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."
Just keep trying to micromanage everything, you DRM-loving assholes. Best-laid plans of mice and men ...
Maybe now some of the rank & file will begin to understand the evils of pervasive DRM, even if only in Germany.
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
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
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.
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 According to the article, the movie theaters had licenses but they turned out to be "no longer valid" on opening day.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."
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.
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.
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.