British Movie Theater Staff To Wear Night-Vision Goggles To Combat Movie Piracy

Ewan Palmer writes: Movie theater across the UK will be required to don military-style night vision goggles in order to help crack down on movie piracy ahead of the release of potential box office smashes such as Spectre and Hunger Games. The initiative is part new measures to combat piracy as in recent years, pirates have found new and inventive ways to illegally record movies while using a smartphone to film through a popcorn box. Kieron Sharp, director general of the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), said: "The bigger the film and the more anticipated it is, the higher-risk it is. We have staff on extra alert for that. James Bond is a big risk and we will be working with cinema operators and the distributors making sure we will keep that as tight as possible. We really don't want to see that recorded. They [cinema staff] are on alert to really drill down on who is in the auditorium and who might possibly be recording. They still do the sweeps around the auditoriums with the night vision glasses regardless of the film. But sometimes extra security is put in place for things like Bond."

Comments

This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[Anonymous Coward]

and only get my movies at the pirate bay. No hassles. No real spying. God loves AMERICA! The POPE is here!

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[Z00L00K]

The movies pirated at theaters are usually low quality and not very interesting to watch due to all the quality issues.

Also consider the possibility that piracy of movies at the theaters may be performed by the employees themselves whenever that happens.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[davester666]

Same as if you watched it in the theatre...only less sticky. And you know who is fondling your arm.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[Solandri]

The high quality pirated movies are shot by theater employees using a camera on a tripod in the projection room (so the screen isn't distorted from a perfect rectangle) with a direct audio feed (so you get only the movie soundtrack - no people talking or coughing).

So basically all this will do is increase the quality of pirated movies by weeding out the poorly-shot cellphone movies, and give the theater staff some cool toys to play with while they're pirating the movie.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[Feral Nerd]

The movies pirated at theaters are usually low quality and not very interesting to watch due to all the quality issues.

Also consider the possibility that piracy of movies at the theaters may be performed by the employees themselves whenever that happens.

I agree 100%, what kind of a miserly dork would watch a pirated movie recorded with a smartphone in a cinema. The amount of effort spent by the paranoid dickheads that seem to rule the media industry on preventing this sort of piracy is completely out of all proportion to the small amount of damage it does. It's a bit like swatting flies with a 12 gauge shotgun.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[Katatsumuri]

Exactly. Watching a screen copy is a punishment in itself. Unsatisfied viewers and the resulting bad reputation is the punishment for the person making and sharing the copy. If the movie industry were smarter, they would leave the screen copy sector be, and maybe use it as bad PR for piracy. Anyone who can be satisfied with screen copy quality is definitely not a movie theater customer anyway.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[TheRaven64]

Meh. I stopped going to the cinema when the price of two tickets became more than the price of the DVD (and that's before you add snacks / drinks). I bought a projector and a reasonable surround-sound system almost a decade ago (and have replaced the bulb once). A subscription to a DVD rental service now costs significantly less than two people going to the cinema once a month. I can have friends over to watch a film without paying any more (and they can bring food / booze), I can pause it if I need to go to the toilet (or turn on subtitles if someone is hard to understand). I can drink or eat whatever I want with the film. Oh, and unlike seemingly every cinema in the UK, I don't have the equaliser settings configured to completely destroy any sane audio balance that might have been present in the original.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[DigiShaman]

Yeah! Because theft of other peoples labor is so hip and cool!

Hey asshole, why don't you at least take the time to, you know, actually pay for the product/service? You could always rent the movie later. It's a really neat concept in that the actors, staff, and the industry as a whole earns a profit thus growing it. It also puts food on table and keeps a roof over their family. Don't think you will would ever pay to watch a specific movie anyways? Perhaps then you shouldn't watch it either.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[TheDarkMaster]

It's worse when your local cinema have such poor image quality that it is preferable to see the movie in your home with a decent setup. Seriously, how they will make people see the movie in the theater is what you get for your ticket is a mediocre image with a distorted sound and overpriced popcorn?

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[DigiShaman]

No, that's your conclusion, not mine. What I said was, these people work in a capitalistic enterprising industry that's predicated on earning a profit. They work and stake their livelihoods on this paradigm. They do not have a right to earn successes anymore than you have a right to steal the fruits of their labor.

I have no problem with you watching freely available content so long as those involved consented to its availability to you. But when someone creates a product and expect payment in return for consuming said product, to cheat the system is morally wrong.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[tehcyder]

I wouldn't feel much sympathy if the major movie studios and anyone who does business with them were to burn.

Me neither, but then again I don't watch big Hollywood movies.

If you do, your comment makes no sense.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[jittles]

The high quality pirated movies are shot by theater employees using a camera on a tripod in the projection room (so the screen isn't distorted from a perfect rectangle) with a direct audio feed (so you get only the movie soundtrack - no people talking or coughing)..

Where did you get this silly idea from? Sure there are movie theater employees that do this but a lot of the movies you torrent are screen copies made for reviewers in the media. Some come from the special effects houses. You can find plenty that are marked as internal studio copies (doesn't cover the screen, but is in the letter boxing if you watch on a 4:3). You can even download the movies before they hit the theater in many cases. I haven't seen a pirated movie like you're talking about since Star Wars Episode I came out in 1999 or whenever it was.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a major difference between CAM/TS/TC and SCREENER/WP releases that you don't seem to be aware of. Almost all popular movies have CAM releases. There are currently ~22 movies with no better release available than a CAM.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[JackieBrown]

So you're alleging burger flippers have less rights to go to the movies than anyone else? How gauche.

Going to the movies is now a "right?"

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[Anonymous Coward]

I solved this problem by simply not watching movies anymore. They are formulaic (but perhaps you all are too young to have felt the formulas being played out over and over again, so it's all new to you). Too superficial these days. Old b/w movies are far better in terms of plot substance.

If we all quit watching the crap Hollywood (et al) put out, then their value would drop, Hollywood would be the only ones hurt, and nobody would care. We're addicted to entertainment, sadly.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[An ominous Cow art]

We have staff on extra alert for that. James Bond is a big risk and we will be working with cinema operators and the distributors making sure we will keep that as tight as possible.

If SMERSH and SPECTRE couldn't deal with Bond, how are these bozos going to accomplish anything?

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[crunchy_one]

The thing that drove me out of the commercial theaters many years ago was their insistence that I sit through ad after ad before the film. Fuck that.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[Cederic]

I watch big hollywood movies and low budget foreign independent cinema.

If hollywood sinks into a supervolcano and the rest of hte planet survives, good films will continue to be made. Hopefully some of the dross wont.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[Joce640k]

Same as if you watched it in the theatre...only less sticky. And you know who is fondling your arm.

I hope this is a joke. If you seriously believe the quality you see in a movie theater is the same as the crappy quality you get from cam/telesync copies (including the ones they label HDTS), you are very much mistaken.

I think he's referring to other people talking on their phones, walking in front of the screen, etc. The recorded experience is very similar.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[Joce640k]

I agree 100%, what kind of a miserly dork would watch a pirated movie recorded with a smartphone in a cinema.

And what total idiot believes that those miserly dorks would have gone out and paid to see it if only it wasn't available on torrent sites?

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[Joce640k]

Meh. I stopped going to the cinema when the price of two tickets became more than the price of the DVD (and that's before you add snacks / drinks). I bought a projector and a reasonable surround-sound system almost a decade ago (and have replaced the bulb once). A subscription to a DVD rental service now costs significantly less than two people going to the cinema once a month.in the original.

Have you heard of those new high definition discs they have now? Blow-rays or something like that.

Man...are you going to freak out when you see one.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[CreamyG31337]

It's called a telesync, or TS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I just checked and there's plenty of TS releases in the last week.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[Anonymous Coward]

Media is not consumed - consumption implies that it's "used up" and cannot be used again. Media is NOT equivalent to physical goods!

What is being "licensed" and not sold really is the right to see it - but where is that line drawn - do people in the name of said rights have the right to monitor everything I do and watch so they can sure they get paid everytime a movie crosses my eyeballs?

I think the notion that someone profits from every "use" of a media product for practically an eternity is absurd. If you create a work once, the really fair thing is for you to get paid once - what is so moral about getting paid for doing nothing just because people are seeing such a work?

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[spire3661]

Copyright is broken. Until such time as it is fixed, I dont feel bad for folks that try to use it to make a living. What i hate about this is people only ever mention the poor artists, what about The People who are OWED for granting limited copyright monopolies? The ENTIRE purpose of copyright is to enrich the Public Domain, NOT creators. Until such time as copyright begins to enrich the Public Domain again, i will never respect it.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[Archangel_Azazel]

No, that's your conclusion, not mine. What I said was, these people work in a capitalistic enterprising industry that's predicated on earning a profit. They work and stake their livelihoods on this paradigm. They do not have a right to earn successes anymore than you have a right to steal the fruits of their labor.

I have no problem with you watching freely available content so long as those involved consented to its availability to you. But when someone creates a product and expect payment in return for consuming said product, to cheat the system is morally wrong.

Sorry, but I'm pretty sick of seeing the same move for the fourth time. Yay! Different actors....different scenery...different movie title. Same boring, tired, cliche plot that you could practically sneeze through. Who the hell wants to pay to see a reboot of a reboot of a reboot of a... you get the point. These idiots are crying because nobody wants to watch their shitty movies anymore.
My heart bleeds crunchy peanut butter for them....and I shed one small tear for the waste of time.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[wisnoskij]

Copyright don't exist In a Capitalistic system. if ThePirateBay provides a better product than you do, then that is your problem, not theirs.

Re: This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[JackieBrown]

LOL - where do we stop with that line of thinking?

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[djnforce9]

The movie industry is frightened of their own shadow. CAM piracy is so uncommon and the quality poor that it isn't worth investing in the equipment to stop it. They probably haven't even caught enough pirates to break even yet. Not to mention that it degrades the experience for all customers and leads to awful misunderstandings.

Glad none of the theatres around where I live do this.

Re:This is why I don't go to movie theatres

[doccus]

...what you get for your ticket is a mediocre image with a distorted sound and overpriced popcorn?

