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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » MPAA, you suck! (Page 6)

This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  17  18  19

Author Topic: MPAA, you suck! Ron Yost Master Film Handler Posts: 344 From: Paso Robles, CA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 09-25-2003 01:12 PM                     So, if a screener given to, say, Tom Cruise, winds up on the internet, Mr. Cruise is getting prosecuted? Yeah, right. Eliminate DVD screeners .. period. They're an unnecessary indulgence. Ron Yost  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-25-2003 02:27 PM                  Brad: Below is the link. But since the complete story came from my mag & web subscriptions to Variety, I don't think the whole article would be generally available. http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_article&articleID=VR1117892950&categoryID=13&cs=1 About ID'ing Screener copies of tapes/DVDs: In the mid 80s, I was commissioned to develop an invisible ID marking system for Screener VHS tapes. The ID info could easily be hidden in the sync or blanking (front & back porch) areas, or secretly encoded in the burst, of the video signal and not be seen by the viewer. Since any of those areas could easily be stripped and a "clean" version re-inserted, the only sure way for an ID was in the viewable area. But that wouldn't work either since there were many complaints from the "members" when the video contained a burn-in...which, if near the edges of the pic could also be stripped and cropped out of the image. So the system I came up with placed an "invisible" unique ID number/text over the whole pic area on every field of the entire tape. It was undefeatable without destroying the image. Totally invisible to the viewer. But, if the tape was played with the decoder, one would see superimposed over the image the ID info. For example: "JOE BLOW COPY 007 JOE BLOW COPY 007 JOE..." or whatever was encoded. Note, this system did not prevent copies, but was able to trace copies from the original. Now for the reason it failed and why it was never implemented: Just as Ron mentioned above, ya just don't put TC in jail for "lending" a tape to his "unscrupulous" friend or gardener. So rather than risk "embarrassing" moments, the whole idea of Screener IDs was and has been dropped even to this day. I'm 95% sure of this from personal experience. The ONLY way to make a dent in this form of piracy is to stop ALL Screener videos...there are 100's of them. It's bad enough to keep track of the 35mm "Screener" prints. Now, where's my camcorder... >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Ted Costas Expert Film Handler Posts: 119 From: Hollywood, CA, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 09-25-2003 02:49 PM                     The following is the opinion of Ted Costas, and not that of Dolby Labs: I think cap coding sucks for two reasons. First, if you can see it, so can the pirates, and all you are left with is an ineffective, distracting mark on your image. Second, and I've said this before, how many people has cap coding caught? The answer is a very small number of people. Cap coding must be subtle to be effective. It is neither. But for now, sadly to say, it is all the MPAA's got. John, I know, you have a lot of stats on how cap coding works, but here we dissagree. If it worked, the MPAA wouldn't be shifting it's efforts into high gear to fight piracy. Piracy would not be the BIGGEST PROBLEM in Hollywood today. But it is. I have seen a lees obtrusive form of Cap Coding on some films, so there are alternatives. And... The following is the opinion of Ted Costas and Dolby Labs: Cinea is on the right track. Now, back to Ted's personal rant: Most of the piracy comes from pre-release screenings (common knowledge), but if an un-obtrusive watermark would either "stop camcorders from recordng" or "stop home players from playing" pirated material, we would have something. It is nice to see the efforts of the entire industry getting behind the anti-piracy push... necessity is the mother of solutions, and in this case, we'll hopefully see an effective solution in the near future. Which is something I've never said about Digital Cinema... I'll see some of you at ShowEast. I'll be wearing a Cyan Dye Analog Carnation. Yours, Ted  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-25-2003 03:03 PM                     More ideas from me. I've pitched this before, but it was not taken seriously. I fail to see why this is such a hard thing to do... Have the security goon squad that is sent to the theaters to ensure that only the proper people are admitted and that they are fully "probed" do their normal basic check at the door, but also carry in with them a large infared sign that could be placed behind the perforated screen. Simply set it back there on a ladder or table such that when plugged in a number could be readable on any video camera trying to record the movie. It would be seen in the viewfinder of the bootlegger, and as such the idiot wouldn't even bother trying. I know it's a pain, but seriously, if the studios are paying these guys to go in there and create a false sense of security for their films, why not bring in a big 6 foot wide sign that can give a 4 letter code? The perforations in the screen would be enough to let it shine through. You buy the sign once and that's it, no further cost (except the goon squad). Studios just have to make sure they don't screen at any AMCs.