my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » MPAA, you suck! (Page 2)

This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  17  18  19

Author Topic: MPAA, you suck! Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-18-2003 02:48 PM                     John, since you are the closest person around to people "in the know", can you please try and find out what this new evil anti-piracy system is officially called and who designed it?  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 09-18-2003 03:34 PM                        It would also be interesting to see some statistics on what percentage of pirated movies "in the wild" are sourced from actual release prints. And I mean stats from recent surveys, not from 5 years ago. I bet it's miniscule compared to stuff taken from screener DVDs and VHS tapes (oops, I mean DVD and "video").  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-18-2003 04:11 PM                        C'mon guys! Studio screeners are OBVIOUSLY not part of the problem, or the MPAA would do something about them, right? You must understand that the MPAA is infallible and they ALWAYS know what they are doing. OK enough sarcasm. When big, nasty "copy protection" like this rears its head, EVERYBODY loses. Everybody. The customers lose because they are distracted while watching the movie and thus their movie experience is ruined. The theater loses because they cannot put on a good presentation of any films containing this crap no matter how hard they try. And the studios lose because the refunds that the theaters dish out come out of their profits. I know that I'd happily give a ticket refund to ANYONE who complained about this, even after the entire movie was over. It's the right thing to do. My question is: Why aren't they using the older CAP code scheme instead? Is it not as effective? Was the price raised to insulting amounts? Is someone new trying to do it for ridiculously cheap prices or making lame promises of better results?  |  IP: Logged Chris Trainor Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Greenville, RI, USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-18-2003 04:19 PM                        Many of the movies on the internet have 2 lives. First they are released as VCD's which are typically cameras in theaters. They hook the cam upto the assisted listening jacks and record away. Those releases typicially come out within a day or two of the film being released. Then a month or three or so after the movie is released the 'dvd screeners' start getting copied. those are in SVCD format and are perfect copies of DVD's with the 'do not pirate' notes scrolling around on occassion. In any case, just about every movie released comes out both ways. Once as a cam then as a dvd rip. For info on what's available on the net and the 'quality' ratings goto www.vcdquality.com, that site is generally used by people to see what is out there and how it looks. --Chris  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-18-2003 04:43 PM                  This sounds like a "plan" from the studios to force the video vs. film issue. I mean, if enough people complain about the shitty film presentations, then it is a + argument for them to force the conversion of the "money-saving" TV crap for them and pass it on to the "little guy". I agree with the post that said the film should be refused for being defective. Oh, and John, c'mon... We ALL know it's a secret plan from Kodak to save silver and make us accept rust! What's next? Cyan hard-drives? >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Ron Yost Master Film Handler Posts: 344 From: Paso Robles, CA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 09-18-2003 05:54 PM                     Why don't they stop releasing 'screeners' and make those in the biz who are too lazy to go out to a screening room or theatre get off their butts and do so?? Why does the 'general public' have to tolerate this crap?? The industry admitted (finally) most of the problem is from within. If the oil industry had a leaky pipe in an oilfield they wouldn't shut down gas stations as a first response. Sheesh! Ron Yost  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-18-2003 07:11 PM                        I certainly wouldn't be surprised if studios purposely degraded the quality of film to push video. But I don't see how this would be one of those methods. They should just make the whole picture look like crap for the duration of the film. But this all begs another question: If Kodak can do "invisible" CAP code on video presentations, can't they also do it on film? Granted, it wouldn't be able to give away which projector or at what time the dupe occured, but it should still work. Yes? No? Maybe this will be an argument by the studios: The giant mess of dots is the ONLY way we can do copy prevention with film. But with video we had John Pytlak develop a system that's INVISIBLE! Convert to video now, errr.... you pay!  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 09-18-2003 10:32 PM                        I didn't develop Kodak's technology for invisibly watermarking Digital Cinema presentations -- some of that is PhD stuff beyond my field of expertise. And I was only a member of the TEAM that developed the original Kodak CAP Code 20 years ago. Face it, the original Kodak CAP code was pretty hard to find, both for the audience (good), and the FBI folks that had to pull the codes from the pirated videos (bad). I'm sure the new system offers some advantages.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-18-2003 11:27 PM                     John, you seem on the defensive, yet you are missing the point. No one is complaining about the CAP code of many years ago. We are complaining about the "CAP code" (whatever it is called) that is being used TODAY. Forgetting everything about the CAP code of years past, can you offer any links or comments toward the current system?  |  IP: Logged Chris Trainor Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Greenville, RI, USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-19-2003 12:13 AM                        The problem is the CAP code of many years ago is not enough to show up on a cruddy videotaped mpeg encoded copy that's distributed on the internet. So they have to do something nasty like this new crud to make it show up. I think it's pathetic, who the hell cares if some cruddy copy from a camcorder hits the internet.... most people don't watch those anyway unless they are in some foreign country that won't get the film for years. --Chris  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-19-2003 01:06 AM                     For clarification, these new CAP codes are only on Deluxe prints, right? --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-19-2003 02:09 AM                        So have these codes ever aided in the capture of anybody? And if so, just how long is that list? Does the conviction rate justify ruining the presentation of the movies in what's supposed to be the finest presentation venue?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-19-2003 02:15 AM                     quote: For clarification, these new CAP codes are only on Deluxe prints, right? Ummmmm, you know John you may be on to something here. Can anyone remember a print with the newfangled CAP markings from hell on anything other than a Deluxe print?  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-19-2003 02:34 AM                  OK, that tears it! I'm going over to Deluxe tomorrow and raise holy hell! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-19-2003 04:59 AM                        quote: Who the hell cares if some cruddy copy from a camcorder hits the internet? Somehow the studios would make BILLIONS more, guaranteed, per year if it weren't for those cruddy MPEG copies (they don't make ANY profit now, and never ever have since the camcorder was invented). They figure that for each time someone watches those, they would have most definitely gone out with all of their friends and acquaintances and saw the movie in the evening. Poor directors and actors are starving because of these MPEGs. Cry me a river.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  17  18  19

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.