercial talk radio favorably to the programming on NPR. By contrast, how many PG-13 movies were released in the last year that would have improved if non-gratuitous scenes that would have elevated it to an R rating had been added? Or for that matter, how many movies were obviously neutered to comply with content restrictions set by other countries? Don't count movies released at the end of the year that are blatant self-indulgent attempts by Hollywood to receive an Academy Award. My point is that the output from commercial interests are not inherently better than output from government sources. With that in mind, government output is not necessarily better in all cases than output from commercial interests either.

      Also, do you remember a couple of years ago when the Bush administration sparked an outcry when it attempted to neuter "Frontline" and make PBS programming more conservative? The problem was that PBS was supposed to have editorial independence and not be interfered with in a politically motivated manner by whoever occupied Congress or the Presidency. It is why PBS is not supposed to be state controlled media, but instead, state funded media, but independent of the government, like the BBC.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
  2. not surprising by meerling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe now some of the rank & file will begin to understand the evils of pervasive DRM, even if only in Germany.

    1. Re:not surprising by Sir_Dill · · Score: 5, Insightful
      How is this off topic?

      Infact it couldn't be more ON topic.

      The biggest problem is that people don't understand what DRM actually means and how it can impact them.

      Things like this shed light on the pitfalls of DRM.

      I am not a proponent of piracy, however I have had more than my fair share of DRM related issues in my home theater and as a result I vehemently oppose DRM schemes.

      Snafus like this really opens the eyes of the public and hopefully informs a few of them while we still have a chance to understand the problem and vote with our dollars(or euros).

    2. Re:not surprising by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Agreed -- when I try to tell most people about the dangers of DRM all I get are blank stares, or an "STFU, nerd". I notice, however, that people start to pay attention when it gets in the way of them using the stuff they paid for.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    3. Re:not surprising by maxume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The rank and file, for the most part, will be mad that the projector was broken.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:not surprising by COMON$ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry buddy, the suits in control will just look at it as a distribution problem, not a tech problem. Couldn't be anything wrong with DRM after all, it is going to save them billions! Thats right just keep drinking that Koolaid...

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    5. Re:not surprising by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      I just use a real example. Hey you want to borrow some music from me? wait I cant just copy the files? What about the TV show I recorded last night, you want that? Oh I am sorry you cant...well you can because I had the foresight to put in a DVR that doesnt use DRM but your TiVo is gonna screw you. They understand perfectly clear then.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    6. Re:not surprising by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good thing this wasn't the Dragon Ball Z movie, they'd laud DRM as the savior of humanity.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    7. Re:not surprising by Mategan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also happened in Australia. http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=677232&p=40#r783 Cant imagine these are 2 isolated cases when its such a popular movie either.

    8. Re:not surprising by Ichijo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Maybe now some of the rank & file will begin to understand the evils of pervasive DRM, even if only in Germany.

      If the fact that it's difficult to get right makes it evil, then what does that say about the Space Race?

      There are some good arguments to make against DRM, but that isn't one of them.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    9. Re:not surprising by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Informative

      s/Dragon Ball Z/New Moon
      Pop-culture update complete!

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    10. Re:not surprising by WeatherServo9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think that a snafu like this will do anything to open the eyes of the public to DRM; it's a technical snafu some theaters had running the movie, something which most patrons know nothing about, will never see how it works, and don't care how it works. This isn't equipment anyone is looking to buy or use, and the software (in this form) will never be available for purchase! From a patrons point of view something went wrong behind the scenes and they got a refund, something that happens all the time at theaters for various reasons (could be data corruption loading the movie, digital key problem, or with film a defective or missing reel, shipping problem, and so on).

    11. Re:not surprising by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I began to consider piracy when I bought a DVD with non-skippable ads on them.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    12. Re:not surprising by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except not a single person leaving that theater knew that DRM had anything to do with it. Or even the meaning of the acronym itself.

      "Sorry, folks, little glitch with the 3D thingamajig here! Heh heh... Well, you're all welcome to stay and enjoy the show in all it's 2D glory, including some free popcorn! Or we'll gladly refund your money."

      And they all came back the next day, and paid their money to support the now properly-running DRMed-up-the-ass movie, none the wiser. Do you really think the theater hauled out Cory Doctorow to hold forth on the evils of DRM for the audience's benefit?

      --
      I am not left-handed, either!
    13. Re:not surprising by sbeckstead · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't care what you think of it we are not shipping first run theatrical resolution films unencrypted. Get over it people at this level encryption is here to stay.

    14. Re:not surprising by digitalunity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By far, this is the most annoying thing about DVD's. So-called "acceptable user operations". The DVD decides what you get to do or not do, including watching a bunch of previews for movies you don't want to see. I could understand this happening once, the first time you watch it. But really, its an insult to avid movie fans with movie libraries. Forcing them to watch ads for movies that came out 10 fucking years ago is ridiculous.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    15. Re:not surprising by sbeckstead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Things like this shed light on the pitfalls of DRM. First run theatrical films will never be shipped to a theater unencrypted. This is not your run of the mill DRM.

    16. Re:not surprising by sbeckstead · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Do you really expect a studio to ship a theatrical resolution first run movie unencrypted? I have this bridge in Brooklyn for sale...

    17. Re:not surprising by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      You do realize this is not a problem with DRM, but with some lowly paid employee not bothering to do their job properly.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    18. Re:not surprising by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey you want to borrow some music from me?

      Loan them the CD

      What about the TV show I recorded last night

      Why not invite them over for some socialization? And if you don't like them that much then they should have had the foresight to record it themselves.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    19. Re:not surprising by photomonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sadly, what they'll understand is that they suffered a minor to moderate inconvenience, to which a seemingly acceptable resolution was offered.

      There may be no understanding beyond "technical problem."

      And while I'm sure the studio isn't happy, they'll still probably get money from every single person that showed up to the movie. So they'll have something to talk about as they drive the big truck full of money to the bank.

      Of course, there are some exceptions to that model, and this is coming from a guy whose last several moviegoing experiences have been so unpleasant that I have not set foot in a movie theater in almost four years.

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
    20. Re:not surprising by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      "Fair use" still means I can give a friend of mine a copy of your song off a CD I own so they can listen to it.

      You don't like that? Well, thank goodness you have a huge lobby group working to change all the laws in your favor.

      But lets be clear on who the freeloader is here.

      --
      Changa hates change.
    21. Re:not surprising by Amouth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Originally it was put in there to make the copyright FBI warning sign stay up so there is no excuse that the movie didn't have it - then they realized they could flip that bit for the ad's too..

      I've had movies where they ad's where so long i just ripped the damn movie and re burned it without the ad's

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    22. Re:not surprising by znerk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't care what you think of it we are not shipping first run theatrical resolution films unencrypted. Get over it people at this level encryption is here to stay.

      Funny thing is, someone ripped the screener a couple weeks ago... you see, the "first run theatrical film" is not where the pirates get their copies.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    23. Re:not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Was there some huge following of the Dragon Ball Z movie that I didn't know about? Were you on Team ChiChi on Team Bulma?

    24. Re:not surprising by residieu · · Score: 1

      They've done it for years, haven't they? It's just now that they finally can encrypt it, they think that they should.

    25. Re:not surprising by Sir_Dill · · Score: 4, Informative

      We understand that you want everything for free and you want to freeload off the backs of the artists. Clear as a bell. Property isn't what it used to be. The digital world is different and your model of the world is gone. Get over it.

      And so is your model.

      Lets take a step back and ask, what is an idea?. Is it the paper its printed on? the CD its pressed onto? no. Its information pure and simple.

      Back in the old days, the information was bound by the media it was distributed on, and duplicating said media or information from said media was not only difficult and time consuming, it resulted in a product which was inferior to the original.

      Supply was limited to the number of physical objects produced, duplication was cost prohibitive, thus the status quo of the supply and demand curve was maintained through limited supply.

      Fast forward to the digital age and now supply is infinite, which means production costs eventually reach "zero" (now I know this isn't completely true, but stay with me) once the initial production costs are recouped.

      The consumer says "sure I don't mind hooking you up with a copy of that song, or that book, or that movie because its not like loaning out a book, cd, or dvd that might get damaged or lost, and I lose nothing." We were raised (well some of us were raised)to believe that sharing is a good thing, the only downside to sharing is that we have less of that which is shared....oh wait...no we don't in this case.

      Joe Executive ,because lets be honest...its not the artists, actors, directors, writers who are driving this, its corporations and associations designed to control the markets in which they operate. Personally I think it would be interesting to see some RICO probes into hollywood and motown. I think people might be shocked at what turns up, however that's an entirely different discussion. He thinks here I have this thing which costs x amount to create, but ongoing production costs are comparatively nothing which means once you reach the break even on creation costs, you rake in the profits from continued sales. They then think, there's no way to enforce licensing restrictions that limit resale on physical media, but hey digital is something different, if I can come up with a system that I control who can and can't access the file, then I can make them pay me if they want to sell the content like they would a used CD. Then it gets really scary because they start talking about use tax and ways to make consumers pay for every consumption much in the way you pay every time you goto a concert or movie theater....I don't think I have to explain why this a terrible thing for the consumer.

      Don't get me wrong. I am not deluded enough to think that I deserve everything for free just because the cost involved in ripping a dvd is negligible. But I also don't think that a company should be able to control what I can and can't do with legally acquired content. As far as broadcast TV goes....I already pay for it both through my cable company and through purchasing things which are advertised on the shows I watch. It seems as though folks forget that just because I can pick something up with an antenna without paying a monthly fee, doesn't mean its free nor is my recording of that content stealing. I think that tv series on disc is a fad and will disappear once on demand services start carrying more vintage content.

      So just for the record....your world isn't what it used to be either.

    26. Re:not surprising by Ichijo · · Score: 2, Funny

      You do realize this is not a problem with DRM, but with some lowly paid employee not bothering to do their job properly.

      Silence! We're trying to get all worked up here!

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    27. Re:not surprising by barzok · · Score: 1

      DRM is a distribution problem. It's implemented with a technical solution, but DRM's intention is to restrict/control distribution.

    28. Re:not surprising by znerk · · Score: 1

      You do realize this is not a problem with DRM, but with some lowly paid employee not bothering to do their job properly.

      And what about 10 years from now, when said company is out of business, and someone wants to throw that old Avatar reel back on the projector for old times' sake? Oh no! There is a DRM code, and so the lawful owner of the movie cannot watch it!

      Good job, DRM!

      Once again... "protection" schemes that rely on a company holding up its end of the bargain indefinitely are doomed to fail, and will disappoint customers in the end.

      I personally own several shrink-wrapped copies of movies, never opened, that I have enjoyed watching multiple times.
      Easy method of enjoying your purchased media without DRM getting in the way:
      1: Purchase movie.
      2: Put movie into storage container.
      3: Download "pirated" copy of same movie.
      3: Enjoy responsibly. (Profit!)

      No question marks, this is a tried-and-true method of enjoying your lawfully-purchased movie without any DRM keeping your player from reading the disc, without those annoying commercials that you can't skip, and without fear.

      Tell your friends.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    29. Re:not surprising by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      By far, this is the most annoying thing about DVD's. So-called "acceptable user operations". The DVD decides what you get to do or not do, including watching a bunch of previews for movies you don't want to see. I could understand this happening once, the first time you watch it. But really, its an insult to avid movie fans with movie libraries. Forcing them to watch ads for movies that came out 10 fucking years ago is ridiculous.

      I was so thrilled with the first DVD I bought specifically because it didn't have ads at the beginning...

      I'd grown used to fast-forwarding through the ads at the beginning of a VHS tape, and just having the menu pop right up was terrific. I couldn't believe how convenient that was.

      A little while later I got a DVD with ads on it... But that was OK, because I could just hit the MENU button and skip right over them. Even easier than fast-forwarding through the ads on a VHS tape.

      These days, however, it's worse than a VHS tape. The MENU button is disabled and I'm forced to sit through them just like before. But the extra capacity on a DVD means they can cram even more ads on there. At least I haven't found one that disabled the fast-forward button yet...

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    30. Re:not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing pisses me off more than being forced to sit through that damn FBI warning on a DVD I flipping PAID for. If anything MAKES me want to go pirate movies, its not the cost, its the inconvenience the publishers force on its consumers.

    31. Re:not surprising by Ephemeriis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't care what you think of it we are not shipping first run theatrical resolution films unencrypted. Get over it people at this level encryption is here to stay.

      What's interesting is that, once again, DRM is only affecting legitimately paying customers.

      In this case somebody ripped a screener copy of the movie a couple weeks ago, so this first run theatrical resolution film isn't terribly interesting to the pirates anymore. Anybody who wants to grab a pirated copy of the movie has been able to do so for a little while now. They don't need this DRM-laden film.

      The folks who do need this DRM-laden film are the theater owners who are trying to show the movie to their patrons. And they have, presumably, acquired their copy of the movie through legitimate means. Which is why the lack of a key to the DRM matters to them. If they were using a pirated copy they wouldn't be having any trouble showing it.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    32. Re:not surprising by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Forcing them to watch ads for movies that came out 10 fucking years ago is ridiculous.

      If you're seeing 10 year old ads, you're probably watching a 10 year old movie. This means you might want to purchase another 10 year old movie, and here's your 20 minute preview of some options you might consider. And yes, we still make money on old movie sales.

    33. Re:not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cory Doctorow is smart enough to know the difference between consumer DRM and B2B DRM.