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-25-2003 06:06 PM                        But many screens with baffle walls have no place for the sign to comfortably sit. It could work, but the LED's would have to be all around the center channel speaker because that's where the center of the image will always be. You couldn't simply zoom in and crop it out. It would be easiest just to have something like that permanently installed.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-25-2003 06:44 PM                     A panel like that should be small enough it could be slid in between a baffle wall and screen. So long as it was designed without any sharp corners or rough surfaces, it would be slim in depth and simple. Then the pirate goon squad could bring in a little IR camera and verify, say 3 times per screening that it was indeed lit and some evil cinema worker did not kill power to the outlet.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 09-25-2003 08:42 PM                        As I noted, IR blocking filters are available, so IR "jamming" could be thwarted.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-25-2003 10:47 PM                        Maybe it would be easiest to just murder anyone who attends a screening? Have them write up their reviews right there in the auditorium after the movie stops. Then they are swiftly murdered in their seats. Wouldn't matter if they had used an IR filter or not. That copy ain't gettin' nowhere.  |  IP: Logged Andrew Lee Film Handler Posts: 99 From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jun 2002 posted 09-26-2003 09:06 AM                     Brad, the idea you mentioned (and variations of) is being tested by one or two small companies at the moment. Camcorders can be defeated to some extent. Failing that I'm with Joe and his simplified plan of execution.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-26-2003 03:34 PM                     It's about time Andrew. I made that pitch to a few people a couple of years ago!  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-30-2003 02:10 AM                  From Variety: 9/30/03 Studios agree to nix award season DVDs By CATHY DUNKLEY Hollywood's studios have agreed in principle to the Motion Picture Assn. of America's proposal to ban the mailing of screeners of eligible films for this year's awards season. The decision has sparked fierce debate and opposition within the independent film community. Specialty label execs within the studios were quick to blast the plan as particularly detrimental to the smaller pics they are responsible for. "It's a sad day in Mudville," one said. Said another indie exec: "This has been a big conspiracy to make sure that the specialty companies don't participate in the Academy Awards. There will be no Pedro Almodovar winning best screenplay, because he won't have a chance." The majors reached agreement late Monday. Sony's vice chairman Howard Stringer was the last to sign off. MPAA chief Jack Valenti had no official statement. Agreement has also triggered intense debate within the studios, pitting CEOs against their own production executives. High-ranking production execs, though wishing to remain anonymous, were vocal about their opposition, saying they were against such an agreement as they feared it will hurt their chances come awards season. The high pricetags of many of 2003's year-end releases from the studios are understood to have increased worries about piracy. Studio honchos hashed out the particulars over the weekend after the MPAA floated a draft of the proposal last week. Intent of the ban is to combat film piracy, which has expanded with the recent advances in digital copying technology. One awards campaigner sighed, "It's the CEOs who are making this decision, and they're not awards people." In considering the pros and cons of screeners, the CEOs had to weigh the unknowables (how many Oscar noms can be directly attributed to a screener? Answer: No one can say) vs. the knowables (How much money is lost due to piracy? Answer: Hundreds of millions). One unanswered question is who will sign up for the screener embargo and whether the plan will extend to the true independents such as Lions Gate, Newmarket, Magnolia and ThinkFilm, which are not MPAA signatories. Reluctant compliance Miramax's Harvey Weinstein has agreed to the proposal reluctantly as has non-MPAA signator DreamWorks. Many of the majors and their indie divisions also have very expensive pictures set for release at the end of the year -- WB's "The Last Samurai," Fox's "Master and Commander," Sony's "Big Fish," Sony/ Universal/Revolution's "Peter Pan" and Revolution's "Mona Lisa's Smile" as well as New Line's "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and Miramax's "Cold Mountain." Adding to this concern is that pictures like Universal's "Seabiscuit" and Pixar/Disney's "Finding Nemo" have a potential advantage since their DVDs probably will already be in distribution. Their decision will also affect the economics of awards campaigns. The DVD-cassette duplication-shipping vendors will be the hardest hit. The studios will save money on mailings but will have to fork out more money for screening rooms. Many of the majors firmed their campaign budgets many months ago and firmed a number of screenings at that time. Now they presumably will be scrambling to set up others -- and available venues are hard to find. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has traditionally kept out of the dispute. Org has issued directives about the packaging of screeners but has never taken a direct stand on the phenomenon itself. For years, marketing and awards execs have been split over screeners, since every film (but particularly a big-scale one) loses something on the small screen. However, it seems clear that the smaller films, and the smaller companies, are put at a distinct disadvantage. A voting member of the Academy has limited time to attend screenings, particularly in a shortened awards season. (Oscar ballots are mailed Jan. 2.) Many agree that the studios' big-ticket items will be on the must-see list; after that, it's anybody's guess how many other films will be seen. One studio exec said this screener cease-fire was an opportunity to clean up the whole screener process, "cloaked in the name of piracy." The exec said the screeners had made everyone complacent. "They're a lazy way for marketing people to make sure their film is seen, and it's a lazy way for voters to see the film." Missing contenders On the other hand, one awards strategist pointed out that, in an abbreviated awards season, it's going to be impossible to catch every contender at a screening: "This year, there's a shorter time to see the films, and I guarantee a lot of these films are not going to be viewed." As a result, some studio chiefs had been faced with the dilemma of whether to issue a DVD or VHS screener to eligible voters prior to such a film's North American theatrical bow. © Copyright 2003, Reed Business Information... Link: http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleid=VR1117893206&categoryid=10&cs=1 >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-30-2003 02:58 AM                        quote: In considering the pros and cons of screeners, the CEOs had to weigh the unknowables (how many Oscar noms can be directly attributed to a screener? Answer: No one can say) vs. the knowables (How much money is lost due to piracy? Answer: Hundreds of millions). oh really. quote: Many agree that the studios' big-ticket items will be on the must-see list; after that, it's anybody's guess how many other films will be seen. so much for members' not being able to vote unless they've seen all the nominees. if it's a rule there should be some attempt to enforce it. carl  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-30-2003 03:58 AM                        This entire argument is based on the assumption that screening copies cannot be protected by digital watermarking, which, as we have discussed on this forum, can easily be done in a way that could be as specific as to inserting the name of each recipient in the watermark. Rather than all this gnashing of teeth, they should just hunker-down and use the technology that is already available to them or even design newer methods of security to make screener copies unusable for piracy. Hell, they seem pretty cavalier about ruining theatrical presentation by putting CRAP codes in release prints, maybe they should apply some of their crack security technologies to screener DVDs. Or do the Academy members think they are "above" seeing security marks in their screener copied? Besides, as has also been said here, it should be manatory that members actually go out to a theatre to see the FILM. Or is that too much of an inconvenience for Hollywood's privileged? Frank  |  IP: Logged Kevin Wale Expert Film Handler Posts: 167 From: Guymon, OK USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 09-30-2003 12:07 PM                     Count me as another who thinks video taping is not worth worrying about. No awful looking, awful sounding taping of a film is going to keep people from going to the theatres. I have never seen a video camera in a theatre in my life. If they just cut the screener DVDs, they solve the problem. I can't even remember how many pages of Two Towers Screeners were on Ebay. I mean, some dude started mass producing the things with DVD cases that looked totally real and sold them by the thousands. How hard to trace can that be? I bet that guy is not in jail too. The coding looks terrible. It seems that the better equipment a theatre has, (or the better set up the equipment is) the more noticable it will be. A dying bulb seems to not display the dots as well. So, you can diminish the effects of the ugly dots, but you ruin the rest of the film to do it. The dots on Matchstick Men were terrible looking. Something has to be done.  |  IP: Logged Michael Gonzalez Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 790 From: Grand Island , NE USA Registered: Sep 2000 posted 09-30-2003 02:12 PM                     So if they ban screeners and the result there of is that a movie like Finding Nemo or Seabiscuit have a potential advantage because they would already be out on DVD, than the obvious solution would be for the studios to release movies EARILER in the year rather than having 30 or 40 something movies released in a two month span at the end of every year. Sounds like a good plan to me. Edited to correct a typo [ 10-06-2003, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Michael Gonzalez ]  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  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.