|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The Single Worst Use of CAP Code, Ever: A Rant
|
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 08-09-2004 07:16 PM
quote: John Pytlak
I sincerely believe they are trying to make the newer versions less visible.
John, I have nothing but respect for you, so please understand this is not directed at you. But for the love of God, can we work out the kinks BEFORE implementing it??? How does Hollywood expect the exhibitor to have any kind of showmanship skills when they keep sending out films with gigantic spots purposefully on the image, and beeps in the soundtrack? Customers are paying in some cases over $10 a piece to watch this mess. Can some Hollywood director please take just a smidge of pride in his work, and demand that this crap stop?? Anybody?
sigh
We're talking to ourselves here. No one on this forum can say anything positive about the current version(s) of the CAP code, except that it does show up on videos and allow the pirate to be tracked... IF they actually record a coded print. I say we all start chopping frames out and sending them back to the directors, the producers, the studio execs, SOMEBODY, with a letter stating "If you want us to stop defeating you anti piracy stuff, start making it a little bit harder for us to find."
Ok, I'll go back to my happy life now. Sorry for getting all worked up.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 08-09-2004 07:34 PM
David Buckley says quote: David Buckley
Ahhh .. CrAP actually doesnt work, all of the time
But most people would acknowledge that - for example - the security screening at airports doesn't work all of the time (how many times have people deliberately proved that!); and drug testing in sport doesn't trap every crooked athlete; and seurity cameras in all-night convenience stores don't always help identify the robber (let alone prevent crime). But we still use them because (a) they are effective sometimes as a source of evidence, and (b) they possibly deter lawbreakers - to some extent.
I am NOT comparing "pirates" with terrorists, or drug "cheats". I'm simply saying that a tactic doesn't need to be 100% effective for it still to be a useful tool.
quote:
Thats a really interesting quote. Looking closely .......
quote: John Pytlak
-----------------------------------------------------
but may be more visible to the audience
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes, look closely. The report John was quoting (dated from late last year), is actually reporting on the situation to date, not on future proposals:
quote: David Buckley was the last to post
Several new proprietary Coded Anti-Piracy (CAP) watermarking codes that better survive poor illegal video copying and Internet distribution are being used, but may be more visible to the audience.
"are being used". No, David, it's not going to get worse as a result of this quote. As John points out, the distributors and labs are well aware of the concerns about visibility, and work IS being done to make it better, not worse. Wouldn't it be nice to make something totally sympathetic to the picture: someone suggested changing the registration plate on a passing car for each print: but unfortunately we are limited by the technology that is used - release printing doesn't afford that sort of option.
Finally, Brad, yes, I work at a lab. I'm very well aware of the issues and attitudes on _both_ sides of this. And I agree that there have been excesses in the whole anti-piracy thing. (For example the coding on post-DVD prints of LOTR.) Just as the hysteria from some of the posters on this list is excessive as well, but the criticisms are well-founded.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-09-2004 10:46 PM
I have some questions and answers for Thomas Procyk, though.
TMP, in your post from today, you said, "...the three prints of The Village which I saw that had them in the exact same place in the frame on each print. Two of the actors were talking in front of a white wall, and they appeared in a Z shape right in the center. All three prints, same shape, same spot."
Is it possible to be more concerete? I realize the subrun you project for didn't have 3 prints of The Village and so you probably cannot go and pull the three frames in question.
It stands to reason that the 3 prints at the venue in question are probably similar in print number. If the new CAP code system was designed in a simplistic fashion (which I'm afraid seems likely), it's quite plausible that similar print numbers will have similar codes Are you certain that a single dot was not positioned just a small bit differently? Without photographs of the CAP images from the 3 different prints, this is a hard conversation to have.
I've seen multiple prints of The Village and did not observe the CAP codes to be similar, and it is my recollection that the last one was more house-shaped than Z-shaped.
Please also see my Seasbiscuit CAP codes from p. 13 "MPAA, you suck!" They show two prints of Seabiscuit which do not have CAP coding in the same place. Also, the CAP coding is from Technicolor's lab, and is (IMO) significantly less obtrusive than the Deluxe-style CAP code. That difference shows that attention is being payed to the issue of visibility (if only through market forces).
Was The Village printed by TES or Deluxe (or both)? Unfortunately the FITA doesn't have this information. BVPD seems to prefer TES lab.
It is easy to imagine the labs being unable to precisely control the positioning of the CAP codes in time. We know the CAP codes are printed on the film stock before it is developed, and that the labs are imperfect at controlling their handling of undeveloped print stock. Cuts are not consistently made at the ends of reels, and if the CAP code printer is a seperate device, as it was for Kodak's CAP code, then its easiest choice is to synchronize with the beginning of the reel (if does any sync).