    34. Re:not surprising by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed. What was "surprising" to me was that this story appeared on Slashdot now. I have a friend who manages a movie theater that recently upgraded to digital projection, and believe me, this kind of glitch happens all the time. Often the digital delivery systems work flawlessly, but when they don't, it really pisses a lot of people off -- often because it costs them a lot of money in lost ticket sales. At least once or twice, my friend has had to get in his car and drive to the nearest studio distribution center to pick up a film copy of a movie that was supposed to be projected digitally -- because the old ways, at least, still work fine.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    35. Re:not surprising by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Actually the screener is a low resolution copy of the actual film and has very little relationship to what is on the disk we ship. The DRM is there to make sure we get paid by the theater for the box office not to stop consumers from getting a copy. None of your arguments have any meaning in this context.

    36. Re:not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, right?

      That is totally the way I felt. Except that I was downloading for 5 years, then received a commercial DVD of a movie as a gift.

      When I figured out that they had used the FBI code to stop the skipping on the previews, I got really mad.

      I was going to rip the the DVD to a divx file, but then I figured it would be simpler to just download a fresh copy.

    37. Re:not surprising by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      In the digital world your old school ideas of property are useless. There is no such thing as "fair use" except as a defense against a law suit. you claim to have such great insight into copyright issues yet you fail to realize that the world has changed around you and the old ideas about physical property are gone. The rights belong to those that can control them and you're railing against the inevitable is useless.

    38. Re:not surprising by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      35 mm prints are going away they are too expensive to print and ship. All theaters are going digital eventually as film continues to fade away.

    39. Re:not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trotting out Cory Doctorow would not, for any reason, be for the audience's benefit.

    40. Re:not surprising by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Man I wish I could find Ebert's post on that idiotic copyright screen. IIRC, he basically adds up all the time that has been wasted by humanity staring that that red screen that has never, *ever*, prevented a single case of movie copying.

      I have some DVDs by Rhino, and they get it... they are required to put the copyright notice up, but they always put it at the *end* of the movie when they can get away with it. When they have to put it at the beginning, they draw glasses and a mustache on the FBI director's photo and play goofy music, at least they're making fun of it.

    41. Re:not surprising by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 1

      Try VLC. It magically makes all the opening trailers and ads go away by jumping you straight to the main menu. (I honestly can't tell if this is intentional or just a technical limitation... probably intentional, though.)

            --- Mr. DOS

    42. Re:not surprising by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Most DVD players have some magical incantation that gets them to skip. Mine involves yanking the power cord while it is playing, then when it goes to play back from the current location, hitting stop before it actually starts.... THEN the root menu button will actually pop up the root menu. I guess because it hasn't seen the PUO bits yet at that point?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    43. Re:not surprising by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      So the "entertainment industry" seems not to only think all their *customers* are crooks, they also think all their *business partners* are crooks. Well. It looks like they project their own business practices onto others.

      When a movie theatre shows a movie, it is advertised in big freaking letters on the building, and when they want to make some money they also advertise it. The distributor would just have to check if they pay for all showings. It's not like they would be able to rip them of in the long run by showing the movies "secretly"

    44. Re:not surprising by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Oh, another thing:

      Especially in a B2B setting there is a non-destructive DRM option.

      License audit. We use a lot of software at work, and one prerequisite we have put into every contract with the software vendor is that there is no DRM that does prevent the software from working. The software can check for licenses, it can alert the distributor that we use more than we have bought, they can log licensing problems into logs, but if the software stops working because of licensing problems we have put a clause in the contract that we deduct a percentage from the annual maintenance fee.

    45. Re:not surprising by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I am as anti CONSUMER DRM as they come, but this is a normal mistake in a supply chain. Its no different then some item not being shipped because no one was qualified to ship it or whatever. This is not at all relational to consumer level DRM.

      --
      Good-bye
    46. Re:not surprising by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Actually the screener is a low resolution copy of the actual film and has very little relationship to what is on the disk we ship. The DRM is there to make sure we get paid by the theater for the box office not to stop consumers from getting a copy. None of your arguments have any meaning in this context.

      Actually, that makes the DRM make even less sense to me...

      I mean, you're telling me that some guy is going to build a theater... Hire a bunch of employees... Put in multiple thousands of dollars worth of 3D projection equipment... Contact at least some studios to get legal copies of their films for presentation (they couldn't possibly pirate all of it, could they?)... And then go and run a pirated copy of this movie... That just doesn't make sense.

      I kind of assumed, from the context of the article, that it was more about licensing the right number of screens. Sounds like the "film" is actually a digital file sitting on a server, and streamed out to multiple projectors. And they want to make sure that they get paid a licensing fee for each and every screen it shows on. Which actually makes plenty of sense.

      But where it stops making sense is when you throw the DRM in. That seems to set you up in some kind of adversarial relationship where you view those theater owners more like the enemy than your business partners. Which doesn't seem like a good situation to me.

      Of course you'll point out that there are plenty of shady people out there who would do underhanded things if they were allowed to... Which is certainly true. But I don't think the solution is to alienate your loyal business partners (the folks who did everything legally) by treating them like criminals. Again - this DRM only affects the people doing things legally. If you're pirating the movie - regardless of whether it's a screener copy or something theatrical resolution - you aren't dealing with the DRM.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    47. Re:not surprising by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Obsolescence is true of anything. My parents have movies from when I was a kid, but I cannot watch them as the projector doesn't exist anymore. To watch them I'd have to have the film sent out to a company that specializes in converting from one form to another. This would identical to the future situation you describe.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    48. Re:not surprising by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      As I recall, the cinema gets none of the profits from the first few showings of a film (they make their money entirely from the snack sales) and then a slowly increasing percentage over the next couple of weeks. The studio gets most of its money from the first weekend. While no one would build a cinema to show pirated films, someone might well do a few more showings of a film than they report to the studio and just pocket the takings. An audit of their accounts would show it, but having the film simply refuse to play except at authorised times is easier (in theory). Mind you, someone willing to go to that trouble could just 'accidentally' move half of their ticket sales into the popcorn column on their accounts and probably not get caught.

      As the other poster said, regarding both their customers and business partners as criminals is probably a serious case of projecting by the movie studios.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    49. Re:not surprising by socz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, do you have that CD i let you borrow? Oh, you ruined it? Big scratch huh? No, i can't replace it, you see it's the rare New Order Remix blue edition. Yeah, that one, the one that has the confusion pump remix. Yup, from Blade. No, it wasn't on the Blade sountrack disc. But ok, it was expensive but maybe I can find it someday in a used cd store.... if they only allowed us to sell used CDs :(

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    50. Re:not surprising by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      I think a fair argument can be made here that DRM can actually hurt businesses, not just ordinary private consumers. When businesses are hurt, that means a loss in revenues. In short, DRM can risk a company's revenue stream. I have another example:

      Among other things, I'm a musician. Recently I needed some vintage synthesizers, but because I was for want of space, I decided to get a French made MIDI and software synth package - a very good product in fact. The problem is its reliance on Syncrosoft license control software as a kind of virtual dongle for allowing me to run the software. The key is use-once-and-destroy. It becomes invalid after installation. That means, I cannot reinstall or migrate the software to another computer. If I bought a USB dongle, I could do these things, but consumers are not told this before purchase. When I had to reinstall, I needed to contact tech support to have a new disposable key issued to me. It was a trivial task, but I imagine the cost of maintaining this system is an unnecessary one. Because the company is based in France, American customers can run into difficulty getting support during times when the French go on vacation. Tech support requests can go unanswered for more than a month. And from what I've seen in the company's forums, a bulk of the question have to do with that Syncrosoft DRM. Had the company decided to distribute their software without DRM or even using a key-verification system like that used by Microsoft or Adobe, there would be fewer support requests, fewer frustrated customers, and likely reduced costs.

    51. Re:not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW you all have my heartfelt apologies for the apostrophe abuse in the above post.

    52. Re:not surprising by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Another compelling reason to watch DVDs on an HTPC with mplayer instead of a STB, along with getting true 23.99fps DVD playback (closer to correct speed/pitch) on PAL DVDs.

      UOPs must die.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    53. Re:not surprising by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Technical obsolescence occurs in both formats, and it's more or less inescapable if we want to upgrade. But DRM adds a whole new layer of obsolescence that doesn't add any value to the product.

      And while it's possible to build a new projector, is it even possible to crack that encryption if the keys were lost?

    54. Re:not surprising by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      Spot on! I wonder if the audience was even told "We have DRM problems" or if they were told "We have problems with our 3D projector"?
      Interestingly, the DRM is surely there to ensure that theatres pay for the screening of the movie, not to stop Joe Public making a DVD copy. So I wonder how the theatres, usually strong anti-piracy advocates, feel about getting caught out by this and losing revenue? Like ordinary consumers, they are probably stuck between a rock (go without) and a hard place (put up with the DRM).

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    55. Re:not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      disney?

    56. Re:not surprising by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand. The DRM would be there to prevent the theater from showing the movie on more than one screen, or sending a copy to their other locations. The theater is the end-user the DRM is being used against.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    57. Re:not surprising by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      No, the theaters (thousands of them) have in the past indeed ripped off the distributors by playing the movie in more houses than they licensed. You really need to remember that if there is a counter measure for something then it has probably already occurred. You guys have no real clue about this business model and don't really know what you are talking about.

    58. Re:not surprising by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      yeah, um not really applicable here but thanks for playing...

    59. Re:not surprising by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      "Fair use" still means I can give a friend of mine a copy of your song off a CD I own so they can listen to it.

      Umm, no, this shows you don't understand what Fair Use actually is. What you are doing is clearly copyright infringement.
      http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

    60. Re:not surprising by Boltronics · · Score: 1

      Most open source video DVD players (Xine, VLC, XBMC etc.) ignore the no-skip flag on DVD content. Just click next and be done with it. I'm not sure if this is a feature of libdvdcss, the player itself or both.

      --
      It's GNU/Linux dammit!
    61. Re:not surprising by Amouth · · Score: 1

      yea i'll inform my wife on how to skip using VLC on the standalone dvd player

      to be fair now days - yea we use a media PC but several years ago we used a standalone dvd player - not much you can do to skip if it doesn't let you (hence the rip and re burn)

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    62. Re:not surprising by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      hey, at least you get a silent screen presented... we get that infuriating "you wouldn't steal a car" "commercial"... strangely enough, if Australia is present in the list of countries given on opening, selecting that skips ALL the crap...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    63. Re:not surprising by Muskstick · · Score: 1

      The fact is they send out the KDM the day before or sometimes the day it begins screening, if a site is having problems with their email server that day or as in this case they just didnt get the keys prepared on time then there's nothing we can do, havent had it happen to us yet but I'm not looking forward to it. Same issue as well if a site has a power cut during a session, the DRM can prevent it being replayed until the next session, with a traditional projector its not hard to fire it back up again, with the digital projectors they're all got to be hooked up to UPS's to make sure it doesnt happen.

    64. Re:not surprising by bulletman · · Score: 1

      What's interesting is that, once again, DRM is only affecting legitimately paying customers.

      Though you wouldn't hear about it If the DRM prevented theft of the movie.

    65. Re:not surprising by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      It's not infringement, because I'm a teacher. Consider yourself schooled.

      --
      Changa hates change.
    66. Re:not surprising by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      yea i'll inform my wife on how to skip using VLC on the standalone dvd player

      Great! Everyone and your wife should know how to use a soldering iron.

      --
      bickerdyke
    67. Re:not surprising by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      But 35mm prints *work*

      --
      bickerdyke
    68. Re:not surprising by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Sure it is. It makes the film two components.
      If something is made up from several components, and it is 'assembled' on site.
      Then all components must be on site in time.
      The more components the more chance of failure to deliver.
      Directly comes from this DRM model.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    69. Re:not surprising by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Get over it people at this level encryption is here to stay.

      Whatever. I don't care.
        But if you insist on yusing it, it's YOUR F**ING JOB TO MAKE SURE IT WORKS!!

      Otherwise your statement is pure nonsense.

      Like if your power company would switch to nuclear fusion tomorrow. Your house will go dark cause it doesnt't produce any energy yet, but hey, get over it. Thats the technology of the future and it#s here to stay!

      --
      bickerdyke
    70. Re:not surprising by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      And what about 10 years from now, when said company is out of business, and someone wants to throw that old Avatar reel back on the projector for old times' sake?

      And what about films from 10 years ago? You'd have to find a distributor first who still rents out those reels to cinemas. I't not as in cinemas there youlr be any kind of Buying" or "permanent lease" of movies. Reels/HDDs are rented out to the cinemas for a few weeks, and the distributor doenst have to hold up any contractual obligations after that.

      End user market is completly different.

      --
      bickerdyke
    71. Re:not surprising by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Why not? DRM set up in a way that would not have prevented people to see the movie, and actually GET what they have payed for instead of screwing both the customer AND the business parter is "not applicable"? You know, like actually MANAGE digital rights, not only REVOKE them.

      Ah, I see. There is now a requirement in the entertainment industry that they HAVE to piss people off.

    72. Re:not surprising by ultranova · · Score: 1

      we get that infuriating "you wouldn't steal a car" "commercial"...

      If a legally bought car forced me to watch "you wouldn't steal a movie" ad whenever I wanted to drive it, and a stolen car wouldn't... I'd be tempted. I would be very tempted indeed.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    73. Re:not surprising by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      What's interesting is that, once again, DRM is only affecting legitimately paying customers.