But ..but.. that's part of the whole experience

Or... let there be light!

[Anonymous Coward]

... the pirate's cameras often rely on infrared light. Several bright "invisible to the human eye" infrared lights pointed at the audience from behind the screen or even around it ought to do the trick. Just trying to cast light on the topic.

Re: Or... let there be light!

[Anonymous Coward]

By 'rely on' I assume you actually mean 'are also slightly sensitive to'? I can't think of how any cell phone camera relies on NIR, but yes, the IR-cut filters are generally not very tight.

Re:Or... let there be light!

[AK Marc]

That was my fault as well, but I was thinking they should pulse them, with a frequency close to the response time of the cameras (if they are close enough to do something like this), so the camera fades in and out, like a copy of a Macrovision VHS.0

Re: Or... let there be light!

[AK Marc]

By "rely on" he could mean "rely on". Most cameras have a night-vision or low-light capability that relies on non-visible spectrum. Since the camera relies on IR/UV, then one could say it "relies on" it.

Re:Or... let there be light!

[GigaplexNZ]

I came to say exactly the same thing, but this AC beat me. One potential risk though is that the pirates could potentially use filters to block the IR portion of the spectrum. At least it would hinder the casual pirates.

Re: Or... let there be light!

[TsuruchiBrian]

So you are saying that the cameras don't work in the absence of infrared light?

Re:Or... let there be light!

[dwywit]

IR spectrum is not good for your eyes. Not as bad as UV, but still in the "not recommended" category - and especially as your pupils will be more open than when outside in daylight. If a cinema was caught doing this, there'll be a moron and his/her lawyer somewhere willing to sue. If they win, then bye-bye to IR lights behind screens.

Re: Or... let there be light!

[AK Marc]

The camera doesn't have a "poor" IR filter, it deliberately looks into the IR spectrum because that's required for some operations. Because that's required, it's "required" that the camera see in IR.

Rather than having filters and processing, they let it all in, and visible light dominates when it's available, but when it's not, the IR receptors dominate. They work in the absence of IR and the absence of visible light. But both are required for all features.

Re:Or... let there be light!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's incorrect. Concentrated IR (eg a laser) will heat the internals of the eye, just like a visible laser. There would be hell to pay for everyone with an IR remote control and the Nintendo Wii/WiiU sensor bar. Non-concentrated IR is no more harmful than visible light. The ways to mess with the IR sensitivity in a camera is to make the IR light alternate between strobeing and solid from a LED bank in the ceiling pointed towards the seats at a 30 to 45 degree angle so it ruins the recording and can't just be compensated with a filter or software setting.

Re: Or... let there be light!

[TsuruchiBrian]

But it's not "required" that there be any IR light for the camera to work. Just like how cameras don't "require" fireworks or "rely on" fireworks even though some features only work on fireworks.

Re:Or... let there be light!

[GigaplexNZ]

So you're suggesting that since the MPAA isn't funding the IR LED banks, the theatres need expensive night vision goggles instead?

I've seen people in the theater recording films with their smartphone, and the theater staff do nothing. The way you do this is by making sure that theater tickets assign seats, and have a "snich" app that reports the film, showing and seat of the pirate. eg "2 rows ahead and 4 seats to the right (of me|row)" and thus allow the theater manager to call law enforcement if needed.

And how can you be sure they're actually filming it rather than just obnoxiously holding up their phone (using IM or something) without using the camera?

Re: Or... let there be light!

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but pointing that out is completely useless for recording movies from a theater. The movie projectors aren't projecting the movie in IR, so completely blocking IR to your camera won't degrade recording the theater movie. As a bonus it'll hide your camera from the night vision goggles.

Pirates who watch cams aren't going to care about some bright spots, cams are already pretty bad. Where are the studies showing piracy reduces movie income? I've only seen the ones where it increase income. I don't want to be distracted by people wearing glowing goggles walking around the theater. And how long will it be until some crazy nut thinks an employee is about to cause another theater shooting? Well, this is for the UK so probably not, but I'm sure it'll happen in USA.

Re:Or... let there be light!

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

It wouldn't need to shine directly into the eyes of the audience - a lower power IR laser with a rotating diffraction grating could be projected onto the screen - invisible to the naked eye, very low risk of eye damage and would wreak havoc on most digital video recording devices...

Re: Or... let there be light!

[AK Marc]

That why I initially thought of the spots, like the OP, but then thought that a pulsing action at a ~1s period would probably make for a worse viewing experience, with the picture fading in and out as the automatic brightness controls in the camera tried to adjust.

And then, they could pulse them in a manner that would indicate the theater and showtime, so any screeners would fully identify the recorded time and place.

Re: Or... let there be light!

[AK Marc]

But it's not "required" that there be any IR light for the camera to work

You are deliberately being obtuse. Yes, it's 100% required that cameras accept IR and record it. If not, then they won't work. Period. Though by "work" you mean won't do one specific thing, and by "work" I mean do everything listed in the manual. If it doesn't do what the manual says it will, then it's broken. If you bought a car with no rear door handles, would you take it back as defective? After all, you don't need them to get in the drivers seat and drive away, so the dealer should tell you to fuck off, as the car works fine. (just not all the items in the manual, and you indicate that's irrelevant to the definition of "work".

Re: Or... let there be light!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are deliberately being obtuse.

You're so acute when you're angry.

Re: Or... let there be light!

[thegarbz]

You are deliberately being obtuse. Yes, it's 100% required that cameras accept IR and record it. If not, then they won't work. Period.

The more expensive and better quality the camera the less IR is normally let through. Don't confuse looking into the IR spectrum and recording the IR spectrum. They are not done by the same sensor.

Re:Or... let there be light!

[Nrrqshrr]

And that's another reason why you shouldn't go to theaters anymore. People laughing at a funny movie? That's cool. But now you have to put up with the thought police who didn't like the way you hold your popcorn and now want to question you. Probably interrupting a key moment in the movie for you and anyone else around you.

Re: Or... let there be light!

[wbo]

The more expensive and better quality the camera the less IR is normally let through. Don't confuse looking into the IR spectrum and recording the IR spectrum. They are not done by the same sensor.

Actually IR recordings are typically done with the same image sensor as visible light recordings. What high-quality cameras do is have an IR filter in front of the image sensor that is automatically moved out of the imaging path when the camera is switched into a low-light or nightvision mode (In many cameras this results in an barely audible click when switching modes as the filter is moved).

Such cameras also typically have a collection of ND filters as well that can be switched in and out as needed for filming in very bright light to avoid having to use ridiculously high shutter speeds with a sensitive image sensor.

Re: Or... let there be light!

[thegarbz]

If you're shooting a movie in low-light mode then you're doing it wrong. A theater is a very bright place, and on the topic of discussion my point is the same. A pirate's camera does not require IR light to record. I may require IR for a lot of things, such as some cameras focus via a separate sensor and a bright burst of IR could flood the sensor, not an issue just manually focus.

Nothing about bright IR would stop the determined pirate or anyone filming with a camera where the user has read the manual.

Re:Or... let there be light!

[RavenLrD20k]

Now as to the OP itself. Unless the MPAA is providing such equipment free of charge to the theaters, I'd expect push back on this

So you're suggesting that since the MPAA isn't funding the IR LED banks, the theatres need expensive night vision goggles instead?

Funny you're modded Insightful for a blatant lack of reading comprehension. Considering that the AC's trying to get back to the OP(Opening Post - in this context, the summary) which is talking about the expensive night vision goggles and not IR lights, AC is suggesting that if the MPAA wants the night vision goggles for minimum wage ushers to be playing police, they need to be paying the expense for the night vision equipment. I'll add to that and they should probably be paying for the raises to actually bring the usher's level of pay to the point that they'd actually give a shit about enforcing anti-piracy rules. Why the hell should frontlines employees give a shit about enforcing some Fat-Cat's rules if they won't make any extra money off of it? Minimum Pay? Shouldn't expect better than minimum work, then.

Re: Or... let there be light!

[cyberchondriac]

Autofocus.

Re: Or... let there be light!

[TsuruchiBrian]

Yes, it's 100% required that cameras accept IR and record it. If not, then they won't work.

Absolutely false

Though by "work" you mean won't do one specific thing, and by "work" I mean do everything listed in the manual.

My point is that when you say shit like "By "rely on" I mean "rely on"" (implying that there is only one thing it could mean), you are not only being a pretentious asshole. Not only that but you are also just wrong.

Though by "work" you mean won't do one specific thing, and by "work" I mean do everything listed in the manual. If it doesn't do what the manual says it will, then it's broken.

And without IR light, the camera will still do what it is supposed to do in the absence of IR light, even if that's not what you want. Just like how taking pictures of flowers in "fireworks mode" may not do what you want, but it is still doing what it is supposed to do.

In sumamry:
1. You're an asshole
2. You're wrong

Re:Or... let there be light!

[plover]

You're right in that removing a single guy with a camera (even removing one per screen per showing) isn't worth the expense of the goggles. This is obviously just a ploy to exploit the deterrent effect. Use night vision goggles, bust a dozen people recording the movies on their cell phones, and fine them a crazy amount like a million pounds each. Spread the news of the arrests, and of the insane penalties. Every few days when the public needs reminding, publicise another bust.

It doesn't even matter if the fines are later overturned by a judge, and reduced dramatically. The hope is that this makes many fathers say to their sons "put that phone away you stupid git; we can't afford a million pound fine!"

how much lost really?

[gmack]

If someone is so cheap that they will watch something recorded from a cell phone I'm guessing they will never be paying customers no matter what happens.

Re:how much lost really?

[Frosty Piss]

This is why this phenomenon has never interested me. I mean really? A bad shaky out of focus version of a movie that I will be able to see on NetFlix in less than 6 months? Sure...

Re:how much lost really?

[youngone]

Exactly. This proves that the idiots at FACT don't even understand the piracy they claim they're fighting. No-one watches stupid phone camera copies of pirated movies.

Re:how much lost really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some NetFlix sites never get recent stuff - try to find Star Trek TNG on NetFlix Germany.

Re:how much lost really?