(Do most contact printers even have knowledge of frame-counts on the negative? I realize that anything that does color timing must, but I thought the printing from internegative to release print was often done with one light setting.)
Back on the 6th, Thomas asked several questions:
"If it is to decode the dots on a pirated copy that was made in the auditorium, how is it traced back to the perpetrator?"
CAP coding is a tool that is used by law enforcement, just like many other pieces of detective work (fingerprints, fuzzy memories of witness, etc.). It provides useful clues. I recall reading that CAP coding is rarely used as actual prosecutorial evidence, but it is used to help convict, catch, and prove degree of harm. I think you can expect that the management or employees of a theatre that has handled a print whose CAP-code has been bootlegged will be interviewed by law enforcement and/or studio representatives, and that that theatre will be watched much more closely in the future, or perhaps selected for other anti-piracy measures.
"Is it possible to track down the bootlegging facility by means of the CAP code, or does it simply prove the fact that the copy was made from the stolen print?" Of course you know that the CAP code only identifies a print uniquely, not when it was bootlegged.
"So if it has no clear method of apprehension, thus no clear purpose, and has been unsuccessful at what it was intended to accomplish, then it's useless."
This is fine as blustering, but it is clearly not a formally acceptable chain of logic.
Absence of a "clear method of apprehension" does not mean that there is "no clear purpose." It need not be clear to the public in order for the studios to find it effective, and the clarity of the method does not necessarily speak to the clarity of purpose.
Remember that, in part, CAP code acts as a deterrent. If pirates believe they can be traced to an individual theatre (and they can), they are less likely to bootleg there. (Unfortunately, this leads to the conclusion that CAP codes may continue even in the absence of demonstrable camcorder piracy in US theatres.)
Furthermore, lack of a public statement of "cl[arity] of purpose" does not mean "it has been unsuccessful." Because of the deterrent effect (real or imaginary), CAP code need not be "successful at what it is intending to accomplish" in order to be useful (i.e. "not useless").
Realistically, I believe the best chance of making headway on this issue is to convince studios that the pain associated with the new CAP codes is not worth the gain they may derive from them. Attempting to argue absolutes, like "CAP codes don't work," or "there is no camcorder piracy in theatres" misses the point. Even if those statements are true most of the time, it merely takes one example to disprove them, and there are more than a handful of examples available to do so.
I think progress is being made on this slowly. Not just through the reports John P. mentioned. There has been increasing mention of CAP codes in the nation's press, and I'm sure those F-T members who are able are lobbying as best they can in private.
--jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-09-2004 11:39 PM
On Satuday, Thomas asked for more details on John P.'s article citations. While I don't have access to most of them, I was able to bring up the 7/27/1987 article in Newsweek. It is, however, rather short on demonstrable details, as you would expect. But here are the last two paragraphs in full, which are really the only ones of much relevance to CAP or arrests.
quote: Newsweek. July 27, 1987, UNITED STATES EDITION
Copyright 1987 Newsweek
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 40
LENGTH: 1291 words
HEADLINE: A Scourge of Video Pirates
BYLINE: DAVID PAULY with CAROLYN FRIDAY in New York and JENNIFER FOOTE in Los Angeles
HIGHLIGHT: Fake tapes cost Hollywood $ 1 billion in revenues
[...]
Coded copies: The studios are also experimenting with secret ways to mark their movies to help investigators track down thieves. Warner Bros. last year coded 4,100 film prints of "Cobra" before they were sent to theaters. Later it found that pirated tapes discovered in 16 countries had been copied from just two prints. Agents then began investigating the theaters that handled these prints; the probe is still going on. Some studios code movies by inserting a few extra frames into each print. Video labs have tightened up, too. Technicolor, Inc., forbids employees to wear coats in the lab -- to prevent them from stuffing film into their pockets.
MPAA agents, led for former FBI man Richard Bloeser, have had some success bringing pirates into the dock. They recently caught a Brooklyn store owner with 6,000 pirated tapes in his possession; a judge ordered him to pay the MPAA $ 100,000 in restitution. In Paris, police have arrested 14 people suspected of involvement in a French piracy ring and confiscated 2,500 video cassettes, 500 "masters" and taping equipment. In Japan, copyright laws are being tightened and 57,000 illegal tapes were seized in the first five months of this year. Still, the most MPAA agents can usually do is get offenders to stop selling illegal tapes or sue them for civil damages. A criminal case requires the help of FBI agents, who more often than not are busy fighting more serious crimes. Given the difficulties, the best the industry may hope for is to keep video piracy from getting any bigger than it already is.
Copyright 2004 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
--jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
On this occasion, I'm glad its me that read it wrong there. There is (some?) hope...
Printer-friendly view of this topic