      Though you wouldn't hear about it If the DRM prevented theft of the movie.

      Are you kidding? With all the bad press surrounding DRM and anti-piracy tactics and everything else? If some studio had proof that their DRM was actually preventing theft they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    74. Re:not surprising by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand. The DRM would be there to prevent the theater from showing the movie on more than one screen, or sending a copy to their other locations. The theater is the end-user the DRM is being used against.

      I do not misunderstand. I just don't think it makes sense to treat your business partners (the theaters) like thieves. I think that creates more problems than it fixes.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    75. Re:not surprising by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i know EE's that can't use a soldering iron - it's sad but true

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    76. Re:not surprising by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      It took the whole DeCSS mess to make that possible. There was a time interval during which, using VLC to read DVD or developping such an application was downright illegal.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    77. Re:not surprising by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      No, the theaters (thousands of them) have in the past indeed ripped off the distributors by playing the movie in more houses than they licensed. You really need to remember that if there is a counter measure for something then it has probably already occurred.

      I'm sure they have. And thousands of people have mugged people... And stabbed them... And raped them... And whatever else. But you don't see me walking around treating every other human being I encounter like a thief/murderer/rapist.

      When you get right down to it, DRM just doesn't work. It doesn't much matter if we're talking about music, or video games, or productivity applications, or theatrical resolution movies.

      You bolt on some kind of DRM mechanic. Someone out there, somewhere, if they're motivated enough can remove that DRM mechanic. I don't care what it is, there's a crack for it. If you decide that you want to pirate that thing, whatever it is, you're going to locate the crack for it. At which point the DRM no longer matters.

      So if your DRM requires a $1,000 DRM server... The pirates don't need to buy that server. If your DRM requires standing on one foot and clucking like a chicken... The pirates don't need to do that. If your DRM requires leaving the disc in your computer to play... The pirates don't need to do that. And if you DRM requires some kind of cryptographic key to play the movie... The pirates don't need that key.

      So when your DRM mechanic breaks down... When that $1,000 DRM server dies, or somebody has a lousy sense of balance, or the disc is too scratched, or the key distributor has issues... It is only your legitimately paying, legal customers who are affected. The reason they couldn't show this movie in certain theaters is because those theaters were doing it legally. If they'd pirated the movie they'd be able to show it just fine.

      The end result is that you're treating your legitimate, paying, legal customers like they're thieves. While not inconveniencing the thieves one bit.

      You guys have no real clue about this business model and don't really know what you are talking about.

      Sure I do. It's the same business model the RIAA and the MPAA and whoever else is using.

      Take an essentially unlimited commodity (a few bits of data)... Encumber it with enough DRM and legal agreements that it becomes a limited commodity (like a chunk of platinum)... Then pretend it is just as valuable as a limited commodity and get outraged if somebody doesn't agree with you.

      Ultimately this movie is a few hundred (thousadnd?) gigs of data on a computer somewhere. It could be reproduced infinitely without affecting the quality at all. You could give copies away on a street corner if you wanted to, without impacting the original at all.

      Originally it might have made sense to treat these movies like precious metals - back when they were all printed on real celluloid. Back when making a copy wasn't a point & click endeavor. Back when there was some real value associated with a copy of the film. Just as, once upon a time, it took real time and effort to record music onto a record or tape or CD.

      These days, however, the copies are worthless. Given sufficient disk space and access to the original, absolutely anybody could make a copy. It requires absolutely no special effort or knowledge or training.

      And just like the music industry - the movie industry is now trying to encumber these digital copies with enough DRM and legalese that they behave more like the old analog copies.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    78. Re:not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rights belong to those that can control them and you're railing against the inevitable is useless.

      Not quite - I'd say the gnashing of teeth that is DRM itself goes to show just how little control you (earlier comment suggested you're an industry bod) have. You can keep putting up better and better locks, but as long as the content is there, we will have it.

      All it takes for us is 1 person to break it and share - the content industry have to win every little fight for every customer of every damn movie/song/game/digital content. So now tell me who is railing against the inevitable?

    79. Re:not surprising by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      Hey I am one of the people who has paid for all the media on my computers and devices. What bugs me is the restriction on the media I buy. I can load a DVD but I can't loan a digital copy. For that matter the digital copy that came with my batman DVD is absolutely useless because the developer didnt have the foresight to check for space before initiating a connection to mark up my tally so when I tried to use it on a dummy PC first I burned up all three licenses without even getting to use it. Forcing me to decrypt the volume. I am ok with people protecting their media, I am not OK with them rendering something I paid for useless and calling me a thief.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    80. Re:not surprising by COMON$ · · Score: 1
      Oh you Mean My Switchfoot CD with the rootkit on it? Or the TV show that automatically gets deleted from the recorder after a set period of time?

      I love having social time, but usually we dont spend it staring at the screen, we actually converse.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    81. Re:not surprising by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      All it takes for us is 1 person to break it and share
      Yup one crook and the whole lot of you benefit. What happened to civilization and the respect for property in any form. Keep down this road and chaos ensues. Way to be adults.

    82. Re:not surprising by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      The idea is to keep honest people honest. Just like the lock on your front/back door that is no match for a good kick. Face it, crooks are crooks and defending them by claiming that a lock is out dated is just wrong. Civilization is about respecting boundaries and you guys have just forgotten how to behave in polite company. You have shown that you are no longer able to live within a structure of civilized behavior and therefore deserve no more respect than any common criminal.

    83. Re:not surprising by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      You said give a copy to "a friend". Did you actually mean "a student of yours"? If so, you should have said that.

      (I will admit I don't know whether your claim of a teacher's exemption is valid in all cases.)

    84. Re:not surprising by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Actually it is the performance that we get paid for so allowing the performance and then suing to get the money is more costly to us than having the theater piss of a few customers that will simply pick a different theater next time.

    85. Re:not surprising by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      this needs a parody advert just to show how stupid things are...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    86. Re:not surprising by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Sure, you can do it that way. But then don't complain afterwards and blame it on piracy when you lose customers.

    87. Re:not surprising by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      The idea is to keep honest people honest. Just like the lock on your front/back door that is no match for a good kick. Face it, crooks are crooks and defending them by claiming that a lock is out dated is just wrong.

      I would suggest that if a person is actually honest, they require no help in staying that way. And that if a person is dishonest, little is going to compel them to be honest.

      And I don't know who you think I'm defending. I think DRM is a bad idea in general, but I'm not suggesting everyone run out and pirate stuff.

      Civilization is about respecting boundaries and you guys have just forgotten how to behave in polite company. You have shown that you are no longer able to live within a structure of civilized behavior and therefore deserve no more respect than any common criminal.

      "You guys"? What guys? Last time I checked I'm just a single human being...

      And how have I forgotten how to behave in polite company? By disagreeing with you in a fairly civil manner on a public message board? That somehow makes me a common criminal?

      What the hell kind of world are you living in?

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    88. Re:not surprising by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with this commercial-only level of DRM. Its a business to business arrangement, which has very specific guidelines. It use does not relate to the curtailing of fair use 'rights' in any way. This is no different then sending a locked courier briefcase and not having the key. It is appropriate for the movie studio to be able to digitally distribute movies securely. In other words, this is a tempest in a teacup, and in no way relates to the locking up of culture at the consumer level.

      --
      Good-bye
    89. Re:not surprising by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Bit self centered are we. Sorry not intended for you personally...

    90. Re:not surprising by Sir_Dill · · Score: 1
      You're right about him being an industry bod.

      He works for a company developing DRM.

      This is the problem from the consumer standpoint.

      I'll use myself as an example. I purchased a shiny new PC with blu-ray/hd-dvd drive. I spent additional money to purchase an HDCP compliant video card. Also purchased brand new shiny Receiver, also HDCP compliant. Bought HDCP compliant projector. I get it all hooked up and lo and behold, Vista will not let me play any disc. It says I am not allowed to. Hmmm interesting I think to myself....let me play this AVI I just recorded off my digital camera...imagine my surprise when it would not let me play that either. Now....mister DRM man....is that how its supposed to work? I am screwed because microsoft blames Nvidia and Denon, Denon wants nothing to do with me and insists that its a software problem from microsoft. So now I have to go buy software, which if it were up to you, would be completely illegal and not available just so I can watch a movie on my bigscreen.

      The companies involved could care less about me and now I am screwed because I don't have enough money to take them to court. DRM? Bah! eff that. DRM makes me want to steal it on principle because its not there to make my life better, it just complicates it.

      I can't count the number of times I have had to dink around with the setup just to get it to work when some new form comes around. Mind you I am just trying to watch the damn thing. I shouldn't have to jump through 21 flaming hoops of death just so I can watch legally acquired content in my home theater.

      I know I am feeding a troll here who isn't interested in understanding the other side because he thinks the other side are a bunch of punks who want to steal shit, but the reality is those punks don't care about DRM at all because it ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR THEM. You aren't going to stop them ever. Until you can control what my eyes and ears deliver to my brain, you will not be able to stop piracy.

      Prohibition doesn't work. What you have to do is lower the price point and increase accessibility until its just easier to buy it through appropriate channels than it is to risk malware and virii on the internet's dark underbelly.

      Also I think mister Becksteads weak ass sauce one liner replies are pathetic. He wants people to be adults but can't even invest more than 30 seconds writing a reply...oh and the blogs are also VERY weak sauce....full of links to online poker and get rich quick schemes.

      I got news for ya, if the wheel was patented when it was invented, civilization would have died before it started.

    91. Re:not surprising by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      I'll use myself as an example. I purchased a shiny new PC with blu-ray/hd-dvd ... Hmmm interesting I think to myself....let me play this AVI I just recorded off my digital camera...imagine my surprise when it would not let me play that either. Now....mister DRM man....is that how its supposed to work? I am screwed because microsoft blames Nvidia and Denon, Denon wants nothing to do with me and insists that its a software problem from microsoft. So now I have to go buy software, which if it were up to you, would be completely illegal and not available just so I can watch a movie on my bigscreen. Can't help it if you bought and didn't actually read and or pay attention to the interactions of the parts. Or you bought inferior products and they didn't work as advertised. No it's not supposed to work that way and I agree it's a major pain. I on the other hand bought an Apple TV I have never felt the need to buy Blue-ray after that and it all works perfectly on my 50 inch plasma with hmdi and hdcp. I rarely use a DVD player and the one I have plays AVI files directly off of a USB stick with no hassles what so ever. Incidentally I don't work for a company developing DRM. We deliver keys for the already DRMed content supplied by the studios just like Deluxe. I develop warehouse management software actually.
      the other side are a bunch of punks who want to steal shit
      No there are a bunch of punks that want to steal shit but they are not the problem they at least are honest about it. It's the sense of entitlement that you seem to imbue the world with, that somehow since it was created you get to enjoy it no matter how little you contribute to the well being of the creator. And since it costs you nothing to share you can share with impunity. Since it costs you personally nothing to give it away (I mean you still get to keep it) I guess it has no value and therefore you can just give it away and share it with the world. That way the poor artist will starve and well you know another one will come along eventually anyway so what do I care about that one. You create nothing and value nothing created by any one else.

    92. Re:not surprising by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      It's not that teachers are exempt, it's that educational purposes are exempt. And historically this has been a very broad category, a fact fought since the invention of the phonograph. So if I give a song to you or to anyone so that you can learn something from it, even if it's just learning to like a new band, that's a legitimate use of a song of which I own a copy.

      A high school student who says, "hey, these are all the coolest bands, checkout this mix." and hands a mix-cd to a friend, has exercised fair-use.

      Now, if he charges for that CD, or gives out entire albums in that manner, or if the people he gives them to choose to keep them indefinitely rather than tossing it out or buying anything from the artists they've learned about, those are possibly infringement. But it's up to the record company to show infringement, not up to the individual to demonstrate fair use.

      The DMCA does change this, in that it is now illegal to make any copies of any media containing a Digital Restriction Mechanism, because fair-use no longer applies to any such media, ever. Backup copies of a movie you keep on a shelf in case your original gets scratched are now illegal, along with photos of your television screen.

      --
      Changa hates change.
    93. Re:not surprising by znerk · · Score: 1

      And what about films from 10 years ago? You'd have to find a distributor first who still rents out those reels to cinemas. I't not as in cinemas there youlr be any kind of Buying" or "permanent lease" of movies. Reels/HDDs are rented out to the cinemas for a few weeks, and the distributor doenst have to hold up any contractual obligations after that.

      End user market is completly different.

      Incorrect. I am in the process of converting my old VHS tapes (some of which are *much* older than 10 years) to DVD, using an off-the-shelf hardware/software product that cost me $60 at BestBuy (Roxio Easy VHS-to-DVD). Doesn't get much more "end-user" than that, and my (in some cases 20-years-old) movies are being converted to digital quite nicely, thank you. Quality is not the greatest, but we *are* talking 20-year-old movies, here, in VHS format, so some of that is most likely the cheap player I'm using.

      If I had to also fight DRM in order to "update" my movies, it would be much less worth it to me, and I'd probably just pirate them. (Illegal? Screw you, I BOUGHT this movie!)

      DRM-Free FTW.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    94. Re:not surprising by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Whats different? You're even proofing my point!

      The you BOUGHT the VHS Tapes you're now converting. That's so completly differnt from cinemas. The reels are only rented for a few weeks. So even if they still had the old equipment around in 20yrs from now, it's unlikly that they'll find a distributor they can rent the movies from.