[gl4ss]

it's a ploy to sell night vision goggles from a specific provider.

they found a stupid enough exec and bribed the idea to him: *boom* money.

the exec had to be stupid enough to not know actually how the bootlegs people download were recorded.

hint: not in the UK and if there's a direct audio feed then it's prooobably not a regular movie goer..

Re:how much lost really?

[Shadow99_1]

What I think is a better question is why they think anyone is doing this in the UK... Most cam copies I see are either from Slavic states near Russia or from somewhere in Asia. Most western world copies of movies tend to be screeners and other video sources and are in fact rare since companies started watermarking them. The only good use of a cam copy is pretty much deciding if the movie may be worth the hassle of a real theatre to go so or wait for a release copy.

Re:how much lost really?

[jez9999]

What did you expect? FACT were the retards who produced this (it's not a spoof; it's on some of my DVDs). Not exactly the brightest lightbulbs.

Re:how much lost really?

[gl4ss]

well the movie theatre owners wife & kids watch that stuff. he thinks he is so smart you see.

Re:how much lost really?

[antdude]

Six months is too long to wait for some people. :P

Re:how much lost really?

[gstoddart]

it's a ploy to sell night vision goggles from a specific provider.

I disagree.

It's yet another instance where the copyright cartel has made government and private industry responsible for policing copyright.

So basically huge multinational corporations have everyone else doing their bidding and wasting their time and resources to ensure the profits for those huge multinational corporations.

If those corporations want their copyright policed, they should be paying for it. This is just another example of how we've jumped the shark and are increasingly living in a world which has been coopted by large corporations.

If they want this, let them pay for their own staff to be standing around wearing night vision goggles.

Re:how much lost really?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Of course they watch poor quality video. Not everyone has the time or money to catch the movie when it came out in the theatres, or when it's not released in their country yet, and many less wealthy fans of a franchise will grab and watch poor quality video because it's immediately available.

There are even plenty of $5 DVD vendors, in chap Asian markets, who will sell them burned to DVD from carts or backbacks. It's a very real market: visit some poor neighborhoods some day to see the sales.

Really necessary?

[exomondo]

I can't imagine that many people will eschew going to the movies for a smartphone camera recording. Maybe for screeners and Telecine rips but cam versions? Really?

Re:Really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking that they are doing this as a ploy to try to get fun toys while getting subsidized by the MPAA equivalent. This isn't going to help anyone, as they could just go to another theatre if this is known to happen at their normal one. A smaller theatre likely is not going to do this, or care about doing this. Smaller lines, but less likely to have an ICEE machine that works.

Re:Really necessary?

[ColdWetDog]

I'm thinking that they are doing this as a ploy to try to get fun toys while getting subsidized by the MPAA equivalent. This isn't going to help anyone, as they could just go to another theatre if this is known to happen at their normal one. A smaller theatre likely is not going to do this, or care about doing this. Smaller lines, but less likely to have an ICEE machine that works.

Yeah, this. A good set of night vision glasses is $5000 or so. Even cheap ones are well over a grand. I can just see the minimum wage usher walking out of the theatre, never to be seen again (so to speak).

Re:Really necessary?

[plover]

I can't imagine that many people will eschew going to the movies for a smartphone camera recording. Maybe for screeners and Telecine rips but cam versions? Really?

That's because you are ignoring those who live below the poverty line. You're thinking of wealthy people who can afford to buy their own food; people who could afford to see the movie in the theaters. For them, $5 invested in a cam-ripped DVD will serve as the night's entertainment for quite a few people, and it will likely serve as a babysitter for a couple of weeks. Or it might be part of a social mask, hiding their finances from others so they can go to work the next day and say "yeah, I saw the new movie last night, let's talk about it at lunch. What, did you think I'm so poor I can't afford to go to the movies?"

Really.

What is the incentive to the uploaded?

[Wycliffe]

I understand the incentive to watch a movie online but what is the incentive for someone to risk prison time to illegally record a movie
and upload it to pirate bay? What is the uploader getting out of it? Back in the BBS there was a barter system where you could get
credit by uploading something wanted that didn't exist yet but what incentive is there today?

Re:What is the incentive to the uploaded?

[Anonymous Coward]

The big file storage sites that provide extra-slow downloads unless you pay for a membership pay uploaders for the traffic they generate. You know, the ones used to trade pirate porn.

Re:What is the incentive to the uploaded?

[timrod]

I think in the case of cam-rips, they're usually not uploaded at all. Private trackers won't take them, and no one is going to download them on public trackers unless they're desperate. Most cam-rips, from what I understand anyway, get burned to disc and sold on the street rather than put online.

Re:What is the incentive to the uploaded?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose most of this pirate porn is made around September 19th?

Re:What is the incentive to the uploaded?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only day when you're allowed to have an arrgasm

Re:What is the incentive to the uploaded?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I understand the incentive to watch a movie online but what is the incentive for someone to risk prison time to illegally record a movie and upload it to pirate bay? What is the uploader getting out of it? Back in the BBS there was a barter system where you could get credit by uploading something wanted that didn't exist yet but what incentive is there today?

Altruism?

Why do people volunteer to do anything? Maybe it's because they get some kind of satisfaction by helping people. Maybe they like the prestige of being a notable pirate. Maybe they think the media industry is evil, and they feel like they are making the world a better place by denying profits to them.

I suppose it doesn't make sense if you think the only compelling reason to do something is for personal monetary gain.

But there are lots of other motivations people can have other than money.

Re:What is the incentive to the uploaded?

[adolf]

There seems to be a certain measure of pride amongst some folks in having the latest movies. I know people who boast about having terabytes of new movies on their hard drive, all cams.

Myself, I find them to be unwatchable garbage -- if I wanted to see a new movie that badly, I'd go to the theater and see it. But to them, their collection of grainy cams with bad audio is a treasure.

Re:What is the incentive to the uploaded?

[Harlequin80]

Yeah I don't get that. Why get a cam when the BR rip or HDweb rip won't be that far behind it. Chances are there will be a pretty high quality copy with korean hard subs in it within a month of theatre release even for the top grossing films.

Re:What is the incentive to the uploaded?

[aaaaaaargh!]

Whether they pirate movies, music or software, pirates seem to be mostly driven by moral considerations. They also tend to have a strong moral code of conduct - don't attribute other group's releases to yourself, always provide the necessary cracks, add an "if you like it, buy it" clause, and so on.

Re:What is the incentive to the uploaded?

[tehcyder]

Whether they pirate movies, music or software, pirates seem to be mostly driven by moral considerations. They also tend to have a strong moral code of conduct - don't attribute other group's releases to yourself, always provide the necessary cracks, add an "if you like it, buy it" clause, and so on.

User name gives you away, Jim laaad.

Re:What is the incentive to the uploaded?

[adolf]

Because they're cheap. Because they're genuine thieves, with no love for the arts. Because these are the same people who show up at your house, smoke all of your dope and drink all of your drink, and still expect you to fix their watch/car/computer for free the next day, even though they ate all of the leftovers out of the fridge while you were asleep AND put the empty jar of hamburger dill chips back in the fridge as if nobody would notice. (I wish I could make this stuff up, but I'm really not creative enough.)

I've got an expansive collection of DVDs and Blu-Rays. Sometimes I pirate something, but only a proper HQ rip. Sometimes I pirate something, and then buy a copy on disc because the film was just That Good. (And I hate HC Korean subs, so that's straight out.)

Many of my films were bought on a whim: I'm walking through the store, and I see a film I wanted to catch, and *plonk* it goes into the cart.

Many of the films I pirate are unavailable on DVD or BR or even mail-order Netflix, because of age or unpopularity or asshatery.

But again, if the film is very new and I want to see it, I'll pay the $9/head or whatever it is, buy the popcorn, smuggle in some sodas (sometimes "adult" sodas), risk bed bugs, and enjoy the show on a screen which is far more encompassing than I can afford, and with a sound system that -might- be a little bit lesser than my own.

Movies are fun, but if nobody ever spends a dime on them, they'll either be subsidized completely by product placements or die. And I, an honest thief, don't want to see either of those things happen.

I'm also not going to consume all of your inebriates and leave a lonely jar of pickle juice in your fridge, either.

But some people do. The mind boggles.

So

[penguinoid]

Pirates will just switch from crappy low-res idiot-talking-on-the-phone theater recordings to high-quality pre-release torrents.

Re:So

[advocate_one]

and only have to wait a few more days if at all...

Why?

[TheDarkMaster]

Everyone knows that CAMs are shit, those who do not normally see in a theater will wait for the bluray version or the HDRip...

Re:Why?

[AK Marc]

Some like to watch the cams to see if the movie is worth watching in the first place. Is the story and acting good? Or is it a worthless movie with lots of pretty pretty advertisements.

Re:Why?

[Antique Geekmeister]

I've been in workplaces where some recent movie is the chatting subject at the water color or the cafeteria, If everybody is talking about the flick, and your budget is tight or you lack the transportation and time to catch the movie in the theatres, you can feel left out and be happy to catch a pirated copy.

Believe me, when you have kids or expensive pastimes like family with medical expenses, movies in cinemas are a real luxury.

How about..

[Anonymous Coward]

How about keeping the movies goers out of the theatre, that will stop the piracy.

Or yet...
DONT make the actual film (expensive messy business and all that)
Make a few "clips" and based on their popularity estimate the number of tickets sold.
Deny anyone going to the movies (they must all be pirates after all, so its only reasonable)
If you use Investor State clauses you could sue the government for expected losses based on the estimate of tickets that might have been sold.

BOOM... profits through the roof, which when put into contact with Hollywood accountants turns into a loss so you can screw the tax payers again.

No movie = zero piracy..... war has been won.

Customers are evil!

[m0hawk]

I'm sure that the there are theatre staff that record films too, but I doubt that the PR people will address that publicly. I'm sure theatre managers will be told to look at staff. But publicly, it's their customers they should come down on. Wow, way to go making people feel bad about pirating films.

