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

Defective by Design

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Defective by Design

[smooth wombat]

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

Your sig is somehow appropriate.

Re:Defective by Design

[bilbravo]

No it isn't.

Re:Defective by Design

[BetterSense]

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.

Re:Defective by Design

[pnewhook]

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'

Re:Defective by Design

[Maxo-Texas]

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".

Re:Defective by Design

[Nefarious Wheel]

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.

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

[EdZ]

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".

Re:Defective by Design

[besalope]

# 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.

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.

Re:Defective by Design

[PCM2]

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.

Re:Defective by Design

[jbezorg]

-- 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.

not surprising

[meerling]

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

Re:not surprising

[Sir_Dill]

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).

Re:not surprising

[maxume]

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

Re:not surprising

[COMON$]

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...

Re:not surprising

[ByOhTek]

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

Re:not surprising

[Mategan]

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.

Re:not surprising

[Arthur Grumbine]

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

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

[Yvanhoe]

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

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?

Re:not surprising

[digitalunity]

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.

Re:not surprising

[sbeckstead]

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.

Re:not surprising

[pnewhook]

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.

Re:not surprising

[photomonkey]

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.

Re:not surprising

[Amouth]

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

Re:not surprising

[znerk]

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.

Re:not surprising

[Sir_Dill]

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.

Re:not surprising

[Ichijo]

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!

Re:not surprising

[Ephemeriis]

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.

Re:not surprising

[PCM2]

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.

Re:not surprising

[Blakey Rat]

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.

Re:not surprising

[socz]

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 :(

Obligatory

[Yvan256]

Ha-ha! - Nelson Muntz

DRM

[amicusNYCL]

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

Re:DRM

[Luyseyal]

WHOOOOOSH!

Why do I think this will just add fuel?

[ground.zero.612]

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.

Re:Why do I think this will just add fuel?

[0x15e]

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.

Keygen

[Inda]

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

Good thing, too..

[natehoy]

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!

Re:Good thing, too..

[maxume]

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.

Re:Good thing, too..

[DeadPixels]

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

Re:Good thing, too..

[maxume]

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.

No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves...

[d474]

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

Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves...

[Maxo-Texas]

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.

Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves...

[Nefarious Wheel]

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...

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...

[jgtg32a]

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

Re:Wait...

[gnapster]

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.

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...

[manyxcxi]

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.

Re:Wait...

[FrostDust]

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.

Re:Wait...

[bit9]

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.

Re:Wait...

[iluvcapra]

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...

Re:Wait...

[SoTerrified]

,,,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

Re:Wait...

[natehoy]

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.

Re:Wait...

[value_added]

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.

Re:Wait...

[Noonian Soong]

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.

Re:Wait...

[stiggle]

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.

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:Wait...

[Mister Whirly]

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.

Re:Wait...

[jwiegley]

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.

Re:Wait...

[Culture20]

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?

Re:Wait...

[Mr. Freeman]

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

Re:Wait...

[CreamyG31337]

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.

Re:Wait...

[Mr. Freeman]

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=

Give yourself 100% discount

[avandesande]

Do not see this movie.

Re:Give yourself 100% discount

[dubbreak]

If the MPAA had its way you'd only get a 50% discount for not watching the movie.

And... ?

[Tiger4]

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.

Re:And... ?

[wizardforce]

DRM creates un-necessary barriers that make pirating unlocked media even more appealing.

Re:Hah!

[mcgrew]

I think that applies everywhere, not just Germany.

Re:Avatards

[idontgno]

How is Avvatar formed? How movie not get prjcted?

Re:Avatards

[slack_justyb]

Oooooh! I love Mad Libs. Someone suggest a verb!

I accidentally flushed the DRM keys for the movie... is this bad for __(direct object)__?

Given all the reviews I have seen ..

[OzPeter]

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.

Re:Given all the reviews I have seen ..

[Thanatos81]

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.

Achtung!

[Skelde]

Diese DRM nicht for the gefingerpoken

DRM = Digital Restrictions Management

[VitaminB52]

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).

Re:Avatards

[thisnamestoolong]

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

Re:Hah!

[illumastorm]

Except in Soviet Russia.

Actually, this is the movie industry's clever plan

[sehlat]

Just pay. We don't give a damn if you watch it.

typical

[sjames]

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.

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:Similar problem happened to me

[Blakey Rat]

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.

Huh? Not me...

[Hurricane78]

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.)

Wait. 2-D is an option?

[fahrbot-bot]

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>

And vinyl has an oaky, warm sound

[Rix]

There's no need to fetishize archaic technology.

No pay, no play is anti-social.

[jbn-o]

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.