      And as you said, consumer market IS different as it's no uncommon to buy media, that'll go to your shelf and still will be there in 20 yrs.

      In THAT market, it's the playback equipment you have to worry about.

      --
      bickerdyke
    95. Re:not surprising by Sir_Dill · · Score: 1
      wow....you completely missed my point and assume too much.

      My point is this.

      DRM is touted as needed because of piracy and DRM doesn't affect piracy one bit. DRM only punishes the consumer that plays by the rules. The only problem is that most consumers don't understand the implications of some of the proposed draconian DRM schemes which was my point from the beginning.

    96. Re:not surprising by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Could you be more specific about what you object to about me.

      Are you offended that I unashamedly declare Jesus Christ to be my Lord and Savior?

      Or are you offended that I declare that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president we have ever had?

      Tell me why you foed me. Be specific.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  3. Obligatory by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ha-ha! - Nelson Muntz

  4. DRM by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a good thing that they allow us to manage our rights like this.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    1. Re:DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's a sad thing that we allow them to manage our rights like this."

      There. Fixed that for you.

    2. Re:DRM by Luyseyal · · Score: 2, Funny

      WHOOOOOSH!

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    3. Re:DRM by springbox · · Score: 1

      It's funny how "clever" that acronym is worded. Whose rights are being managed is never made explicit, but you can be sure it's "their" rights and not "your" rights.

    4. Re:DRM by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Right. When the music execs were originally experimenting with DRM they tried to spin it to the public as a feature to help consumers manage their rights. As if it adds some sort of benefit to the consumer, or lets us do something that we previously could not do. They wouldn't just say it was an anti-piracy measure, they try to blow smoke up everyone's ass by claiming it was something that actually benefited consumers instead of restricting them. So not only do they assume that we're criminals, but they also assume we're borderline retarded.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  5. Hah! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    In Germany, DRM does you!

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Hah! by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that applies everywhere, not just Germany.

    2. Re:Hah! by illumastorm · · Score: 5, Funny

      Except in Soviet Russia.

  6. Why do I think this will just add fuel? by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Somehow, I believe the studio will twist this story to sound more like "See! Piracy is causing us to lose money!"

    This despite them putting in the DRM, and despite them generating $10B revenue in 2009.

    --
    "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    1. Re:Why do I think this will just add fuel? by Ironchew · · Score: 1

      They couldn't distribute the keys in time? Easy fix: Distribute them with Bittorrent. Easier fix: Don't encrypt the content.

    2. Re:Why do I think this will just add fuel? by 0x15e · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't that kind of like "You make me do this to you! Why do you keep making me hit you!?"

      Not denying that they did / would say that. I just thought it was funny noticing the parallels there.

    3. Re:Why do I think this will just add fuel? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I believe the studio will twist this story to sound more like "See! Piracy is causing us to lose money!"

      As in "It may have been DRM which caused us to lose money in Germany, but it was only needed because of piracy" or something similar.

      This despite them putting in the DRM, and despite them generating $10B revenue in 2009.

      A small part of 2009, since the movie didn't come out on the 1st of January 2009.

    4. Re:Why do I think this will just add fuel? by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I believe the studio will twist this story to sound more like "See! Piracy is causing us to lose money!" As in "It may have been DRM which caused us to lose money in Germany, but it was only needed because of piracy" or something similar. This despite them putting in the DRM, and despite them generating $10B revenue in 2009. A small part of 2009, since the movie didn't come out on the 1st of January 2009.

      I'm not sure what you mean by your last statement. In the USA, revenue generated in 2009 is reported as revenue generated in 2009. Hollywood movie studios made $10B this year, despite all their crying and whining about piracy. This is a clear case of having your cake and eating it too, IMHO. Criminalize people that would never pay you for your work in the first place, rape everyone else that would under false pretenses.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    5. Re:Why do I think this will just add fuel? by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that kind of like "You make me do this to you! Why do you keep making me hit you!?"

      Not denying that they did / would say that. I just thought it was funny noticing the parallels there.

      Yes! Exactly!

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    6. Re:Why do I think this will just add fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever they bitch about that kind of thing I can't help but wonder why anyone actually takes these people seriously.

      When they give Tom Cruise $70,000,000 to make a rather craptastic movie, don't they kind of lose their right to complain about losing money to the Internet?

  7. Keygen by Inda · · Score: 5, Funny

    Once again the pirates solve a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=avatar+keygen

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    1. Re:Keygen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pretty sure that's for the pc game, not the movie.

    2. Re:Keygen by sbeckstead · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah try that and let me know how the JP2K decryption goes, and let me know what player you use to watch it on cause I've got news. What was DRMed for that theater was not a simple avi and you can't gen a key for it without the certs for the entire key chain.

  8. Good thing, too.. by natehoy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm sure someone planned to bring in a cellphone with a 3D camera and release a barely-watchable 30-second clip of some of the less important dialogue.

    DRM prevents piracy again! Yes!!!! Huzzah for DRM!

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    1. Re:Good thing, too.. by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The drm in question is to prevent an insider at one of the theaters from posting the movie (which is the sort of piracy that is really hard to defend), not to obscure the analog whole.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Good thing, too.. by DeadPixels · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not actually showing the movie is the DRM of the future! You can't film it if you can't WATCH it, right? :D

    3. Re:Good thing, too.. by natehoy · · Score: 1

      But the fact that the movie did not show at all in 3D means the 3D version can't be pirated. DRM rules.

      In the words of the immortal F. Leghorn, "Why, I say.. It's a joke, son."

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:Good thing, too.. by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I got that it was a joke, but I don't really go for humor that is based on obscuring the issue, and movie companies are a lot more worried about insider copying than they are cell phone videos.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Good thing, too.. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you can't watch it, you can't secretly film it, copy it or anything. Technically, they don't even have to film anything if no one will watch it. The snag in the plan is the whole revenue side of the equation...

    6. Re:Good thing, too.. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Well, this was the first time I wasn’t checked for any camera. With a sixpack of pepsi, some sweets and chips in my bag. *fat grin*

      Because: There’s no point in preventing it to be filmed, unless you got a camera that has two properly polarized lenses. (Actually, one polarized filter suffices. Thehehee...)

      (I don’t get why anyone would ruin the whole experience, by watching some crappy cammed film with a mic recording, anyway. I even know people, who thought the movie was crap, solely because of them watching it that way.)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    7. Re:Good thing, too.. by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 1

      The drm in question is to prevent an insider at one of the theaters from posting the movie

      No. It's not. It's to prevent unauthorized showings by the theaters.

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    8. Re:Good thing, too.. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      And a pipe dream of the producers.
      If the customers pay for the movies but can't see them, imagine the savings on actors, crew, studio, processing, sfx and so on! You can even reduce the unnecessarily huge theaters to ticket booths and concession stands, doing away with the old-fashioned huge rooms with chairs, screens and so on.
      All the profit from ticket sales at almost no cost at all.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  9. Safe from piracy this way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, at least the movie remained safe from those evil pirates!

  10. No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by d474 · · Score: 5, Funny

    James Cameron was right when he said Avatar is the FUTURE of movies to come: DRM'd to the crippling point.

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    1. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 1

      If Avatar is the future of movies, then I guess I won't be seeing any more movies. It's in 3D OMFG! Who cares. I'll save the twenty bucks, tape a couple smurfs to my TV and watch Dances With Wolves. Or Pocahontas. Or Ferngully. Or any of twenty other movies that follow the exact same archetype. You'd think with more than a decade of development you could at least fool me through the trailer.

    2. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who the fuck watches avatar for the plot anyway? Look, you watch avatar for the same reasons that you watch the first three star wars episodes. You don't watch for the plot, you watch for the "BOOM BANG POW POW POW BZZZSH LIGHTSABER FIGHT!!" and the obscene amount of special effects. You watch avatar for the special effects, the bang boom bzzzsh, and the smoking hot 10 foot tall blue alien women.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    3. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not impressed with stunts that aren't real.
      I'm not impressed with special effects that are the point of the story instead of serving the story.

      I'm an sf fan and a cameron fan but I only have mild interest in watching this film.

      I feel like there is no genuine buzz and all the buzz is manufactured.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      *golf clap*

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    5. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not impressed with special effects that are the point of the story instead of serving the story.

      I respect your opinion, but wish to point out that it's not universally held, and that there is room in the world of art for the opposite case.

      In Japan, Kabuki theatre is an old form with only a few set plots. All attendees of this classical form of drama know the plots, and happily dismiss them as they watch the actors practice their art.

      I enjoyed all the Star Wars films for their kinetic appeal; the plot was only a vehicle, there to carry the drama. The appeal to me was imagining that people could create and use such stupendous engines of flight and fancy (if at the expense of dialogue, perhaps). It allowed me to skip all my accumulated wisdom and strip my cares all the way back to when I was a wide-eyed twelve-year old boy. It was fun.

      Someone said Avatar has smoking hot 10 foot tall alien women? I am SO there for that...

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    6. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Barny · · Score: 1

      Not to mention those of us for whom (due to one eye being more dominant) don't get any benefit out of seeing a 3d movie that doesn't use shutter glasses.

      I asked my local cinema if there was a 2d screening planned, they told me they weren't getting the 2d analogue print :/

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    7. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Who the fuck watches avatar for the plot anyway? Look, you watch avatar for the same reasons that you watch the first three star wars episodes. You don't watch for the plot, you watch for the "BOOM BANG POW POW POW BZZZSH LIGHTSABER FIGHT!!" and the obscene amount of special effects. You watch avatar for the special effects, the bang boom bzzzsh, and the smoking hot 10 foot tall blue alien women.

      I went to watch Phantom Menace (that is the first episode you're talking about, right?) because I thought Lucas might deliver a worthy prequel to the original trilogy. After that monstrosity I didn't bother seeing Attack of the Clones in the theater, but I did rent it because folks kept saying it was better. After that, I didn't even bother to rent Revenge of the Sith.

      Yes, special effects and action can be entertaining. I'll readily admit that. But without a substantial storyline and some decent acting there's really very little to hold your attention. The days when I would watch a movie for no other reason than to see a giant robot or some skin or a big explosion are long gone. If you aren't giving me a storyline or characters to care about, I'll get bored and go do something else with myself.

      Avatar certainly looks like it has nifty visuals. And I may very well wind up renting it some day just to see what it looks like. But there's no way in hell I'm going to spend the $30 it will take for my wife and I to go see this in the theater. There are far better ways for me to spend both my time and my money.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    8. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I hate modern "Making Of" specials.

      "How did they make that cool action sequence where the shark jumps the speedboat?"
      "Well, we did it in a computer."

      "How did they make that awesome detailed camera pan over 17th century China?"
      "In a computer."

      "How did they show us a fly-through of the human nervous system?"
      "Computer."

      "How did th--"
      "Computer."

      Ok, we don't need to see the "Making Of" specials anymore full of overweight guys in darkened rooms working on computers, k thx bye.

    9. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by jo42 · · Score: 1

      The thing about "Avatar" is it only needs a 'd' to be come "Avatard"...

    10. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What is a "*golf clap*" anyway?
      For those of us not up with US slang it sounds like a disease you get from Tiger Woods.

    11. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Ah. On televised golf tournaments the crowd does that quiet clap when a player sinks his shot.

      I use it to show approval of a post, when I have nothing to add.

      For the Avatar rant I responded to, I really don't think anything further needs to be said.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    12. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Someone said Avatar has smoking hot 10 foot tall alien women? I am SO there for that...

      Why? If you think you're hung about average for someone who's average height (about 6 foot), how will you compare to their usual blue-headed monsters?

    13. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Hey thanks for asking this ... I always wondered that myself lol.

      And the answer Gilmoure gave is different than what I 'guessed' it meant. I always thought it was more of a 'sarcastic' clap (I'm only clapping because I have to, not because I actually thought it was any good).

      Silly American slang >

    14. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      You know you have more in common, genetically speaking, with a goat than with a blue amazon from another planet. Heck, if oil comes from plant remains, you have more in common with a blow-up doll than with the ET.

      Think about that when "V" v2.0 comes back on next year.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    15. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      EXACTLY.

      If they really trained a shark to jump over the boat, then that scene is impressive.

      If they animated a scene of a shark jumping a boat, it has about as much impact as the animation of the waves around the boat. It's not real. I know it's not real. There's no suspense.

      You don't spend five pages of a book describing the incredibly close jump of a shark over the desperately maneuvering boat before the shark heavily splashes in to the water and the boat zooms away. Because it would be pointless.

      It's okay to have a shark jump over a boat, but why are you making a big deal of it, showing multiple cuts of the shark jumping over the boat, when we all know it's not real and so we don't care.

      If an actor jumped 30' down onto a moving platform-- we are tense, we know it's real to some extent.

      Perfect example was the old "gone in 60 seconds" vs the new "gone in 60 seconds". The 80' jump over the semi trailer was obviously animated-- so why do I care? The original, with lower production values, was much tenser because someone really did that.

      I completely agree. There is no point in having a "making of special" unless you did something other than rendering and com-positing everything in a computer.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    16. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Now say they make simulated Kabuki actors with a computer. All the art and craft is just computer rendered recordings of bits and pieces of real actors.
      Would even the most fabulously perfect kabuki performance under those conditions have any emotional impact at all?

       

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    17. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words: I have not seen the movie, but I already know it sucks, because - you know - "I feel like".

    18. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by TommydCat · · Score: 1

      Someone said Avatar has smoking hot 10 foot tall alien women? I am SO there for that...

