Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Freddy vs Jason Anti-Piracy Measures

This is topic Freddy vs Jason Anti-Piracy Measures in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005214

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 08-16-2003, 10:05 PM:

Anyone else notice the series of red "dots" in the film? They appear at random intervals throughout the print. Two scenes in particular

1) In the cornfield where the keg is cut open by Jason. Look at the left middle of the screen.

2) Where the daughter is arguing with her father on the stairwell in the house.

These are two of the scenes that I remember. I have no examined the film off the platter, as I didn't build it. These red 'dots" appear to be some sort of coding, but they are complete;ly visible to the eye. I can see them, my booth guys have seen them but when I questioned a patron whom I was sitting beside, they never saw them at all.

Anyone else care to add insight to this? I'm figuring it's another way of "coding" the prints so that bootleg versions can be more easily tracked down to regional locations?? We all know that most bootlegs come from screeners or employees with know-how anyway....

Anyone?

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 08-16-2003, 10:41 PM:

I noticed the exact marks viewing the film yesterday. Those are anti-piracy marks hopefully making it possible to track the bootlegs videos to the originating prints. Good luck!!

Don

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-16-2003, 10:44 PM:

Yeah, that's the CAP code, but the guys at the lab are REALLY overdoing it these days! The markings on this print was downright distracting. You know it's bad when regular Joes off of the street notice.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-16-2003, 10:48 PM:

It could be New Line's version of Cap Code. Cap Code was created by John Pytlak and his team to thwart evildoers. But Cap Code has an advantage and that's that it is hard to see unless you are looking for it. From the sounds of it, what New Line is doing is far more obvious and distracting. The only reason I can figure as to why they'd make it so visible is because most pirated movies end up on the net as a small crappy DivX file or whatnot. That may make it harder to see normal Cap Code, if you could even see it at all.

Of course if this is indeed copy protection, then it can easily be defeated. Since it is so easy to see, the movie pirate could just but up a "censor block" of some kind over the dots for those few frames so that the source can not be tracked down. Good idea but poorly implemented.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-16-2003, 11:13 PM:

The original CAP Code I helped Kodak develop for the MPAA could be repeated hundreds of time per reel, and never in the same place in the image, so simply cutting it out was impractical.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-16-2003, 11:21 PM:

Another reason why this new thing is pretty much ineffective.

Posted by Andrew Duggan (Member # 1302) on 08-17-2003, 12:42 AM:

As well as really annoying. I noticed this earlier tonight, and was both baffled and pissed off.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-17-2003, 01:05 AM:

I at first thought this was some gimmick with the print, that they were blood splotches (kind of like the subliminal shots inserted in Fight Club) but I thought they were too small, and then as the movie went on I figured it out and became annoyed with them.

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 08-17-2003, 05:46 AM:

They weren't red on the print I saw. They were black and VERY distracting.

I saw real obvious ones that looked like Tetris playing pieces.

Posted by John Carpenter (Member # 1488) on 08-17-2003, 11:23 AM:

All 3 of our prints had it too, but I think we mostly noticed it in only reel 3?? The looked liked reversed and upside down "L"s made up of dots in a red-orange color. In dark scences it was very annoying. I wonder if anyone called these in as defective prints [Wink]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-17-2003, 01:42 PM:

The studios are probably baffled as to why the dots they've been using the prints aren't showing up in the downloadable versions of their films, so they're starting to make the dots darker. Maybe they should try coding their screener videos the same way.

Yes, I noticed it also. Bright blood red, about two dozen times (no exageration) in the third reel. Mine all appeared to be strategically placed quick brite spots - like lightning flashes. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-17-2003, 05:18 PM:

quote:
Maybe they should try coding their screener videos the same way.

I suggested this in a different thread. John Pytlak said that would be too difficult (or something along those lines -- not an exact quote).

If the studios really ARE interested in vaquishing piracy, which they are not, then they WOULD code the screener videos.... individually. And it would be like the Cap Code: Used in different parts of the screen, only throughout the ENTIRE video instead of just a single reel or two. But since the studios don't care much about piracy, they don't feel that it's worth the effort to do this and stop the culprits. So obviously the studios cannot be serious about this piracy thing.

How much more stupid can the studios get?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-17-2003, 10:28 PM:

There was a print we ran recently (maybe HULK) that the image went completely white and BAM! there were the cap code dots. Thankfully, not on both prints in that spot, so that was the print that was despatched first.

Die Another Day was another one overloaded with cap code.

Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 08-17-2003, 10:40 PM:

from ananova.com

Movie bosses have formed a task force to tackle a £400 million film piracy racket in the UK.

