Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DRM Flub Prevented 3D Showings of Avatar In Germany

Posted by timothy on from the token-of-our-appreciation dept.

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."

52 of 386 comments (clear)

  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 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
    2. Re:Defective by Design by bilbravo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No it isn't.

      --
      Starmen.net
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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!
    10. 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
  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 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.

    5. 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).

    6. 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.
    7. 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!
    8. 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.
    9. 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
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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
  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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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 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

  8. 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 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.
  9. 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 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.

    5. 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

    6. 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."
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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
    10. 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.
    11. 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?

    12. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Achtung! by Skelde · · Score: 3, Funny

    Diese DRM nicht for the gefingerpoken

    --
    Insert sufficiently witty sig here.
  12. 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).

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

    Except in Soviet Russia.

  14. 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 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.

      --
      Comment of the year
  15. 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