      Why? If you think you're hung about average for someone who's average height (about 6 foot), how will you compare to their usual blue-headed monsters?

      The answer to that question is curiously similar to the answer for this question:

      Q: How can you tell when a woman has reached orgasm?
      A: Who cares?

      --
      This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
    19. Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Because, I have, you know, seen the advertising and buzz campaign.

      If it's good, it will still be good in a few weeks and I'll know I wasn't suckered by hollywood advertising dollars.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  11. great organisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    With organization like that it's no wonder they lost.

    1. Re:great organisation by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I thought that was a TV show?

  12. Wait... by TaggartAleslayer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't want to be the one modded to hell and back for saying it, but isn't this an issue with the company not purchasing the proper licenses in the appropriate amount of time rather than an issue with DRM?

    I understand this wouldn't exist if there were no DRM, but then the theater would still not have paid for the rights to show the movie. I'm just unclear on how that makes this a noteworthy "DRM is bad" case.

    1. Re:Wait... by jgtg32a · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey ...you .. shut-up
      We're hating on DRM now.

    2. Re:Wait... by gnapster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm just unclear on how that makes this a noteworthy "DRM is bad"

      I think the main point is that their fall-back plan was a DRM-free acetate film strip.

    3. Re:Wait... by idontgno · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, a recurring theme in almost any kind of DRM (and content licensing in general) is the entire issue of knowing and acquiring "the proper licenses."

      Did I buy enough Microsoft Client Access Licenses? Did I buy enough Oracle licenses for my upgraded machine with more cores? Did I buy the correct licenses for commercial use of this software? Is this DVD for a zone my player isn't licensed for?

      To some extent, the DRM community hasn't completely succeeded yet in shaping all consumer behavior. The Content Provider's fondest dream is that every consumer reflexively asks "Am I licensed to [do|use|listen to|view] this copyrighted content? Should I be giving those nice Content Providers more money?"

      So yeah, the problem was that the consumer didn't buy the right licenses. The problem behind the problem was "Why wasn't the consumer properly warned they weren't buying enough licenses for their needs? And why should that be possible?"

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:Wait... by manyxcxi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right in this isn't a cut and dried DRM is teh evulz case. It does however highlight that everyone following the rules, forking over their cash, and generally being socially acceptable, still got screwed over by a DRM system. I'm assuming the movie theater(s) in question paid all the money they were supposed to to all the people involved. All of the movie goers paid over all their money to legally see it in such a way that the movie studios would allow, if only barely (the customers did leave the box office with their souls presumably). All of them were screwed when somewhere along the DRM chain someone dropped the ball.
      This goes along with the DRMed mp3s that no longer work when a company kills its servers. Office 2003 not opening files because of a bad cert, etc. The pirates remove all these 'security features' and the products work so much smoother. I have used pirated copies of software that I legally paid for due to activation/reactivation rules, and I'll probably do it again.

    5. Re:Wait... by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      The key supplier, by the name Deluxe, was apparently unable to provide a sufficient number of valid keys in time.

      The problem is that even if they did pay the proper royalties, the key generation system still wasn't capable of providing the needed keys. It highlights the issue with DRM that it in no way benefits legal movie patrons. At no point does anyone other than the greedy MPAA/RIAA scum benefit from it. Perhaps even in this case, showing that DRM doesn't even benefit the content companies either.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    6. Re:Wait... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      isn't this an issue with the company not purchasing the proper licenses in the appropriate amount of time rather than an issue with DRM? I understand this wouldn't exist if there were no DRM, but then the theater would still not have paid for the rights to show the movie.

      Wait, what? If DRM didn't exist, why do you think the theater wouldn't have the permission of the rights holders (either through payment as you suggest, or however the system works) to play the movie?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    7. Re:Wait... by FrostDust · · Score: 5, Informative

      Reading the Google translation, it seems to say that the theaters had purchased enough licenses for their showings, but a glitch, or technical ineptitude, prevented the DRM from validating all of their copies of the movie.

      I think it's a big leap to go from that, to where the submitter says that the supplier was unable to provide enough keys.

      The most persistant argument against DRM surfaces here: because of the intricate technicalities involved in DRM systems, legitimate customers were denied access to material they payed for.

    8. Re:Wait... by TaggartAleslayer · · Score: 0, Troll

      You can't interchange consumer with supplier. The theater is a supplier. The individuals sitting in the seats are the consumers.

      Should Bob, 3rd row, center aisle #24 be responsible for his license in this scenario? No. He's the consumer.

      Should Ed, manager of local franchise be responsible for ensuring his theater has the proper rights to display the movie? You bet.

      The consumer got screwed by the supplier in this instance.

    9. Re:Wait... by bit9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm just unclear on how that makes this a noteworthy "DRM is bad" case.

      More like a "DRM is stupid" case. The point is not whose fault it was, but that DRM prevented a perfectly legal use of the material. The fact that the theater, having properly licensed the movie from the studio, still had to overcome this ridiculous DRM hurdle, shows that DRM is a pitiful joke.

    10. Re:Wait... by iluvcapra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the main point is that their fall-back plan was a DRM-free acetate film strip

      DRM has vanishing utility when the medium in question requires a $100,000 worth of equipment to play. Of course, then again, D5 decks aren't exactly cheap either...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    11. Re:Wait... by SoTerrified · · Score: 5, Informative

      ,,,isn't this an issue with the company not purchasing the proper licenses in the appropriate amount of time rather than an issue with DRM?

      The issue with most DRM is that it a) Does not actually stop pirates (at best it slows them down) and b) Does impair the ability for legitimate owners to use their purchase as intended.

      This is a perfect example. The DRM was broken so quickly, keys were available online http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=avatar+keygen so pirates were not inconvenienced, but the legitimate customers (the theatre who was showing the movie) were unable to use the item they had purchased in a timely manner.

      So I would disagree, this issue is indeed with DRM

    12. Re:Wait... by natehoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, it's hard to say why the key generator company was unable to produce enough valid licenses in time. According to the article, the movie theaters had licenses but they turned out to be "no longer valid" on opening day. I suspect that either "Deluxe" (the key distributor) had a major systems failure and couldn't regen the day's licenses, or forgot to tell their customers that they needed to have the keys renewed frequently, or something.

      The movie distributor was certainly able to deliver the movies (which are delivered by courier on AES-encrypted hard drives) on time, so if the actual physical movies could be delivered you'd think the key generator company that the movie could keep up by issuing one key for each drive physically delivered, and if those keys have to be generated each time the movie is shown you'd think they'd have that worked out.

      I get the impression that the theaters (multiple, independent theaters across Germany were affected, not just one) have all been planning and looking forward to this for some time. Th article indicates that they all received their copies of the movie they purchased in plenty of time, and copied them to their theater server well in advance, but that the keys turned out not to work when they hit PLAY. But maybe this is the German equivalent of a RIAA/ASCAP thing where you buy the movie from one source and you have to buy the licenses to play it from an entirely different source, and the theaters didn't realize that the keys they originally got only worked for testing or something.

      Still, with all the advance planning, and all the various theaters that were affected, I find it hard to believe that so many theaters who had planned screenings so far in advance would somehow "forget" to buy licenses to play it. They had the physical movie, they had the glasses, they sold the tickets, and it sounds like they paid since the key distributor was able to get them the keys the next day.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    13. Re:Wait... by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      The DRM in digital cinema copies is pretty evil alright. You'd think that digital distribution would make it easier for small moviemakers to put their work out, what with the ease of duplication as compared to 35 mm film copies? Dream on - the digital copies are mastered in such a way that each copy is essentially locked to a single projector, so you'll have to make a copy for each theatre you want to show your film in, and that of course means going to some post production house with the proper equipment, and forking over cash. Not pennies either, from what I'm told.

    14. Re:Wait... by localman57 · · Score: 1

      isn't this an issue with the company not purchasing the proper licenses in the appropriate amount of time rather than an issue with DRM?

      It's perfectly indicative of how DRM is bad. DRM assumes that everything would work perfectly, all the time. And when it doesn't, for whatever reason, you lose the right to use your own legally owned content. Just like the movie studio, a leagal user of the film, lost their capability. If the movie studios and their limited number of partners with gazillion-dollar pieces of equipment can't make it work, what chance do meaningless slobs like me have?

      Answer: none. I need to just assume that sooner or later the content I paid for will just stop working. And that's wrong.

    15. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A theater chain is not a consumer, it is an exhibitor. Their entire business pretty much consists of getting licenses to show films. Any theater chain that claims they don't know exactly how many licenses they need is lying.

    16. Re:Wait... by localman57 · · Score: 1

      Dang. Messed up the quoting on my last post. Only the first line should have been quoted... Didn't look that way in the preview...

    17. Re:Wait... by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      The theater is a supplier in the product/service market (technically, they make most of their money off the concession stand, but that's totally irrelevant). It is a consumer in the factor market (the movie (or license) is a factor of production of a service). Bob isn't involved in the factor market at all; Ed is the consumer, and Hollywood is the producer.

      --
      $ make available
    18. Re:Wait... by value_added · · Score: 4, Insightful

      don't want to be the one modded to hell and back for saying it, but isn't this an issue with the company not purchasing the proper licenses in the appropriate amount of time rather than an issue with DRM?

      Consider an alcoholic who beats his wife. Is the problem that he beats his wife (with a solution that he signs up for marriage counseling), or that he can't stop drinking?

      Say he also doesn't pay his bills on time. When the gas or electric get shut off and the kids don't get fed, what's the problem? That the kids are hungry, that he doesn't have enough money, that he didn't find a sympathetic ear at the utility company, or that he can't stop drinking?

      Microsoft routinely brushes off Windows activation "issues" with an implicit argument that it's an implementation snafu. Your argument is the same. Personally, I think it misses the point.

    19. Re:Wait... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Digital distribution does significantly reduce costs. It is a major reason we are seeing a proliferation of IMAX theaters; the 70mm prints they used to use were ungodly expensive.

    20. Re:Wait... by Noonian+Soong · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, it is not a licensing problem. I read the German article and it clearly states that everyone paid, but the company providing the final keys (it is a process with several stages) could not produce the correct key. It was due to technical difficulties, not licensing issues.

      Here is my non-Google translation of the important part that explains what went wrong technically (sorry for the slightly unidiomatic English; I tried to stay as close to the original as possible so that the text would not become my interpretation of the original):
      Apparently, the DRM-keys for the film files were the cause of the problem. The distributor of 20th Century Fox sends the JPEG2000-encoded and AES-128-encrypted movies on external hard drives via courier. After that, the data (in the case of Avatar 150 GByte) needs to be copied to the theater server. Each digital projector/server combination generates a different certificate and transmits it to the DRM service in charge. The DRM service creates an individual key for each movie and sends it back to the theater. The key is always only valid for one copy of the film as well as one projector and can be limited to specific time periods and times of day.

      Yesterday (Wednesday), the transmission of the correct keys for the 3D screenings did apparently not work in several cases, though. Theater technicians tried for several hours to decrypt the gigantic pile of data, but apparently the service responsible for the digital distribution of the film, Deluxe, could not provide valid keys yesterday.

      --
      The strength of a civilization is not measured by its ability to fight wars, but rather by its ability to prevent them.
    21. Re:Wait... by stiggle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Deluxe were unable to provide keys or validate the keys they had provided. The supplier was unable to provide working copies of the movie.

      So a phone line being down, or a network card dropping to 10Mbit/s or whatever the technical problems was causes movie viewers all over a country to not be able to watch a movie, for which all the data is already within the theater.

      DRM - your rights in their hands.

    22. Re:Wait... by clarkn0va · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The consumer got screwed by the supplier in this instance.

      If DRM prevails, this will be the reason why: the general public tends to view the consumption of media as if it were the consumption of food or oxygen. As if our only options are to cough up the asking price, or assume the life of a 'pirate', skulking around shady web sites grabbing torrents for the latest content.

      What ever happened to the option of just not consuming? Shouldn't we say, instead of "the consumer got screwed", "the consumer received yet another demonstration of some of the flaws in the DRM model"? Wouldn't you rather seize the power that you have as a consumer and make a choice to spend your dollars elsewhere, and influence your friends to do the same, than to take the victim's stance and believe that we are totally helpless when somebody like the MPAA screws up and just assumes that we'll quietly get in the next line?

      The simple fact is that DRM cannot succeed unless the consumer chooses to support it.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    23. Re:Wait... by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 1

      This is a perfect example. The DRM was broken so quickly, keys were available online http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=avatar+keygen so pirates were not inconvenienced, but the legitimate customers (the theatre who was showing the movie) were unable to use the item they had purchased in a timely manner.

      You are aware that "avatar+keygen" gives no meaningful results, aren't you, because it's just link spam from fishy sites? Even if it *did* give meaningful results, they would be about the *game*, not the *movie*.

    24. Re:Wait... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Interesting

      DRM isn't supposed to benefit movie patrons directly. It's purpose in digital films is to prevent piracy of HDD movies from people working at the theater. I am guessing they will claim that DRM does benefit the customer by controlling piracy, which if left uncontrolled would drive the average price of the movie tickets up. Whether or not this is true I have no idea, but I am guessing that is the stance they will use to justify the DRM.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    25. Re:Wait... by jwiegley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Noteworthy in that it exemplifies a very real problem with DRM. They did pay for the licenses but the supplier of the license basically withheld the license and therefore the customer got screwed. This has come up many times as a theoretical question: What do you do when the validator of the license no longer exists, changes their rules or is unwilling to validate your license (or in this case incapable of) ?