How do they know it's a camera in the popcorn box?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't get is how the cinema staff could be sure that it's a camera that is in the popcorn box. Suppose there's a man sitting there in the cinema. He has a box of popcorn on his lap, but he isn't eating any of the popcorn, and he's holding the box with one hand on each side. The cinema staff use their night vision goggles to pick him out of the crowd as a suspect. They confront the man, and ask him to open the popcorn box. He complies, and all they see is popcorn. Still convinced that he's up to no good, one of the cinema staff puts a hand into the box, and starts moving the popcorn around, searching for the camera the staff are sure is in the popcorn box. But after shifting around the popcorn, this staff member doesn't find a camera at all. Instead, all he finds is the poor cinemagoer's cock and balls, which for some inexplicable reason have been stuck through a hole in the bottom of the popcorn box. Not immediately realising what was going on, the cinema staff member's hand thoroughly fondles the poor cinemagoer's cock and balls. As you can imagine, this is a pretty awkward situation for both the cinemagoer and the cinema staff to be in!

Why?

[TsuruchiBrian]

All it takes is for one lapse in security, not necessarily in your theater or even your country, and all the time and money spent trying to prevent that movie from leaking is wasted.

This would be like buying a car alarm that self destructs if any car in the entire world is stolen.

Potential Smash... The Hunger Games?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Boy, you people in England really have to wait a long time for movies, don't you?

Re:Potential Smash... The Hunger Games?

[SuricouRaven]

We used to. Now we just torrent things before they reach the cinema anyway.

"...James Bond is a big risk..."

[turkeydance]

spoiler alert.

irony

[roesti]

It's ironic that you can't take high-tech spy gadgets into a James Bond film.

What if I'm turning up in costume? Then I *have* to have them.

Lucky you ...

[Anonymous Coward]

you might be in the position where you have Netflix and other services to fullfill your movie needs.

  We don't have it here and Netflix makes damn sure you will not be able to use their service, even if you would like to pay for it.
Besides that, most of the movies are synced in the local language, making even the most serious movies just a big joke.
And we have to be lucky to get the less popular movies because the movie distributor has a monopoly here and basically only shows those movies which generate a certain amount of revenue. So for example European movies are never show here.
If you are lucky you can get some DVD's through import shops, but even that is considered illegal with courtesy of the Hollywood movie cartel.
It's easier to get the latest Columbian drugs than foreign movies....

So the only option a lot of people are left with are just the illegal options.
And luckily the quality of CAM is not that bad in general.

I predict a new rash of crime...

[macraig]

... of disappearing night vision goggles and some very happy teenage boys.

Know what would convince me to go to a theater?

[Anonymous Coward]

A better experience than my home cinema. Which may be only a 26" computer monitor and two 200l floorstanders, but I get to eat and drink whatever I want, no-one's stupid comments interrupt me, chewing noises, cellphone screens or noises, babies crying, commercials, etcetcetc.

Last time I went to the movies was for the last star trek film, the one with young spock. I had such a horrible time, my and my roommate never even suggested to go to a theater ever since.

Re:Know what would convince me to go to a theater?

[jonwil]

The theater I go to (Cineplex here in Brisbane, Australia) plays a message on the screen before the film telling people to switch off their phones and not use them during the film. And as far as I have observed, people do that.
I have never observed crying babies in any movie I go to. Some chains here in Australia even run special sessions for parents/etc with babies where they keep the lights low (rather than off) and have change tables in the back.

As for commercials, sometimes the commercials can be useful (like the one I saw last time offering cheap food at a local establishment if you bring your movie ticket)

And the trailers are great for showing me whats comming up and what might be worth seeing (although I am glad I didn't trust the trailer for Pixels and researched it a bit otherwise I would have wasted my money on that Adam Sandler piece of crap)

Re:Know what would convince me to go to a theater?

[jonwil]

That is one of the many reasons I refuse to go to Event Cinemas. Their rip-off pricing is another.

I live in Beenleigh and my closest cinema is Logan Hyperdome (also an Event-owned operation) yet I will go all the way into town for Cineplex just to avoid their operation.

Re:Know what would convince me to go to a theater?

[tehcyder]

We get a few rotten people in Queensland as well unfortunately.

We were at a local cinema - near Brisbane, Australia - (Event Cinemas [used to be BCC] in Indooroopilly) and we in fact had a lady with children who encouraged one to take a piss in the isle on a seat about 2 rows down from us. Giving credit to the staff we did actually get a voucher to go see the movie again but I can see why this behavior would turn people away from the cinemas.

Wow, I'm impressed that you have even worse behaved kids in Oz than here in the UK. I thought that was one area where we were still world leaders.

Re:The Stupid Brits can do what they want... but..

[50000BTU_barbecue]

No, government is just the publicly-funded private police for the corporations. Thank Milton Friedman for that!

Do you have the most remote idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

... about why this looks so pathetically surreal? It would fit perfectly in Terry Gilliam's Brazil.

I suspect that movie wasn't really about Brazil, after all...

Re:Make Blu Rays available from release day

[youngatheart]

I'd rather watch most movies at home than in the theater. If there were copies available for purchase at the same time the movie came out in the theater, there is zero chance people would refrain from making and distributing free copies. It would be very tempting to just download a free copy rather than pay for the official copy or see it in a theater.

Thought copies mostly came from other sources

[Maxo-Texas]

years ago I watched a shaky, dim release of a pirated film with silhouettes of people walking across the screen.

Fairly quickly pristine copies came out. I didn't see the point of camcorded. Somewhere in the world, there is a manager or a projectionist or a screener who is going to release a copy. Or 6 to 20 weeks later, a perfect copy from the bluray or DVD will come out.

Besides, i can see films on monday for $4.50 u.s. at the theater 4 miles from my house.

I call BS

[bugs2squash]

1. There's lots of light in a cinema, a big bright image lights up the audiences faces. I would have thought ample light to run a regular inexpensive CCTV camera pointed away from the screen toward the audience. That not just locates offenders but provides evidence too. More light can be added in the form of IR as others have noted.

2. NV goggles are expensive and having the staff roam around in them adds even more cost.

3. Once the NV goggles have the sensitivity turned right down to allow for the brightness of the screen, I would have thought that would render them not much better than human eyesight.

I imagine this is a scare tactic and nothing more, maybe there'll be a couple of sets of rented goggles moved from theater to theater and "paraded around" to scare people off.

Re:how much is lost really?

[Anna Merikin]

I can see a movie once and then see it over and over again without further charge. It's called memory. Let the MPAA try to use night vision to find me memorizing stuff.

Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[ancientt]

There is a conflict between the natural and inalienable rights of people and the attempts of governments to curtail the resulting actions. It's neither novel nor resolvable.

Ones and zeros. Any series of ones and zeros can be represented as a number, understandable by human minds. It is the natural and inalienable right of humans to communicate, thereby sharing, numbers. Humanity, throughout history, has attempted to suppress the ability of others to communicate freely. Every attempt to curtail communication is a battle against the natural state of humanity's need to communicate. Attempting to suppress a natural right always, always, always results in greater suppression of rights or failure.

Most of us appreciate the outcome of limiting sharing in order to concentrate value. We like multi-million dollar movies. What we don't like are the inevitable outcomes where people are punished in ways that seem unreasonable. The problem is that the two issues are inextricably linked.

Possession of a number, and sharing of that number should never logically be illegal. Making sharing a number illegal goes against natural human nature. Thus we have a conflict with the historical approach to encouraging innovation and creativity and the natural law that humans must be free to share information. Technology hasn't created this problem, but has made it more obvious. Human nature is also to acquire power so we're pitting two natural human activities against either. Of course the natural right to communicate will eventually prevail over the power acquisition impulse, but not without conflict. Right now the impulse to acquire power is grounded in government enforcement, but the natural right to communicate will always find an expression, thus government censorship (copyright enforcement) is destined to fail.

In the future, regardless of attempts to prevent it, free sharing of information is inevitable. Acquisition of power will adjust. Movies will be paid for by trailers created in order to generate pre-creation funding. You'll see trailers for movies that haven't been created yet, based on subjects you're interested in and directors you trust. If you like the trailer you see, you'll pledge money taken in escrow. If all goes well, you'll get to see the movie, but otherwise you'll get your money back with a trivial amount of interest. Everyone will get to see the movie for free if it gets made, nobody will make movies that flop and nobody will be punished for sharing numbers.

It won't happen soon. It won't happen without conflict. Laws will come and go. People will be unfairly punished, movies will fail. Inalienable rights will eventually prevail because law cannot suppress human nature.

Unchecking "Post Anonymously" because I've had just enough beer to stop caring if people are upset by the truth.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[KGIII]

That's not the most logical argument. Freedoms and rights are not the same. I am free to kill you, I do not have a right to do so. Just because you're free to do so does not mean you have an inalienable right to do so. If you don't understand this then keep drinking, I've spelled it out as clearly as it can be.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[Boronx]

Freedom of speech means freedom to repeat speech.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[91degrees]

Except the ones and zeroes aren't what's copyrighted. A completely different representation of the data that shares no mathematical relationship will be covered by the same copyright.

The size of these numbers is ludicrous. The odds against anyone independently wanting to use any of them independently if the copyrighted work for mathematical purposes will be ludicrously unlikely to happen within the lifetime of the universe. Like, if you think this is a problem, you'll also worry about spontaneous nuclear explosions of nearby objects.

What non-contrived mathematical purpose have you been prevented from doing due to being unable to use these numbers? The only things I could imagine are enjoying the creative works of another person's imagination.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[Mantrid42]

To play devil's advocate, I assume you must be okay with me freely acquiring personal data about yourself (private correspondences, medical records, etc) and disseminating it, as long as it's digital, and therefore, a number.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[91degrees]

It's kind of like E=m c^2... if I hit you with mass (e.g., my fist), that's assault. If I hit you with energy (e.g., the reflected light off of my face), that's expected. There might be some limit that is in between the two extremes. Since the whole concept is rather modern, no one really knows where to put that limit.

No, but since 128 bits is considered a universally unique identifier and most copyrighted data is substantially longer than that.

