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."

Comments

Wait...

[TaggartAleslayer]

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.

Re:Wait...

[idontgno]

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?"

Re:Wait...

[clarkn0va]

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.

Re:not surprising

[WeatherServo9]

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).

Re:not surprising

[bensafrickingenius]

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?

Similar problem happened to me

[xav_jones]

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).

Re:Defective by Design

[loren]

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?

Re:Defective by Design

[MobyDisk]

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.