      You're screwed. That's the answer.

      What people have to understand is what "Digital Rights Management" actually means. When we hear the word "right" we always think about "our rights" not the other party's rights (unless they belong to the same peer group.) So for instance, if I talk about providing "right to free speech" you are happy because you assume it includes you as a recipent of that right. We are biased to assume that rights are universal. (inalienable, etc.) That we all share the same rights. That an increased number, strength or quality of rights is better.Basically we will tend to support any right because we are subconciously programmed to believe it benefits us.

      The proponents of DRM are specifically using this psychology against us. They market their product with the term "rights" in order to make the intended audience/mark comfortable with their sales pitch/con game. Their "rights" yield to you NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. What it does do is guarantee specifics rights for them which you cannot circumvent or otherwise deny or share in. What they ARE selling to you is "Digital *Restriction* management". In otherwords, you are agreeing to allow them to restrict what you can do with the product that you buy. And there is nothing that you can do to improve your position in the future should they change their mind or cease to exist. This is true whether or not legal issues change as well. For instance, let's say that you were convicted and jail for alcohol sales during prohibition. The law changes and it is no longer a crime. However you don't get let out of jail because your key/license was crafted without that right. Basically if things change in your favor the license does not automatically change for you.

      The United States has a Bill of Rights and the citizens generally hold this to be a significant factor in the quality and justice of the United States. Imagine how low we would think of a country who's government was based on a "Bill of Restrictions". A description of limited abilities that the government allows, arbitrarily or to the benefit of its politicians/dictators. Well that is *exactly* the relationship of DRM. It is truly Digital Restriction Management.

      --
      I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
    26. Re:Wait... by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The theater is a supplier in the product/service market (technically, they make most of their money off the concession stand, but that's totally irrelevant). It is a consumer in the factor market (the movie (or license) is a factor of production of a service). Bob isn't involved in the factor market at all; Ed is the consumer, and Hollywood is the producer.

      I'm confused, where are Alice and Carol?

    27. Re:Wait... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because it wasn't the theater, it was the people in charge of the licensing that fucked up. Furthermore, if there were no DRM then this entire problem would be gone. The theater could have purchased the rights to show it, shown it, made money, everyone is happy

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    28. Re:Wait... by SoTerrified · · Score: 1

      You are aware that "avatar+keygen" gives no meaningful results, aren't you, because it's just link spam from fishy sites?

      I wasn't aware the results weren't meaningful. I'm not a pirate, so I didn't actually verify them.

      However, YOU are aware that it's already possible to download the 3D versions of the movie Avatar from certain pirate locations? Which would tell me that, even if I have not found them, yes, the keys are readily available or they have been bypassed by pirates. Which was exactly my point.

    29. Re:Wait... by DeadPixels · · Score: 1

      DRM - Digital Rights Migration, from our hands to theirs.

    30. Re:Wait... by CreamyG31337 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Okay, I thought this was pretty obvious. Seriously, how many of you think typing "keygen" into google is going to find you anything but a bunch of spam sites linking to each other, and if you're lucky, a virus to download.
      Type any word into Google, add "keygen", OH LOOK IT'S THE SAME WEBSITES!! Okay, not ANY word, but close enough.
      Anyways, if you did happen to find a keygen for something to do with Avatar on any website, there's no way in hell it's anything to do with the movie. You think some hacker at the movie theater made one for the fun of it? A 3D movie is not small enough to be spread online, nor can it be played back on any equipment available to the general public. If there's no way or reason to copy the data, nobody is going to worry about breaking the DRM.

    31. Re:Wait... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Alright, just a minute. Providing a link to google "avatar keygen" is complete bullshit. 95% of that is automatically generated nonsense. You can type in "any_string_of_characters" and "keygen" and get literally thousands of results for supposed key generators. They're usually just links to places that want you to pay to download some nonsense, or more often, they're malware downloads.

      Here's evidence:
      http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=asdfasdf+keygen&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    32. Re:Wait... by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      it wasn't that they didn't purchase the rights, it was the distribution company screwed up and failed to distribute properly.

    33. Re:Wait... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      "but the company providing the final keys (it is a process with several stages) could not produce the correct key"
      That is, by DEFINITION, a licensing issue. "technical difficulties" in the licensing system are called "licensing issues".

      When your email goes down because exchange crashed, is it because of "MS exchange server problems" or because of "technical difficulties"?

      "technical difficulties" is a term to describe anything involving any part of anything technical having a problem. It's a catch-all phrase necessary because your audience doesn't need to know whether your network switch is broken or your server crashed, all they need to know is that you're experiencing "technical difficulties". "Licensing issues" falls under the broader category of "technical difficulties". Unfortunately, you're trying to use "technical difficulties" as a term to make it sound as if it was all unavoidable and just a complete accident rather than saying "yeah, the rights management fucked itself again. It's a known issue and completely unnecessary but that's what's causing the problems."

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    34. Re:Wait... by DiLLeMaN · · Score: 1

      Seeing how the ticket prices have, in fact, gone up, I'd say they failed.

      --
      /var/run/twitter.sock is a twitter socket puppet.
    35. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is actually not true, I worked for a certain large, three letter cinema chain for a number of years, and we would routinely be delivered one hard drive containing one copy of a movie we were playing on multiple screens. The _license_ files ARE restricted to a certain server/projector/movie file/sound processor/essentially every electronic device related to showing the film combination, however.

      Essentially the entire system is designed to prevent projection staff from making high-quality pirated copies of movies days before the film is released, which is practically impossible in the case of a 3D film for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is the 144 frames per second it plays at (72 frames per second for both eyes) and even if you have a camera that can sync with the output of the projector, the polarization specs aren't exactly common knowledge.

      Oh, and forget cracking the DRM and pirating the raw MPEG, the files run in the hundreds of gigabytes for a 90 minute film.

    36. Re:Wait... by Noonian+Soong · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you're trying to use "technical difficulties" as a term to make it sound as if it was all unavoidable and just a complete accident rather than saying "yeah, the rights management fucked itself again. It's a known issue and completely unnecessary but that's what's causing the problems."

      But I was trying to explain that it was avoidable and DRM "fucked itself up again". I don't disagree with you; I think we just have a different understanding of the term "licensing issues".

      There are two different reasons for licensing issues: One are merely technical reasons (the system is somehow broken). The other one is that the system legitimately refuses to work, for example because someone didn't pay the licensing fee. The poster I replied to suggested that the theater or the DRM service had not paid for the license and I was trying to argue that this was not the case, but that the system itself was/is broken.

      So what I did was restrict the term "licensing issue" to the meaning "the system is working correctly, but it cannot play the movie because we do not have the right to show it". Maybe this usage is too narrow. Sorry about that! I hope I could clarify what I meant.

      --
      The strength of a civilization is not measured by its ability to fight wars, but rather by its ability to prevent them.
    37. Re:Wait... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      isn't this an issue with the company not purchasing the proper licenses

      The article doesn't say that. (Why do you suspect that?) It only says they didn't receive the keys they needed, and makes no mention of what they did or did not pay for.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    38. Re:Wait... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Well, then they can just blame piracy and demand even more stringent DRM. It is win-win for the industry.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    39. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the copyright holder on the Asdfasdf Suite of products, I hereby issue a DMCA takedown notice for the parent post! Nevertheless, I agree with the theme of the post that there's no clear evidence that copyright control freakery has gotten out of hand.

    40. Re:Wait... by DiLLeMaN · · Score: 1

      ...but then there's the news of 2009 being a record-breaking year in terms of profit. So...

      Of course, you're completely right: "they" will blame "piracy" for everything. The /. crowd might know better, but the general populace not so much. That means we still have a lot of educating to do. =]

      --
      /var/run/twitter.sock is a twitter socket puppet.
    41. Re:Wait... by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I think the main point is that their fall-back plan was a DRM-free acetate film strip.

      True, but it did offer a degraded experience (no 3-D; for some reason, these new 3-D processes require digital projection). It would have been more impressive if they called James Cameron and said, "Hey Jim, DRM is preventing our audiences from beholding the spectacle as your revolutionary 3-D movie re-invents cinema for all time," and Cameron said, "Damn it, screw the DRM then! Let it roll!"

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    42. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Here's evidence:
      http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=asdfasdf+keygen&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

      Thanks, I have been trying to unlock my copy of asdfasdf.

    43. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poster is misinformed. Plaintext d-cinema is used all the time for short stuff no one cares about ("let's all go to the lobby!").

    44. Re:Wait... by Resident+Emil · · Score: 1

      Your post is seriously flawed. While "asdfasdf+keygen" actually returns quite some results from Google, "fsadfsad+keygen" only returns two. And those two aren't actual hits either but Googles suggestions for close matches. "qkaunerus7+keygen" returns zero hits, and so does "Adraravk+keygen" and "potrjkdf+keygen" too. Apart from that it should be noted that the Avatar keygen mentioned in this thread is most likely a keygen for the Avatar game, not for the digital movie distributions.

    45. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Eve...

    46. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for alerting us to this issue.
      Our lawyers have sent DMCA takedowns to the infringing parties.

      Sincerely,
      Poiu Ytrew, CEO
      Asdfasdf Software Gmbh

    47. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's evidence:
      http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=asdfasdf+keygen&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

      You are my hero !!!!!!!

      I was looking all over the net for this keygen.

      Now I will finally be able to play "Deep Dungeons of Asdfasdf" !!!!

      Thank you! thank you! thank you!

    48. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how this was modded troll. There is nothing else. I just like it. Douche had it coming what with his smug words and whatnot.

    49. Re:Wait... by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 1

      I'm confused, where are Alice and Carol?

      They're up in the projector booth trying to help the operator sort out the key problem. Bob would have joined them, but someone has to keep an eye on the popcorn so Eve doesn't eat eat it all.

      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
    50. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deep down the rabbit hole.

    51. Re:Wait... by rjmars97 · · Score: 1
      --
      Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer
    52. Re:Wait... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I think the design of these sorts of things is basically like steam.

      The theater downloads the movie several days or maybe even a week before release. It is probably an enormous file, so it greatly eases distribution if people can do it well in advance. However, the file is encrypted and the theaters don't get the keys.

      Then at midnight on opening day the keys are made available to people who are allowed to get them. Now you have 10,000 theaters all hitting the server for keys, but they're only a kilobyte or whatever so no big deal.

      I suspect that there might have been a glitch in the servers that provide the keys. Without them, the theaters have a whole bunch of random-looking data.

      Now, I have no doubts that in addition to this minimal amount of security they have all kinds of DRM software out the wazoo and of course that means that anything could go wrong.

    53. Re:Wait... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      If they paid for something and didn't get it, they got screwed. That the theater recouped the ticket price is only part of their loss. They also lost time that they could've spent doing something else. We didn't all get screwed by DRM, but the people in that theater on that night did.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    54. Re:Wait... by Muskstick · · Score: 1

      If you're interested from memory Avatar is about 275GB, not sure about in Germany but in Australia the KVM gets emailed out usually the day before first sessions start screening, just a simple case of uploading the key into each projector running the film that week and applying it to the movie that usually arrives earlier in the week.

    55. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off to see a movie together

    56. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      keygen for a movie? wtf?

    57. Re:Wait... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      No.

      the cinemas BOUGHT the proper licences, but the distributor didn't deliver them.

      When that happens with real film (I'm sure it does. Reels get damaged, stolen, cars break down.. whatever), you'll know it by wednsday and may change your programming for the weekend. Let tit happen with DRM and you've gotta explain to a angry mob why you sold tickets to a movie you won't show.

      --
      bickerdyke
    58. Re:Wait... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      The keyword is "the proper licenses."

      We generally assume this is the license issued by the distributor upon providing the payment.

      Unfortunately, in reality it means it's the license which the protection system accepts as valid.

      And the overlap over the above two is definitely less than the 100% you'd hope for. If your company buys 1000 licenses for Windows, you can be -sure- about 5 of them will be invalid.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    59. Re:Wait... by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 1

      However, YOU are aware that it's already possible to download the 3D versions of the movie Avatar from certain pirate locations?

      It isn't. The only copies of Avatar are cams - there is no R5 yet, much less a 3D version. If you stumbled upon something like that, rest assured it's a fake, used as a honeypot by the MAFIAA, or contains an exe with malware.

    60. Re:Wait... by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it was fair to the consumer, only that there's more than one way to respond. The attitude of "I got screwed" is about the least empowering for the consumer, and affirms the content-provider's perception of the consumer as the unconditional dependent.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    61. Re:Wait... by TommydCat · · Score: 1

      It isn't. The only copies of Avatar are cams - there is no R5 yet, much less a 3D version. If you stumbled upon something like that, rest assured it's a fake, used as a honeypot by the MAFIAA, or contains an exe with malware.

      I'd reply telling you it's not fake but I'm currently too busy oogling blue babe boobies (3B?) hovering in front of my face...

      --
      This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
    62. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a perfect example. The DRM was broken so quickly, keys were available online http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=avatar+keygen [google.co.uk] so pirates were not inconvenienced

      Wait, what?

      1) Not only is that search result completely bogus, as Mr. Freeman explains, but what exactly do you think a keygen would be needed for? Unless movies have begun to require serial keys, such as those with games, no movies uploaded to torrent sites need one. And any DRM restriction(if any existed for it) is completely removed by the ripping team before made available as it is.