But the law doesn't care about pure mathematics. It cares more about intent. If, through a purely mathematical process, accidentally managed to stumble on a number, that by coincidence was an ISO of The Little Mermaid, then as long as you could show that this was a coincidence you would not be in breach of copyright.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[ancientt]

I don't think I said rights and freedoms are the same thing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+rights

I'd agree that freedoms and rights aren't the same thing. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all things that can be taken from someone, but the fact that they can be taken doesn't keep them from being rights. Freedom is a right, an inalienable right, that can be taken away. The natural state of man is to expect freedom and to rebel if deprived of it. Sure, you're free to kill me, but it's not a right, but then neither is it the natural state of man to expect that right or to rebel if deprived of it.

I actually read quite a bit about freedoms and rights and what it is that makes those we consider inalienable different from those we impose and restrict for the good of society. Obviously people (I'm a little shocked how many) will take the time to disagree. I welcome disagreement because it's often the best opportunity I have to learn something new.

I'm going to need a little more from you in order to change my mind. You're marked as a friend because I've found your opinions insightful in the past, so perhaps you can manage it.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[tehcyder]

Movies will be paid for by trailers created in order to generate pre-creation funding. You'll see trailers for movies that haven't been created yet, based on subjects you're interested in and directors you trust. If you like the trailer you see, you'll pledge money taken in escrow. If all goes well, you'll get to see the movie, but otherwise you'll get your money back with a trivial amount of interest. Everyone will get to see the movie for free if it gets made, nobody will make movies that flop and nobody will be punished for sharing numbers.

Trailers are notoriously misleading.

If everyone gets to see the movie for free if it gets made, why would anyone pay money up front?

Most seriously, how would you encourage more experimental or controversial movies if they were dependent on pre-funding based on people's pre-conceived ideas of what they want to see? That is not a good basis for creating challenging works of art.

I see several flaws in your plan, but at least you haven't fallen back on the "well they can always sell action figures to make money" argument for free distribution of digital works.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[ancientt]

The point about intent is a good one. I'm also not arguing that the laws, even copyright laws, are without merit. I enjoy the fruits of those laws too and wouldn't suggest they should be unilaterally repealed. Despite the apparent common consensus by people responding to my original post, I don't even advocate piracy. I do think that there is room for improvement in the law and I do advocate for that, but that's not the topic I intended to discuss.

Speaking of math though, I keep being bothered by an idea. There is a number that could be used to represent an ISO of The Little Mermaid. I suspect any irrational number would contain it, but lets use Pi for this thought experiment. Somewhere in Pi, there is a number which can be easily translated to a binary description of that ISO, lets call that number Pi-TLM. If I have the computing power to find Pi-TLM, and I distribute the necessary description in order to allow others to use Pi-TLM to reproduce ISOs, then I'm clearly in breach of the intent of copyright laws. Most numbers can be reduced and referenced by a shorter notation, so I'd expect Pi-TLM would be the same, probably by factorization, exponents or a formula. Communicating that formula would probably also violate the intent of copyright laws. But what if you didn't communicate the whole representation, leaving a couple hundred thousand possible interpretations out, which would be trivial for a computer to go through in order to identify the actual candidate. I have no idea what Pi-TLM would be, but pretend it's 42â'â'â'â'^237+650^10^23994-4. (Those ugly characters are entered as up arrows, to denote Knuth's up-arrow notation, but the slashcode mangled version works just as well for this discussion.) Obviously I can say "there is a number Pi-TLM" without breaching copyright and I can say that I found it and I can even say it's in the range greater than 42â'â'â'â'^237.

The idea that bothers me is this: Is it possible to define the point at which I give too much information?

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[KGIII]

I'd not expect to change your mind, not even remotely. I'd not even hope to. At best, I can share my opinion.

First, let me tell you that I'm a pirating fool. I'll pirate more than I'll ever consume. I have more movies downloaded than I'll ever watch and seldom delete them. I usually pay for software, however. I have more music than I'll ever need - though, honestly, I also own a lot of CDs.

Anyhow, you're always free to remember and to tell someone about a movie you watched. What you don't have is an inalienable right to take someone else's work and give it to another. I'd say that you have a right to share a copy, of a physical medium, so long as that copy was rightfully paid for. You don't have a right to make multiple, unpaid, copies and distribute those.

There is harm to a business. It's something called 'potential.' Even if I was never going to buy the movie, if you rip and it give it to me, there's less potential for me to buy my own copy in the future. In fact, I dare say it is so unlikely that I'll risk calling it impossible in my particular case. When you've done that, when you've shared a copy, you've deprived another from the potential to make that sale. What that value is, for what it is worth, is immaterial - it may be an almost trivial amount but it is deprivation nonetheless.

When we say we've not stolen anything, we have. We've stolen the potential sale when we share it, enable sharing, or make a copy without paying it. The potential has been reduced.

Now, certainly, we've every right (inalienable even) to share our experiences - we can recount the movie verbatim and even draw really nice pictures and make a flip-book if we want. What we don't have, however, is an inalienable right to make copies of the works and to deprive them or their potential. Even if you way you'd never buy it anyhow, the potential is reduced simply by your act of making a copy. This is deprivation of an intangible asset. Businesses often work with intangible assets - we call them intellectual property at times. Sometimes they are sales projections.

I could go on, I could describe how investors are real people (snickers) and that they may have real financial losses incurred due to piracy. The gist is, basically, that there is deprivation and there is no inalienable right to the actual content. Just because you have the freedom does not mean you have the right. You're a pirate and depriving a business, and real people, of their assets every single time you engage in piracy.

Now, we can go off and come up with all sorts of justifications to make us feel better about piracy if we want. Hell, I pirate stuff all the time and I can easily afford to buy them. My personal issues are simplicity, control, invasive behaviors, and a desire to actively harm those who'd harm others. I deprive them of their intangible properties because I don't like them, I'm an asshole, and because I will do what I can to be a thorn in their side. I have, right this minute, about 20 GB of television shows that I'm seeding at the request of someone on Kick Ass Torrents. I'm not even going to EVER watch those shows.

However, I don't have a right to do so. Nor do I have a right to consume those shows. I certainly have no inalienable or legal rights to those. I sure as shit don't have a right to be seeding them. You don't have an inalienable right to it because we, as a society, have determined that such doesn't exist. You WISH there were such rights (and I tend to agree though I'd worry about the quality and availability but that's too much to type about today and this is already long enough). Just because you're physically able to do something doesn't mean you're entitled to do so. We can go back to the freedom to kill and the right to do so for an extreme example.

Again, I can only share my opinion and I have no desire to change your views. A conversation needn't be about making arguments that are intended to change another's views. It needn't be some sort of fight to see who has some sort of superiority. I

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[ancientt]

In the future, regardless of attempts to prevent it, free sharing of information is inevitable.

That's not a statement of preference, it's an observation of what I think is an irreversible trend. I doubt I'll be alive to see that time but I hope that law evolves ways to handle it. You seem to be in the majority in thinking I was advocating piracy and I can see how it can come across that way, but really I don't, just like I don't advocate setting all prisoners free just because liberty is an inalienable right.

The internet would be illegal according to the original reading of copyright laws because the act of viewing content on your own computer makes a copy, usually several, on your computer. The laws and their interpretations have evolved to consider making a copy, even many copies, as a part of the normal and intended use, legal. It wasn't and still isn't without conflict. People have been sued for linking to someone else's page and had that protected, but sharing links to files, even without ever copying the file is often illegal. As noted by someone else, the law cares about intent. Eventually, I expect the law will evolve to handle free sharing of information, but I recognize that I don't really know what that society will look like or how the law will evolve.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[ancientt]

When we say we've not stolen anything, we have. We've stolen the potential sale when we share it, enable sharing, or make a copy without paying it. The potential has been reduced.

Totally agree and couldn't have said it better. I would add however, that intellectual property only exists as a construct of society and government as opposed to physical property which exists naturally. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and indeed a lot of the society I appreciate depends on it now. I am saying that it's unnatural and is contrary to human nature.

You don't have an inalienable right to it because we, as a society, have determined that such doesn't exist.

That's where we diverge. I don't think society gets to determine what inalienable rights are, just freedoms, restrictions and protected rights.

Maybe.

Whether or not it was your intent, I'm thinking through the idea that maybe what determines man's natural state and inalienable rights are malleable and determined by society. A child born into slavery in 1600 had no expectation of a right to liberty. I'd like to say that it is the natural state of that child and every such slave child to expect liberty as a natural right and rebel against having it denied. I'd like to say that, but I don't think history supports that view. Maybe that child didn't actually have a right to liberty. It doesn't sit well with me to accept the idea, but there could be truth there I just don't like to admit. I really wish I could sit down with Jefferson and have him explain what he really thought and then maybe ask Sally Hemings what she thought about his views.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[ancientt]

Interesting questions. Let me fire up my crystal ball and peer a couple hundred years in the future to get some answers.

If everyone gets to see the movie for free if it gets made, why would anyone pay money up front?

They pay for the same reason people vote now. It doesn't cost much to be a contributor to something you hope will happen. They'll contribute what we'd think of as our movie budget now in the hopes it will be created.

Most seriously, how would you encourage more experimental or controversial movies if they were dependent on pre-funding based on people's pre-conceived ideas of what they want to see?

I expect it won't be that much different than it is now. A producer gets to produce something if he can convince people it's a good idea or has the money to do it himself. Few experimental or controversial movies get a big budget now, and when they do it's because they've built a reputation for success with the people who have the money to invest. The big changes will really be in how the middle men work. Private funding won't disappear, but it will be overtaken by public funding. Kickstarter will be looked back on as the cute simplistic precursor. They're already producing movies but in the future there will be many other organizations doing it on a massively larger scale with a whole different set of laws supporting them.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[KGIII]

I think a good way to describe it is that we, as a society, take all of our freedoms and put them into a pool. From this pool we decide, as a whole (generally - we are ruled by consent, after all), which liberties we pull from this pool. It is how we end up with laws, all laws are (and I can not think of any exceptions) are a restriction of someone's freedoms.