      2) The only decent results under "Avatar" on torrent sites are Telesync and Cam. Both of which mean the movie was recorded with a camera, thus DRM doesn't even enter the equation.

    63. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to be the one modded to hell and back for saying it, but isn't this an issue with the company not purchasing the proper licenses in the appropriate amount of time rather than an issue with DRM?

      How is that not a DRM issue?

    64. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noteworthy in that it exemplifies a very real problem with DRM. They did pay for the licenses but the supplier of the license basically withheld the license and therefore the customer got screwed. This has come up many times as a theoretical question: What do you do when the validator of the license no longer exists, changes their rules or is unwilling to validate your license (or in this case incapable of) ?

      You're screwed. That's the answer.

      This shouldn't be a theoretical question because it has already happened several times in the past with both DRM and license activation technologies. Major League Baseball shuts down DDS system and revokes DRM licenses Seven months later, MLB finally relents by offering to exchange older content with content using the new DRM scheme. Wal-Mart, Sony Connect, Virgin Digital, MSN Music, and Yahoo also shut down DRM servers last year. Google shuts down its video store and DRM server, although Google eventually caved to the backlash and issued refunds.

      It's happened with other lesser known DRM systems as well after companies were acquired or went out of business. I personally have lost access to a few thousand dollars worth of software and development components because they require activation and the companies are no longer in business and the activation servers are no longer online.

  13. Give yourself 100% discount by avandesande · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do not see this movie.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Give yourself 100% discount by dubbreak · · Score: 3, Funny

      If the MPAA had its way you'd only get a 50% discount for not watching the movie.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Give yourself 100% discount by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed!

      More importantly, audience, what was the last movie you remember that was advertised as much if not more, than Avatar, within the past decade?

      Nothing comes to mind. Not even the LOTR trilogies were advertised this much. I've pretty much already seen the movie from all the advertising that has gone on!

    3. Re:Give yourself 100% discount by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      There’s one thing though: I saw it. In 3D (well, actually it’s stereo video). And if there is one single thing to say, then: If you see it, you MUST see it in 3D! I’d go so far, as to say, without 3D, it’s a completely different movie, and there’s no point in watching it any ruining everything that way.

      It’s like full THX glory against... mono sound.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:Give yourself 100% discount by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, nobody will be able to see this movie, even if they wanted.

  14. Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these content companies clinging so tightly to their precious DRM. They think that they're protecting their income stream, but I think they're really just pissing it away.

    Eventually people are going to get fed up with having to navigate the endless tangles of DRM, and will decide it's just not worth the hassle just to see the latest crappy movie or hear the latest crappy over-compressed music album.

    I'm already there. I don't bother with any media that requires me to fuss with DRM just to view/listen to it, or to exercise my fair use rights (backup copies, etc). If that means I have to completely stop buying movies/music/software/ebooks/etc, then I'm perfectly fine with that. I won't miss it. There's enough free stuff out there that's just as good, if not better.

  15. Avatards by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I accidentally the DRM keys for the movie... is this bad?

    --
    To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    1. Re:Avatards by idontgno · · Score: 4, Funny

      How is Avvatar formed? How movie not get prjcted?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:Avatards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I accidentally the DRM keys for the movie... is this bad?

      Oooooh! I love Mad Libs. Someone suggest a verb!

    3. Re:Avatards by slack_justyb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oooooh! I love Mad Libs. Someone suggest a verb!

      I accidentally flushed the DRM keys for the movie... is this bad for __(direct object)__?

    4. Re:Avatards by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2, Funny

      They need to do way instain theater> who kill thier movvys. becuse these movvy cant frigth back it was on the news this mroing a theater in ar who had kill her three movvys . they are taking the three movvy back to new york too lady to rest my pary are with the custimers company who lost his movvys ; i am truley sorry for your lots

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    5. Re:Avatards by DeadPixels · · Score: 1

      I think DRM is a pretty cool guy. eh stops movies and doesn't afraid of anything.

    6. Re:Avatards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like a nice USB stick with keys on it in my ass! The only thing I like more, is two dozen of them in it.

  16. And... ? by Tiger4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An isolated failure with no particularly big consequences. The story tries to make DRM look bad, but really, is this the first time a critical demo went bad at an embarrassing moment?

    Hate on DRM all you want for all the evils it might contain. I do. But this is a nothing story.

    --
    Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    1. Re:And... ? by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Informative

      DRM creates un-necessary barriers that make pirating unlocked media even more appealing.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:And... ? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      But it's another one of those failure that *don't* have to be, that you know is there just because of DRM. Just like my annoying TV, it is supposed to support HDMI but it only manages direct HDMI. Run it through any pass-through and it'll fail. I did check online and yeah, it has HDCP handshake timing issues. It could have been the receiver too but the point would still stand. Same on a computer, you upgrade something or don't upgrade something or reinstall or swap hardware and something and you know that wouldn't break it, DRM broke it. Want to get a Mac or a Linux box? Yeah good luck transferring those. I accept that things fail or break, it's not a perfect world. But that doesn't mean I want something that's intentionally prone to breaking.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:And... ? by Roxton · · Score: 1

      This is one of those issues that should prompt people to make a mental leap. A large institution is using its power to attach strings to the content we want to see. If we were as organized as that institution, we could broker a deal that would cause them to stop. Due to a trick of fate or of legislation passed in the 40's, the only organization we have today as consumers is governmental.

      Unfortunately, especially among the technically oriented, there's this idea that we're not allowed to use that organizational power, so we sit on our hands, get screwed, and call it freedom. Thanks, Libertarians. Thanks.

    4. Re:And... ? by Tiger4 · · Score: 1

      Someone puts locks on something that appeals to you. Thus they make it more appealing for you to steal it. Had the locks not been there, would it have appealed less?

      Pirating is less about them trying to keep the content away from you, and more about your willingness to steal something when you think you can get away with it.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    5. Re:And... ? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      I believe that you've misunderstood my point: if DRM prevents you from actually using your legally bought media and pirated media has no such restriction, it makes sense not to use the DRMed copy. Buy the media legally and pirate a copy that isn't locked down. All DRM does is make actually using legally bought media a pain in the arse. It can not and does not stop piracy so why make it hard on those who actually bothered to buy a copy instead of grab one off the net?

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    6. Re:And... ? by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      1. Copyright infrigement == illegal != piracy != theft.

      2. Whatever happened to fair use? Copyright law says I can use copyrighted content for educational purposes, satire and other things. Somehow, all copyrighted content but the digitial one is subject to this fair use thing. It is probably necessary to actually make knowledge sharing possible. DRM has no way of knowing and will often succeed on stopping you to exert this valuable right that is fair use.

      3. DRM often affects real consumers, those who have already paid for the content. Ie I can't use new mp3 players as USB drives as before... I probably can't make backups of DRMed music. I cannot play some copyrighted work I paid for in some OS like Linux without violating the DRM laws. So I say fuck you DRM, you can burn in hell.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
  17. Re:cocksuckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't have boats and guns you insensitive clod!

  18. #22 Rodriguez by tepples · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How is Avvatar formed?

    You must first bend air. Then you must buy "Air Bender" sneakers with a #22 on them.

  19. Given all the reviews I have seen .. by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    This should been a welcomed effect of DRM. Everyone is basically saying "pretty pictures, but the story sucks", and at almost 3 hours long I'd hate to be stuck in the cinema wading through that.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Given all the reviews I have seen .. by Thanatos81 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stuck in the cinema? Well, I do not know if you get handcuffed to your seat in your favorite cinema, but over here in Germany you are free to leave the cinema at any given moment. Indeed, I have done so on some rare occasions like "Tomb Raider". Of course you won't get a refund for the time you leave earlier. And some might point out that they paid for the movie and it would feel like wasting money. But I for one prefer to leave early and do something else I enjoy, than sitting there for another hour or so and get bored to death.

    2. Re:Given all the reviews I have seen .. by yali · · Score: 1

      Everyone is basically saying "pretty pictures, but the story sucks"

      The New York Times's hoity-toity film reviewer Manohla Dargis (who usually only likes stuff with subtitles) begs to differ.

    3. Re:Given all the reviews I have seen .. by invisiblerhino · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I just saw it, and the storyline was appalling, but the visuals nearly made it worthwhile. Nearly.

      --
      xterm -n 8
  20. non 3d Digital movies have the same DRM and with o by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    non 3d Digital movies have the same DRM and with out the drm also some needed to do is have make a copy of that 150gb HDD to have a very High PQ copy of the movie.

  21. Achtung! by Skelde · · Score: 3, Funny

    Diese DRM nicht for the gefingerpoken

    --
    Insert sufficiently witty sig here.
  22. whole-> by maxume · · Score: 1

    hole.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  23. DRM = Digital Restrictions Management by VitaminB52 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The legal system manages the rights on books, movies and music.

    DRM 'manages' the restrictions when playing a recording - in fact DRM often violates the rights of a consumer (e.g. when preventing making backup copies while the legal system grants consumers the right to make a backup copy).

  24. And that's by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Moviegoers were offered to get a refund or view an analogue 2D showing instead.

          And only because it would be illegal if they didn't offer the customer any form of compensation. It's not as if they care enough about their business to make sure things are done right.

          When you go to the cinema, this is exactly the sort of crap you are supporting.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:And that's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on... be serious here. (And I'm posting AC to avoid being flamed)

      They had a technical screw-up that prevented them from showing the 3D version of a film. What would you expect them to do? If it were not illegal, word would get out VERY quickly and the cinema would lose business anyway. It's not just because it's illegal - they did the best they could given the circumstances.

      Now, charging 8 Euros for a bucket of popcorn - that's highway robbery.

    2. Re:And that's by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. Obviously people are not watching in theaters because of piracy. It can't possibly have anything to do with the poor service, amazingly high food prices, dealing with annoying people, having that jackass walk through the theater with the flashlight to make sure you're not doing anything bad, being treated like crap, the sticky floors, it must be piracy.

      Seriously though, I don't know how theaters can be so clueless.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  25. Actually, this is the movie industry's clever plan by sehlat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just pay. We don't give a damn if you watch it.

  26. Only one thing can sum up what I feel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that would be the following commentary: http://www.tk421.net/gallery/sounds/haha.wav

  27. typical by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As usual, license management screws up. Of the many things that can go wrong, it's licensing is necessarily the most likely. It's the only part of the system that assures failure at the slightest hint of an irregularity BY DESIGN. At it's best, it's more brittle than bad code that never checks for errors.

  28. parent != troll by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    Why the hell does the parent deserve a troll mod?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:parent != troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because /. doesn't have a "-1, dumb" mod?

    2. Re:parent != troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      because it's actually an americans vs. the world thing - everyone outside america says "films" not "movies", yes, films are called films because they were once on celluloid film, but that's not why people call them films *now* anymore than why people call gays it's because film /means/ movie to non-americans.

    3. Re:parent != troll by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Untrue. Here in Australia we say movies, and I think candians may as well. It is mainly the europeans who say films.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    4. Re:parent != troll by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

      If your parent is a troll... then... You'd also be born as a troll!

    5. Re:parent != troll by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      What? I'm not American and I say 'movie'. I never say 'film'.

      Perhaps where you live, what you said is true. But that is not "everyone outside America".

    6. Re:parent != troll by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      because it's actually an americans vs. the world thing - everyone outside america says "films" not "movies", yes, films are called films because they were once on celluloid film, but that's not why people call them films *now* anymore than why people call gays it's because film /means/ movie to non-americans.

      And yet those whacky americans still call digital text files "ebooks" when clearly they have nothing to do with a bunch of cellulose pages stuck together.
      So obviously the proper term for digital movie files should be "efilms".

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  29. jpeg2000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It says the format is jpeg2000? that can't be correct?

  30. Similar problem happened to me by xav_jones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While watching the latest Batman movie the screen went dark and stayed that way for about 20 minutes. Speaking to the attendants afterward, they said their projectors had lost the internet link which authorized the movies to be shown. All projectors in the cineplex went down since all were digital (theatre was in Riverside, CA).

    1. Re:Similar problem happened to me by invisiblerhino · · Score: 1

      I saw the first ten minutes of 2012 in the wrong aspect ratio. They fixed it, but refused to show the beginning again, nor to refund us. (Cineworld cinemas were the culprits). It was annoying because we missed some subtitled dialogue, but the storyline was simple enough for us all.

      --
      xterm -n 8
    2. Re:Similar problem happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      D-cinema DRM does not make us of on-line messaging unless the theater operator explicitly choses to make such a requirement in their own system design. Digital movies play from systems without Internet all the time.

    3. Re:Similar problem happened to me by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's nothing!

      When I was watching Watchmen on a 40' tall IMAX screen, there was a giant glowing blue dong on the screen during parts of the movie.

    4. Re:Similar problem happened to me by Muskstick · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't a digital print then there's no chance they're going to show the start again, you can't just rewind a projector and play it back and they're running to a pretty tight schedule, more to the point it took you 10 minutes to let someone know there was a problem with the screen? Its an issue that takes half a second to fix, get up and tell someone, the projectionists cant be watching all the screens at all time.

  31. Re:whole- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both work.

  32. 3 sentences about that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DRM unnecessarily increases complexity.
    Complexity increases unnecessary points of failure.
    DRM is unnecessary and increases cost of failure.

  33. Re:whole- by maxume · · Score: 1

    I thought about that, but I wanted to make my meaning clear.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  34. Re:more powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He makes a good point. QUICK, mod him down so he can become more powerful. (lol)

  35. Huh? Not me... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I saw in in full 3D and THX glory yesterday.

    But instead, kumbaya-singing treehugger overkill in smurf land prevented me from enjoying what was otherwise an extremely impressive piece of film.

    Q: How do you know that there is waayyyy too much of something in a movie?
    A: If even the main character in the freakin movie complains about it about a quarter in, but it doesn’t stop anyway, until the end.

    One definitely sees that it’s the late realization of the dream of a 13 year old Cameron (which it is, according to Sigourney Weaver). In a way it’s like Star Wars Episode I. With parts of the most bombastic Star Wars in-between.

    But I’d say the FX/VR is a whole new league. (Maybe because of the 3D and actors acting an an augmented reality suit.)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Huh? Not me... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So in other words "Fern Gully" without Robin Williams to make it entertaining?

  36. I work for a theater chain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As an IT admin in a medium sized movie theater chain, I can assure you, this happens ALL THE TIME. We face DRM key problems on a weekly basis. They won't issue keys very far ahead of time, especially for a massive release like Avatar.

    And sometimes, often in fact, the keys don't work. Sometimes its just a simple matter of training the employee how to transfer it to the projector. Sometimes the key is just wrong. Sometimes it works for 2d, but not 3d. Sometimes they issue a key, but it doesn't last for the entire run of the movie, so suddenly from one showing to the next, the projector just stops playing the movie.

    I can't even count the number of times we've had auditoriums full of people, and are waiting for an email to show up in the next ten minutes, or we get to tell 300 extremely angry people to go home.

    The distribution process works for the most part, but has *zero* contingencies. If the network to a theater is not working tonight between 6pm and Midnight, they will not be showing Avatar on a digital projector. But hey, everyone knows, the internet would never just stop working for a few hours, right? Tech support will answer, and won't put you on hold for 45 minutes, right? Not like there could be 4,000 other locations facing key problems simultaneously?

  37. Not consumer DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many posters do not seem to understand that theatrical exhibition rights are defined by contract and do not have fair use or other user friendly rights that one should expect in a consumer transaction. This is first run content from a very high quality digital master. You bet your ass it's locked up, and tight. Deluxe is one of several companies that deliver thousands of keys a week. Most delivery problems are PEBKAC, including not checking your stuff and alerting the key provider to problems with reasonable lead time.

  38. What a stupid movie idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Avatar? Huh?!? Who the hell wants to see some 2 hour flick based on a forum user pic? Only other idea as bad was that Costner flop based on a metallic athletic supporter, Brass Jock or something like that it was named.

  39. so DRM prevented Customers from being Customers by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    The only people that don't know that are the movie studios apparently.

  40. Wait. 2-D is an option? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Moviegoers were offered to get a refund or view an analogue 2D showing instead.

    It seems all my local theaters only offer 3-D viewings at the jacked-up price (for glasses).

    While I know that 3-D adds to the experience, for some movies, I'm getting tired of having to pay an extra $4 for the glasses *each time* - then being asked to "recycle" them afterward. Let me pay a slightly higher price - once - for, possibly nicer, glasses and reuse them. In addition, if the movie is only offered in 3-D, the glasses should be free. </rant>

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Wait. 2-D is an option? by shentino · · Score: 1

      They don't want to sell you the glasses, they just want to...

      - ...LICENSE them to you!

    2. Re:Wait. 2-D is an option? by scotts13 · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I have an eye condition that prevents me from viewing 3-D movies. Hope this isn't a trend...

    3. Re:Wait. 2-D is an option? by Muskstick · · Score: 1

      Did you have issues with the old style 3D films with green and red glasses or have you tried the newer ones and is your condition something like Amblyiopia? If so give the new 3D films a shot or go to your local cinema and ask if you can see a minute of a 3D film just to see if you can view it properly, its a different process completely and I have friends who couldnt see the old style films properly but can see the new ones fine.

    4. Re:Wait. 2-D is an option? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      While I know that 3-D adds to the experience, for some movies, I'm getting tired of having to pay an extra $4 for the glasses *each time* - then being asked to "recycle" them afterward.

      Do they demand you "recycle" the glasses? Why not keep them?

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    5. Re:Wait. 2-D is an option? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      ...then being asked to "recycle" them afterward.

      Do they demand you "recycle" the glasses? Why not keep them?

      Umm... no. That's why I used the word "asked". Keeping them is pointless, but making people buy a fresh pair for each movie is wasteful and done simply to increase profits.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  41. And vinyl has an oaky, warm sound by Rix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's no need to fetishize archaic technology.

    1. Re:And vinyl has an oaky, warm sound by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm all for digital, but the technology has not caught up to what is possible with so-called 'archaic' film

      From Wiki on Digital IMAX

      IMAX Corporation's decision not to designate the new digital installations in any manner has led to a backlash by some viewers who are disappointed to have paid a premium to view an IMAX presentation only to find it being shown with much lower resolution on a screen of relatively ordinary size. Some reviewers have pointed out that the visual artifacts due to low resolution are detrimental to the picture quality, especially for viewers seated closer to the screen. The company CEO has stated that in digital IMAX installations the last few rows of seats are removed, allowing the screen to be closer to moviegoers, which makes the screen appear larger than it would in a standard theater setting.

      To me that clearly shows the problems with digital.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  42. Movies made in Canada beg to differ. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    Your industry seems to have shifted a lot of work to Canada. I'm guessing they didn't do that just to meet the friendly Canadians. I think they did that to take advantage of cheaper labor at all levels of production and editing. It wouldn't surprise me if this includes information technology support.

    1. Re:Movies made in Canada beg to differ. by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Not seeing a lot of the distribution and post industry moving to Canada. Some of it is to escape the California taxes.

  43. No pay, no play is anti-social. by jbn-o · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That sounds overbroad and anti-social to me. Let me explain by way of a few hypothetical scenarios:

    • A friend of mine buys a copy of the movie from a home video store and gives it to me as a gift. Given what you just said, I "have[n't] any business getting it at all!" because I didn't pay for the copy.
    • I comment on the movie on my blog and use a fair use clip to illustrate my critique, as is my right under copyright. I've now "gotten it" and helped others get a portion of it via my freedom of speech.
    • I pay local taxes some of which fund my local library which buys one copy for lending. Now lots of people get to see it without paying directly for the movie.
    • I sell my copy, as is my right under first sale doctrine. I've not only "gotten it" but I'm profiting from my sale of the movie.

    All of these scenarios keep communities thriving and involve interaction among fellows. All of these scenarios are fair and just, after all you got paid for your work. But DRM tries to stop all of these scenarios from occurring. This notion of stopping people from experiencing the work because they didn't pay is abhorrent to civil society.

    1. Re:No pay, no play is anti-social. by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine buys a copy of the movie from a home video store and gives it to me as a gift. Given what you just said, I "have[n't] any business getting it at all!" because I didn't pay for the copy.
      You have legaly obtained a copy, not what I said or intended and you could have known that if you had read the post I was commenting on.
      Your clip may or may not be fair use that's for a judge to decide.
      The library also pays the required license to the movie industry for a rental agency. Also a legal way to obtain it. you're getting stupid here.
      Good for you, and "whoooosh" you didn't get "it"

    2. Re:No pay, no play is anti-social. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And neither did you. Get it, that is.

      Your point of view causes movie-makers to earn less money than they could have.

      You are effectively an enemy to makers of movies.

      Perhaps you didn't intend to be, but yet you are.

      Asshole.

    3. Re:No pay, no play is anti-social. by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Wow, big mouth with no face!

  44. Telesync rips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And for all of this DRM, someone still probably snuck in with a video camera and recorded that.

  45. And yet... by shentino · · Score: 1

    ...there are sheeple out there that still think the likes of the RIAA actually care about whether or not you get to enjoy your content whether you purchase it or not...or even how many times you purchase it.

  46. Schadenfreude hits home by argent · · Score: 1

    It's particularly ironic when one feels schadenfreude over yet another DRM disaster in the country that came up with the word.

  47. Oracle does not use DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did I buy enough Microsoft Client Access Licenses? Did I buy enough Oracle licenses for my upgraded machine with more cores? Did I buy the correct licenses for commercial use of this software? Is this DVD for a zone my player isn't licensed for?

    Slight correction: The Oracle RDBMS has never had software enforcement of licenses. The free for development version is the exact same bits as the production version and there's no license codes to enter or activation required. You're legally required to purchase licenses for production deployments (unless you use the limited free Oracle XE version) but there's no DRM that would ever prevent you from starting your database and accessing your data.

    Also, Oracle secure content-management products use certificates generated or provided by a customer, not by Oracle or some other mandatory outside authority.

  48. Acronym soup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummm... in English, please?

    1. Re:Acronym soup by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Heh, sure. here it is again with all TLAs (dammit, Three+ Letter Acronyms) expanded:

      Another compelling reason to watch Digital Video[1] Discs on a Home Theatre Personal Computer with mplayer[3] instead of a Set-Top Box, along with getting true 23.99 Frame Per Second Digital Video[1] Disc playback (closer to correct speed/pitch) on Phase Alternating Line[2] Digital Video[1] Discs.

      User Operation Prohibitions must die.

      [1] Yes, I said Digital Video Disc, as it originally was. Digital Versatile Disc is just a stupid backronym invented when they realised they could store more than just video on them.
      [2] PAL, the Television standard used in much of the world. As opposed to SECAM and NTSC.
      [3] mplayer, a powerful media player program for Linux.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  49. Happens all the time by lusid1 · · Score: 1

    I see this happen all the time, just not usually with something as high profile as a new movie release.

    Usually its some CAD/CAM or engineering package secured by some vendor customized variation on FlexLM. Every time they buy a new seat, rev the version, or a product comes up for renewal, we can expect an extended service outage while the vendor tries to issue a valid set of keys. More often than not, the first set they issue doesn't work, the support group isn't authorized to issue keys, and the group/individual that can issue keys doesn't work on days that end in Y, or only during banking hours in india.

  50. This is why we need watermarking, NOT DRM. by pclminion · · Score: 1

    Which is why watermarking is inherently a better solution. Watermarking enables rights owners to identify pirates after the fact instead of restricting the rights of all users by default. It's reactive instead of paranoid. If an insider duplicates a distribution it WILL be tracked back to the theater and probably the guilty party, if sufficient records are kept.

    The usual argument I hear against watermarking is that it damages the content. For one, I think the technologies are getting better. Second, is that really such a terrible price to pay to avoid restrictive and authoritarian DRM technologies? Let's face it, the concept of IP is not going to go away, barring some kind of worldwide economic revolution. If we can give companies ways of tracking and enforcing their intellectual rights WITHOUT trying to restrict the use of the media, surely that's the best possible solution.

    1. Re:This is why we need watermarking, NOT DRM. by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but watermarking assumes there are consequences to piracy. If I, as the theater projectionist, make a copy of a movie and give it to someone in, say, Russia, the movie is then "out". If I move on to a different job it is highly unlikely there will ever be any consequences - piracy doesn't leave fingerprints.

      A digital copy of a movie is potentially a loss of millions of dollars. I know that most people aren't going to download a movie, watch it and then rush out to the theater to watch it again. Especially with modern theater etiquette. And given the choice between a $20 DVD with ads and non-skippable previews for movies I am not interested in and a free download with no ads, no previews, nothing but the movie, I'd say I'd take the download every time.

      Suing the theater is pretty much a non-starter - they don't have any money. Finding the employee is probably impossible, even if they do work there still. So I don't see how being able to track down pirated copies buys the movie company anything at all.

      Besides, given the current climate, the pirates are winning big time. You can find just about any movie that has been released - and some before they are released - available for high-speed download. All for free. They keep shutting down services for this, but new ones keep popping up much faster than they can shut them down. Often these are hosted in places that think nothing of thumbing their nose at US companies and US laws.

  51. All movies have DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any movie seen on a digital projector nowadays has DRM, it's just the way it is. Also, for those of you arguing that this would not happen with film, it still could of happened. Usually when these big money making movies come out, they deliver the film only hours before the first showing. So if the delivery driver got stuck in traffic, it wouldn't have played. Even if they would have received the film, it wouldn't guarantee that it would have been working properly. The film could of had all sorts of discolorations or some moron could have sent 2 of the same real. Big blockbusters on film also come with their own DRM called a padlock on the can. The studio will call you hours before and give you the combination to open it just in time to play it. If anything, the digital DRM allows for more time to make sure it can run correctly on the first show. They can send you the hard drive with the movie a week in advance and just make the key not active untill whatever time they want. What they should do though is make the keys active abit before the first showing so that you don't get caught with your pants down if the key doesn't work.

  52. Our cinema is shafted too by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    We had a major upgrade to our cinema a few years ago, The Arts Council paid $10m for a building upgrade, two new cinemas and some spankingly nice removable hard drive driven HD projectors.

    Turns out the projectors need a telephone connection to some place in London to get permission to screen films from the hard drives.

    We used to have staff screenings so that we would know about the films on show in the cinema - not any more. We can only project when Central Control says we can.

    Want to prepare your own hard disk for use in the projector, $500 a minute please for Central Control to encrypt it for use with *YOUR* projector.

    The do have DVI inputs and analogue so it's not quite as bad as it could be.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  53. Smile by skeeto · · Score: 1

    I can't help but smile when I see stories like these. It just reinforces the idea that DRM is bad for everyone.

  54. oops. by znerk · · Score: 1

    maybe next time i'll read the comment before posting a scathing reply ;)

    --
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.