A good example would be slavery - seeing as you mentioned it. Laws against slavery restrict my freedom to buy another person and rightfully so. Laws against theft, murder, fraud, etc... Those, too, are restrictions on freedoms. All rights are, in essence, constructs and without them we have anarchy. We'd have a situation where I own, and am well trained in the use of - as well as reasonably practiced, a number of firearms which would enable me to take your freedoms from you by threat or act of force. In a free world I can enslave you if I have the means to do so. I'm not sure that I'd argue on that side, I'm not sure how anyone can argue that side. I am sure that I've seen some confused people do so but I digress.

So, absolutely, it's a construct. One made by man. So? That doesn't mean you've an inalienable right to deprive another or to benefit from another's deprivation. I simply have yet to hear this argued logically - and I'm an open source aficionado. (I should not be confused with a zealot, such should be obvious.) I also believe that we should amend copyright law, there should be a finite limit. However, I don't believe that we've a universal right to declare all works of an individual or a group as communal property, that's outlandish and yet it's an oft parroted sentiment here.

Just because we're capable does not mean that we're entitled. I can, and probably would should there be circumstances that allowed it, be a complete and total prick that strips others of their liberties for my own benefits. Fortunately, for you sake, we've thrown those freedoms into a communal pot and withdrawn our rights and give ourselves restrictions. I've yet to see a viable, reasoned, argument that supports the idea that my constructs, be they as minimal as an idea, become someone else's property.

Now, in my case, I'd give those away - those constructs of the mind or whatnot. That's my choice and I'm free to do so - I have a right to do so. They were my property. What I do not have is the right to force someone else to match my ideals. This sure as hell doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't make sweeping changes to intellectual property laws. This does mean that I can not agree that I have an inalienable right to your work or the right to deprive you of assets.

For such a smart group of people there are some conclusions reached that make no sense to me. I've argued this on this site a number of times and, to be honest, that's exactly why I'd no hope or intention of altering your views. At the best I may give you some insight as to my views and, frankly, I'd not expect it to change your actions.

By all means, pirate the ever living hell out of anything you want until the laws are changed and until some sense is beaten into the industry. I expect draconian reactions but, well, I'm okay with that - the more the draconian responses the more normal people will be impacted and the greater the outrage and, as such, the sooner the things change. (That's my hope, at any rate.)

Over the years, especially faced with this intellectually stimulating group (often very good at debating), I've had the chance to refine my argument. Well, not really an argument as I don't intend to change any views or behaviors. Instead, I give you my own conclusions based on logic and reasoning. This has been gifted to me by the denizens here at this site. I get many things from you - including the chance to learn, grow, and see things in alternative ways. I've seldom been anything other than a moderate - in most aspects of my life. You could say that I'm zealous about being moderate. ;)

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[ancientt]

I've yet to see a viable, reasoned, argument that supports the idea that my constructs, be they as minimal as an idea, become someone else's property.

Now there's a challenge. How about "property is theft." That has a nice ring to it, can't believe I just made that up, maybe I can get a copyright or trademark on it.

I've deliberately avoided the term natural law, even though the idea of inalienable rights are tied so closely to it because I think it's so fuzzy to define. I'm inclined a little toward stoicism so maybe I should work harder at learning to defend the idea. But I'm lazy, so not today. I bring it up only to ask if you're quite solidly against the idea that natural law exists, cause it sounds that way and I'm reconsidering whether I can support the idea of any inalienable right without that common ground. If natural law is common, then I can argue that depriving mankind of the right to copy and share is against it. Our society and laws have created a construct to protect information as property where none should rationally or naturally exist because, like fiat money, it makes progress easier. Laws that run counter to natural law are bad, not because they have no good effect, but rather because they will always be broken by the majority. Heck, performing happy birthday in public was a big frigging deal to me, but most people had no idea it was illegal; most still don't even after all the news stories about it.

Assuming I can't find that common ground, then I think I'd revert to the societal good argument. Sharing information benefits society but depriving people of the freedom to make copies of work benefits society too. They have different benefits, but one of them is being handled by laws designed to handle papers and movable type. For societal benefit, the laws need to be changed. Not rapidly, that way lies pain and anarchy, but with great forethought. I do free programming to build a reputation, which gets me a job with a paycheck. Redhat makes money in essentially the same way. It's obvious that innovation and good can come with free information, but less obvious what the world would look like without copyright.

I'm thinking it is an inevitable thing, obviously not everyone agrees, but if you were in charge of changing the laws to make it happen (eventually, like say by 2200,) how would you go about it?

That, by the way, I think is my best answer to the challenge, the constructs that belong to you only belong to you so long as you don't share them with anyone, unless the law creates an artificial restriction. There is no logical argument against that because the law is the definition of what you can own (see slavery discussion.) If there is no law to prohibit copying your work, every copy belongs to the person who has it.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[KGIII]

Would ownership, itself, not be a natural law? Since time immemorial, and I can think of no cultures that differ, there has always been property ownership. This is physical property, of course, but I expect it to be concluded that the idea extends to intangible goods as well. If you think, for example, such didn't exist (the immediate example that springs to mind would be land for Native Americans) then, by all means, I'd suggest you go try to take the headdress from the chieftain. Or, if you'd like, grab his tepee and run off with it.

I humbly submit that ownership has been a concept since the dawn of time when man realized he did not have an obligation to share his goods. Some societies have had certain communal goods, certainly, but this did not eliminate ownership. As for the commons and the benefits - even if that were true - there's no reasonable way (that I can think of - and I've tried) to conclude that one should be required to give up their rights to ownership for the benefit of society - that would be communism. Greed, human nature, and an intrinsic right to the fruits of your labor are going to prevent communism from working in anything larger than a tribe and only a small one at that. Even then, there's ownership to some extent - I don't know of any society that has done without it - ever.

So, in short, I'm not really able to accept the common good, the altruistic, or the likes. It just doesn't compute. What I make is mine and I have ownership of it. You're not free to make a copy unless I give you that right (and I will but that's besides the point). I have no right to the fruits of your labor - I could argue that I should be allowed to make derivatives of it and, legally, I'm afforded some rights to do so.

Do the lines need to be moved? Absolutely. Do they need to go (or even should they go) to the extreme? No, in either direction. Then again, I'm a pragmatic Buddhist (we often are, I think it's our default state) and see moderation as an important aspect in life. Note: I am not a monk. I'm not even a very good Buddhist. However, I simply can't accept that there's a natural state where the inalienable right is to take ownership of someone else's property without compensation. Immaterial or not, we call that theft and, in this specific case, we're stealing the afore mentioned potential which is an actual asset that's listed on balance sheets. (We could argue that it should not be but it's used as a metric for viability and listed as an asset under many terms including such names as expected market growth.)

Finally, screw the abusive pricks in charge of much of the media today. Pirate until you're unable to pirate more. Pirate it twice, just to piss them off. (Did I mention that I'm not a very good Buddhist?) They're abusive corporations with all sorts of behaviors that probably qualify as anti-trust antics. They're harmful and do nothing to help other than, maybe, providing initial funding for those who could not afford it themselves. I'd like to see VC work in that area - there is some already but I'd like to see more. I've been offered a few investments in that arena but haven't availed myself of such at this time. Hell, in sheer frustration, I'm going to go find someone else that wants to use my system as a seedbox and grab another dozen GBs for sharing of videos that I'm never going to watch myself. Bugger 'em, bugger 'em all I say.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[ancientt]

The basic question I am asking is whether intellectual property should be property. I'm not asking whether it is defined (by law) as property. If the law changes or I move beyond it's jurisdiction, then it ceases to be property. (Sorry if I mislead with my attempt at humor.) Under current law, copying illegally deprives you of the opportunity to profit due to governmental created and enforced scarcity. You're also deprived of the opportunity to buy and sell people, but it wasn't always that way. Maybe it shouldn't be that way for intellectual property either.

What I make is mine and I have ownership of it. You're not free to make a copy unless I give you that right

What you make is yours and you have ownership of it, but if you allow me to observe it, I have a right to make a copy unless somebody takes that right away.

I know, it looks like semantics, but in this case, where the governments create and enforce an artificial scarcity of constructs that exist as ideas rather than physical things, it's really more accurate to say that.

If you refuse to speculate on how a society would work if we transitioned to law without copyright, then your argument boils down to "this is the best way because it is working" and mine boils down to "imagine it working differently, it would be better." The world was different when copyright was invented in 1710. Importing slaves was still legal in the US in 1710. Society's values, norms and laws change. You say intellectual property is property. I agree. I say it shouldn't be and you ignored that issue.

We both know the reasons people use to argue both sides, so I'll turn your previous challenge back on you. I've yet to see a viable, reasoned, argument that supports the idea that copyright is good for humanity in the long run.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[KGIII]

I did touch on that issue - clearly (I thought). It is an inalienable right to own intellectual property much like it is an inalienable right to be free (not a slave). The ability to have your intellectual property protected with the force of law is akin to having your life protected by the full force of law. Just like we lost our freedom to own slaves (and having given them the right to be free) we have removed the right to take others labor by hook or by crook and that too is a restriction on our freedoms to afford rights to those who would be otherwise subjected to abuses because of their inability to protect themselves, or similar. I realize that is a really extreme way to describe it but that is what it is and what it has done and what its purpose is.

However, I claim no fair. Now I'm stoned. But, again, that's the gist of it right there. I mean, in a nutshell. We can't own slaves. We can't steal the labor of another person. They're much more alike than one might think.

How's that for a viable, reasonable, and logical conclusion to draw? I'd thought it was pretty well spelled out but, I suspect, I am not very articulate.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[ancientt]

The ability to have your intellectual property protected with the force of law is akin to having your life protected by the full force of law.

But why? Nevermind. It's said clearly enough, and I don't have anything new to add, but thanks for presenting the other side.

Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right

[KGIII]

I'm all sorts of willing to have you present a logical and rational (as well as reasoned) supporting argument for slavery. I mean, hell, I could argue that side. I'd not want to and I'm absolutely certain that it would be frowned upon so much that I'd never get break past their attempts to appeal to emotion or the likes. I mean, yeah, I could make that argument too but I don't want to be the one to do it.

In the end, I'd have to disagree with my own logic if I were to argue a pro-slavery side of a debate. I'd probably start by saying that we're already forced to live just by nature of our existence and we already are placing ourselves in a position of servitude in exchange for creature comforts. I mean, yeah, I could argue this but no - just no. At some point we have to enact laws to ensure rights that counter-act another's freedoms. Where that position lies is subject to debate, of course.

But, as I said, I'll listen to a well reasoned argument. There's a tiny chance that it will change my views but it's not very likely. I appreciate your patience in hearing me out. I wish I were more articulate but I'm verbose and ramble a great deal. They say I'm pretty much sane (oh, I've had them check) but I'm pretty sure that I think in really strange ways and my writing seems to demonstrate that. So, thanks for listening, I suppose.

One problem

[behrooz0az]

Maybe I'm old and tech has improved since I last used a night vision goggle. Don't the goggles intensify brightness by like 10x?
What happens if they look at the projector or the curtain?

... to combat movie PRIVACY

[r-diddly]

FTFY

Re:Really?

[KGIII]

A friend of mind owns a few theaters, the closest one is in [redacted]. I often go down as they're closing and go watch a few movies by myself or with a few friends. I no longer drink but I used to get really trashed while I was there. We'd use one of the smaller rooms off to the side and often ended up chilling in the projection booth for a while to do other things. I usually pay a handsome sum for the various snacks and they make a fresh thing of popcorn before they leave. The owner, his wife, or the manager will generally participate in the event. I'd say I average a month or two between visits. I am 100% certain I could set up and record. I am also certain I needn't pay but I feel obligated to. We do clean up after ourselves and have even helped staff clean up other parts of the theater so they could leave early. Under no circumstances would I record the movie even if I could get away with it.

In hindsight, I'm sure this is illegal as all hell (though he 'sells' us tickets - it's sure to break the contract which is likely a civil (or even criminal) offense. So, because of that - and that there's but one theater in that town, I've redacted the name of the theater. I've even 'sneaked' in the night before a new release was going to be shown and there were people already in line. I just walked in with the employees and a few of my friends went in with me. I don't feel bad, really, but it was kind of mean. I'm sure the agency that he gets the films for would be really pissed if they knew - so, yeah, that's the main reason for the redaction I guess.

I've thought about doing a remodel and having a screening room put in - you can actually get a license to get the full movies while they're still in the theaters though it's a bit pricey. I'm not that much of a movie buff and it's more an event than anything. I think I'd not use it much if it were in my home.

Re:Not to belabor the obvious....

[Anonymous Coward]

But why don't they just slip the projectionist a C-note for a private showing....

Why bother, slip him two C-notes and have him record it for you.

So they already fuck the colours and....

[ruir]

This night googles have been used for years in the USA. So they jack you in price for sitting you in a glorified garage, already fuck the movie colours for it "not to be copied" to the point that for instance, the chromatic of several movies are definitely odd even when watching the original both on cinema and TV (Resident Evil, Chronicles of Ridick and Book of Eli comes to mind), and now they handle you as the enemy in the combat field, and teens cannot go there dating and petting without giving an hard on to the employees. I have not been in a cinema for years, and sure wont be in a near future. For me, it would be some place better than home, and not worse. A living room, they serving me lobster with me with I watched a movie, and with some naked female waiters, and I might reconsider it. Otherwise, I wont be paying to enter a glorified prison system. They are forgetting it is not your great-grandfathers time where they were awed by movies, nowadays we all have entertaining systems at home.

Re:So they already fuck the colours and....

[ruir]

(english in not my first language, and I have to revise better my posts. When reading them, I am painfully aware of where are the mistakes)

Re:So they already fuck the colours and....

[tehcyder]

(english in not my first language, and I have to revise better my posts. When reading them, I am painfully aware of where are the mistakes)

Your post made more sense and contained fewer grammatical quirks than most on slashdot written by people with English as their only language, so I wouldn't worry too much.

Re:So they already fuck the colours and....

[ruir]

Thanks for the support

Re:And as usual

[ruir]

Only if you want. I have not been in cinema for a decade, and went there where I lived because I was expat in a fucking place that was boring as hell.

To drill down on who might possibly record

[TranceThrust]

Really? Fucking with your paying customers to prevent some crappy cam version to hit the internet?

When are they going to learn?

Re:To drill down on who might possibly record

[ruir]

I do not when you stop being a customer and start being a captive audience. Between having 1h of adverts rammed down my throat, nil condition nor hygiene, and that being a glorified garage/prison.... and for the record, they do not have time to clean properly the premises and I have been told in my student times by friends that work there that people wank and leave things like napkins and socks behind, and also the ocasional shitter. Not to mention when I gave up going to a movie where they did not even bother to clean properly the food and coke on the carpet. People and cinemas are disgusting.

Re:To drill down on who might possibly record

[plover]

Then you're going to the wrong theaters. I wouldn't give places like that a second glance, let alone cash. If you walk in and it's disgusting, go get your money back and leave.

Re:To drill down on who might possibly record

[ruir]

I am talking about 20 years ago, when I stopped going regularly to cinemas in my home country. I did not really enjoyed the experience, so I stopped going. Four years ago went because a friend and my lady were insisting about it, and frankly ended telling to the lady on front of me to turn the damn phone off once it ring for the 14th or 15th time with an obnoxious tune each time an SMS got in. Thanks, but no thanks.

Reversement

[SuperKendall]

In Soviet UK, movie watches you!

Bother

[louic]

If they ever bother me about this when I just go there to relax and watch a movie I will immediately demand my money back and never visit that movie theatre again.

Total BS of course

[DrXym]

Movie theatre staff *won't* be wearing night vision goggles. It's an absurd idea. The most one can expect is that if a particular cinema has been the source of piracy in the past (identifiable from watermarks in the image / audio), then there might be undercover investigators in the audience looking out for surreptitious filming. Personally if I were pirating movies I'd vary my routine around and I'd stick the camera into a cup or popcorn bag where it would be virtually impossible to see in the dark.

Re:Total BS of course

[ruir]

Will you be arrested also from pirating the 1h of adverts they ram up your ass? They are not clear in the article. |ducks|

Re:How do they know it's a camera in the popcorn b

[Anonymous Coward]

The camera lens gives off an intense IR signature, will look like a bright dot. That's what they are looking for, hot camera sensors.

this is not new

[Ginger Unicorn]

i live in the uk and my local cineworld did this briefly about 5 years ago after a commandment from on high. The staff found it embarrasing and stupid and i remember seeing them wandering in with the goggles on and staring at us for a few seconds then walking off again. They only did it for a couple of weeks.

This isn't new, and it isn't really a sustained procedure of audience monitoring. It's a publicity stunt to make people think they're being watched - make a giant fuss about how they're watching everyone in the dark and hopefully that will scare them into not filming the screen.

They do it long enough to make people aware of it then stop again. Then in another 5 years make a big hoo-haa and break out the night vision goggles again for a couple of weeks.

What about pirating movie theater staff?

[Visarga]

And who's going to watch for movie theatre staff that pirates movies? It only takes one to get a copy out to the scene.

Just avoid the cinema...

[jregel]

The approach I take is to not bother going to the overpriced, customer-hostile and noisy cinema. There are very few films that are so amazing that I can't wait a few months until they come out on DVD/Netflix/Amazon etc.

The bottom line is, the media companies have an over-inflated opinion of their product. I'm happy to wait a bit and then watch it in the comfort of my own home. And if this means that the cinema industry dies, then so be it. Cinemas need to attract customers, not treat them as potential criminals.

Meanwhile, I'll get on with doing lots of other non-cinema leisure activities.

Re:Just avoid the cinema...

[davide marney]

This

Re:Just avoid the cinema...

[dcw3]

The approach I take is to not bother going to the overpriced, customer-hostile and noisy cinema.

Agreed. But then, I go to matinees, at a theater that kicks noisy/disruptive people out. Some movies are best seen on a big (bigger than my 60") screen, with a great audio system. I'm selective about the movies we attend, so we only go a few (maybe half-dozen) times a year, treating it as a lunch date with my wife. Otherwise, I wait for it to come to cable.

Far far easier to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is far, FAR easier to just tag every movie with an ID.
Let's face it, these are special copies they rent from the movie distributors. They could all be tagged.
All it takes is a bunch of frames throughout the movie having some small, invisible to the untrained eye, artifacts or such.
Even crappy cameras will pick up on some of those frames at some point.
Boom, cinema identified.
Of course, you can get around that by looking at 2 or more separate films, identifying oddities and removing them.

Hell, with some lights placed in the correct positions, you could bloody triangulate the cameras position in the cinema.

Not that it matters anyway since most of the good pirate copies come from staff, or leaks from the actual copy directly.

Re:Far far easier to do this...

[Kartu]

Blur or whatever postprocessing and, tadaaa, there goes your ID.
DVD Screeners are marked like that, doesn't really help.

Re:Far far easier to do this...

[plover]

Digital movies can be watermarked all the way down to the exact screening. I remember seeing a movie that had a few flashes of birds, the number and pattern of the birds was a fingerprint identifying the theater and showing. But not all schemes are that ugly or visible. All they have to do is insert and remove a few frames from a few scenes, altering the durations slightly, and they have a non-viewer-disruptive unique fingerprint of the showing that survives anything -- including cam-rips.

Re:How do they know it's a camera in the popcorn b

[jbmartin6]

Let's hope cinemagoer doesn't regret the choice of hot butter topping

How about

[WillyWanker]

Instead of patrolling on behalf of the movie studios they patrol on behalf of their paying customers and eject people who are on their cellphones, excessively chatty, or bring screaming kids into the theater?

And they wonder why people have stopped going to the movies.

Re:how much is lost really?

[tehcyder]

I can see a movie once and then see it over and over again without further charge. It's called memory. Let the MPAA try to use night vision to find me memorizing stuff.

And like most of us you have a perfect photographic memory. Obvs.

Re:How do they know it's a camera in the popcorn b

[sociocapitalist]

As you can imagine, this is a pretty awkward situation for both the cinemagoer and the cinema staff to be in!

It also explains why the popcorn is salty and sticky at the same time

Re:Not to belabor the obvious....

[tehcyder]

But why don't they just slip the projectionist a C-note for a private showing....

Why bother, slip him two C-notes and have him record it for you.

Or pay the regular entry fee and watch the film like everyone else? Or isn't that edgy and disruptive enough?

Do people really watch CAM rips?

[wardrich86]

Just wait for the DVD/Blu-Ray rips to come out... way better quality, anyway.

Looking in the wrong place

[acoustix]

Almost all of the pirated movies that I have seen were stolen at the studio, not the theater. Some of them even had the production information still on the screen. And some of them were the complete DVD/Blu-ray movie package that was yet to be released.

The studios know their own people are stealing, but they keep blaming the general public.

Re:Nobody cares about your home theater

[Quirkz]

Well, I don't know about the OP, but the specific reason I stopped getting to movies was the birth of my kids. The only thing worse than paying full movie prices plus full concession prices is having to pay even more for a babysitter. The wife and I get occasional dates, but it's rarely for a movie.

Take a IR leds to the movies

[naranek]

Want to see if your local theater staff has night vision goggles? Take some IR leds to the theater and keep them on during the movie.

Cams come from minimum wage cinema employees, duh

[netsavior]

If you pay someone 7 dollars an hour to sweep popcorn, and that someone owns a tripod.. that someone has uniquely private access to a theater... private enough that they can run a sound cable from the projection booth to said tripod.

Give that same employee access to night vision goggles, and you will prevent no piracy at all.

I mean, how bullet-proof is any plan that involves compelling a bunch of minimum wage employees to ensure that 1 billion in profits isn't whittled down to 999 million in profits? (not that there is any proof piracy actually costs studios money)

"The higher risk it is"

[Kartu]

In other words they seriously think that the anticipated big budget movies that are poised to make hundreds of millions $ will suddenly make even (significantly) more, if they don't let some dudes record it on their smartphone and share via torrent, by equiping cinema personel with night vision googles.

That's quite pragmatic.

Movie theater across the UK

[Ryan McLaughlin]

So... only one Movie theater is doing this, or there is only one Movie Theater that span the entire UK?

Re:How do they know it's a camera in the popcorn b

[Toshito]

So the staff member finds a stiff member?

Don't care either way

[Thraxy]

I don't go to the movies anymore. Last few times I've gone I've wished I was back home before the 25-30 minutes of ads were done. It costs around $20 to buy a movie ticket here, so I don't see why they need to waste my time with these ads. If they can't afford to show the movies without the ads, then maybe they should just stop having cinemas. I'm perfectly happy watching movies from the comfort of my home, using whatever streaming service is all the rage. I'll microwave some popcorn and spread it out all over the sofa and pour soda under my feet for that authentic cinema feel. Maybe even invite a really tall friend over to sit in front of me and partially block out the screen.

yet the films are more unlocked than advertised

[HongPong]

The world of decryption keys in film world is interesting . DCP films have decryption keys that work in a time window. http://indiedcp.com/digital-ci... ... they don't actually control how many times the film can be run. This means 'super restricted' digital prints can still get played overnight - and they definitely are.

These nightvision things are to keep management happy - they have thick contracts with studios so 'security theater' in the theater has to be applied.

I was in a early screening movie that had studio security parading around watching people with the scopes after collecting cell phones and wanding people, it was redonk especially since the key was still unlocked overnight - and the movie had a rebellious theme but more physical security than any other.

To deter inside jobs there is definitely watermarking now, it's hard to spot but actually sometimes you can, may be a series of dots around a corner rather than some more carefully hidden signal. (and there may be audio watermarking too, but i think with two clean audio captures from different sites you could diff it out).

Why bother?

[p51d007]

99% of the crap on the big screen today isn't worth the money. Take a husband, wife, and the typical 2 children. Gas to and back, tickets, minimum 10 bucks each (unless you go to the early show) Say 7-8 bucks for the kids minimum. Popcorn, drinks, snacks (unless you cheat and bring your own 40-50 bucks. You are looking at anywhere between 80-120 bucks easy. Once a movie is released, wait a few weeks, download a REAL image of the movie not that "filmed in a theater" crap, or, just wait a month or two for it to show up on netflix as a legit source, watch it for 10 bucks, make your own snacks. No hassle.

Re:Detecting employees

[Technician]

Detecting an employee cam is not really all that difficult if done from the booth. Due to the geometry of the projected image on the screen, keystone distortion gives a combination of projection angle and viewer angle. Modern digital projectors have keystone correction. Old film projectors simply had aperture plates. Here is the difference.

An aperture plate is inserted into the projector to mask the sides and top and bottom of the projection beam to fit the screen. It provided no keystone correction. If a monitor test grid were projected, it would have keystone distortion with the lines narrow at the top due to the above audience projection angle. This applied to all 35mm and 70mm film projection. In short throw theatres, some barrel distortion is also introduced.

In digital projection, keystone distortion can be adjusted out by setting up the projector with a test pattern to make the geometry correct even with off axis projection.

No consumer phone that I know of has keystone correction for off axis correction of a film projected onto a flat screen. This will reveal the camera location when compared to the original projected image.

Most modern films are Digital, especially blockbusters. This means in most cases the projector has been professionally aligned to the screen with Keystone correction. With this knowledge, any keystone distortion and barrel distortion would be from the angle and distance of the camera from the flat projection surface. Shots taken from above the audience are taken from the projection booth.

With watermarking, a stray dot, blip, extra few frames between scenes, or other subtle alterations can identify which movie screen showed which film at what time. From there forensics can identify the general location in the theatre the cam was deployed. It's easy enough to identify a booth recording from the keystone.

Seems foolproof

[renderhead]

After all, theatre employees are so highly paid that movie pirates would *never* be able to bribe one to look the other way with their night vision goggles.

Protect the massive profits!

[N0Man74]

...in order to help crack down on movie piracy ahead of the release of potential box office smashes...

"The bigger the film and the more anticipated it is, the higher-risk it is."

So, the most watched and profitable movies are the ones that need the most protection?

I suppose it's worth pissing off a few consumers to make those massive profits into massiver profits.

Infrared LED's

[nuckfuts]

Why don't they just aim a bunch of infrared LED's at the audience? Wouldn't that mess with the recording devices without the audience noticing?

Of course, the IR couldn't be too powerful, or you could damage people's eyes. In a darkened theatre their pupils would be dilated, and IR does not cause the pupils to contract like visible light.

One more reason to not give these people ur money

[easyTree]

Thanks for letting us know how you feel about your customers.

Subject line

[easyTree]

Kieron Sharp, director general of the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), said:

The more we adopt security-theatre methods, the more it appears that our product is worth something.

No too good movies anyway ...

[flex941]

... so if I can't be bothered to go to cinema (because unable to convince myself about the movie worth this treatment) I'm perfectly happy to wait for WEB-DL or BluRay rip.

Re:The Stupid Brits can do what they want... but..

[Schnapple]

One edge case might be that a CAM copy is the only copy of what was shown in the theater, so it's potentially interesting to film aficionados should the movie be changed/edited before it hits home formats. Things like:

• The censorship of certain scenes from Who Framed Roger Rabbit (the upskirt shot of Jessica Rabbit, the smoking habits of Baby Herman)
• Scenes George Lucas removed or modified from the prequels
• Spider-Man 2 being forced to remove the Red Cross logos from the hospital scenes (the Red Cross association doesn't want anyone to use red crosses in film as they believe it erodes the effectiveness of the logo in real war situations as a "don't shoot" deterrent)
• Preserving the original framing - the film Avatar for example was shown in something other than 16:9 but the DVD/BR versions are all 16:9 to fill up television sets - they don't chop off the sides on home formats, they chopped off the top/bottom in theaters. Having a CAM version might be the only way to prove something is different.
• The occasional movie that never makes it to home video for some holdup reason.

Watching CAM rips as your primary movie source is inexplicable, but short scenes that get cut/changed are interesting in small doses.

Re:How do they know it's a camera in the popcorn b

[Scarletdown]

I would imagine in that scenario, the one with his cock and balls poking up into the tub of popcorn would be doing it for the benefit of a girlfriend that may be enjoying the film with him.

And considering the social handicap a typical Cheeto-fingered Neckbeard who would be likely to be the one doing a secret cam recording through a popcorn tub has, the odds that he would be trying to surprise a girlfriend instead of making a recording are simply astronomical.

(And amusingly, as I reread this, I am hearing it perfectly in the voice of Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory, with either Howard or Raj looking guiltily embarrassed.)

Torrent is available to download a movie

[jonbally7631]

What a really awesome thought to record a movie with goggles and take them to piracy and get the profit from it. Even they can copy them and release on illegal office. Security is necessary to protect the movie release. But not able to protect properly and safely. They recorded the movie in the hall and sell them the copy. Need to guard properly at hall. http://www.locksmithsinscottsd...

Re:Torrent is available to download a movie

[axlworldstore]

That movie was so bore and i have get some tissue to spare some rain in my eyes.

Re:How do they know it's a camera in the popcorn b

[LessThanObvious]

On that note, I'm concerned that knowing there is some wanker watching with spy goggles might interfere with a lady's willingness to fulfill the odd request for a mid-cinema blowjob.

Re:how much is lost really?

[DrVxD]

Yes - but did you have to tell them?

Now they'll be wanting us to have our memory erased after going to the theatre...

All movies are digital now

[pebear]

Since all movies are digital most of lots to the good pirated movies are taken somewhere in the production stream. You can even try to intercept the broadcast sent out from the studios to the movie theaters. So you don't end up getting people jumping up during the movie and you don't get flashes of light form cell phones. Really everyone has a cell phone and everyone has the abiltiy to make a copy on the screen but what I have heard and read most pirating is done somewhere along the production stream...

I enjoy it.

[Sir Holo]

I enjoy, after paying $15, sitting through 20 minutes of advertisements, having people put their feet on my head-rest. . . to be treated like a thief.

I've been to a cinema once, perhaps twice, in the past 20 years for these reasons alone.

Maybe they could sell buggy whips in the lobby?

Incentive?

[kmoser]

What incentive do the theater owners and employees have to comply with this directive?