Piracy increased by more than 80% in the past year, according to figures from the Federation Against Copyright Theft - with copies mostly of poor quality and often funding organised crime.
Fake DVDs of the second Tomb Raider movie The Cradle Of Life are already on sale on British streets - even though the film doesn't receive its UK premiere until Tuesday.
The task force will be chaired by Nigel Green of the UK Film Council and includes representatives of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, UK film producers, distributors, cinema chiefs and Equity. Its aim is to map out the extent of the problem and spot long-term solutions, such as toughening up the law.
Officials from the UK Film Council, which has co-ordinated the Anti-Piracy Taskforce, found the Tomb Raider II DVDs for sale for £5 each in London's Oxford Street.
A spokesman said: "They were shocking quality and there was no sound for at least the first five minutes." Seizures in 2002 were double those of the previous year with 659,000 illegal copies at a potential value of £10 million recovered.
One seizure in Hornsey, north London, netted 100,000 DVDs, worth an estimated £1,425,000, as well as computer equipment, artwork, and DVD labels, according to FACT. The products were traced to the Far East.
Piracy is believed to have cost the UK film industry £400 million in the past year, FACT says. Illegal copies are often sold at car boot fairs and street markets. They are well packaged to look like the real thing but often suffer from poor sound, colour and clarity.
UK successes such as Bend it like Beckham, Gosford Park and 28 Days Later have all been targeted by pirates while Hollywood hits The Hulk, Terminator 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean have been on the streets before a cinema release.
Around one in three videos purchased in the UK are believed to be copies, and the number of DVDs is rocketing. Fakes, which can usually be spotted because they have no BBFC classification, often fund crime syndicates.
Story filed: 09:11 Sunday 17th August 2003

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 08-29-2003, 10:52 PM:

There baaaack!

Really bad Tetris style markings now appearing in "Jeepers Creeprs 2"

This is really bad
THESE NEED TO BE STOPED NOW!

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-30-2003, 02:19 AM:

These oversize CAP dots seem to only be an issue on Deluxe lab work; has anyone seen differently? It's probably appropriate for someone to raise the issue to Deluxe.

Are these the same dots seen in the What are these spots? thread?

John P., you're probably the best person to do so. What data do you need that you don't already have?

--jhawk

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-30-2003, 03:17 AM:

It's not quite as bad as your example, but it's REALLY annoying. If I get the opportunity, I'll try and do a single frame grab of a recent CAP code example from a Deluxe print.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-30-2003, 10:42 AM:

I saw these dots on our print of Legally Blonde 2, they were as annoying as they were in Freddy vs Jason when I saw it.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 08-30-2003, 10:59 AM:

Saw them as plain as day on Freddy Vs Jason. Groups of red/orange dots. (one one reel mid film)

Never seen them at all before though.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-30-2003, 12:35 PM:

If everyone who gets prints with these obviously glaring marks would call up and reported defective reels and demand replacement reels for them, perhaps the studios would get the hint and reconsider putting invisible or barely visible CAPs on the prints as was the original concept.

Do you think the prints they use at the "star studded" premieres have orange and red dots all over them? I think not.

Frank

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-30-2003, 07:37 PM:

Various anti-piracy codes are in use. The decision as to which code(s) to use are decided by the distributor, the MPAA, and the lab. The labs are certainly aware of how visible a particular code may be, since they are the ones who are printing it. Kodak has no say in which code(s) are used on any particular release.

The original CAP Code developed by Kodak in 1982 tried to be as unobtrusive as possible, yet still survive typically poor video duplication or any attempt to defeat or spoof the code. By being unobtrusive, it could be repeated hundreds of time per reel and printed on every reel. The man-readable edge number was optional, and has been used less since the advent of SDDS.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-30-2003, 07:55 PM:

Frank said "If everyone who gets prints with these obviously glaring marks would call up and reported defective reels and demand replacement reels for them, perhaps the studios would get the hint and reconsider putting invisible or barely visible CAPs on the prints as was the original concept. "
I doubt they would replace it since they choose that style of marking. Probably they will just bill you for the minimum and yank the print back

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-31-2003, 09:56 AM:

If the CAP codes are specific to the print numbers, just switch and swap a bunch of reels if you get multiple prints of a feature. That will fix 'em! [evil]

Heck, I used to do that anyway to get a print all-heads or all-tails. [Smile]

=TMP=

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-31-2003, 10:35 AM:

John said:

quote:
The decision as to which code(s) to use are decided by the distributor, the MPAA, and the lab.

Figures the MPAA is involved in this feasco. Their never-ending campaign to make piracy the singular issue that will bring the industry to the brink of bankrupcy, not to mention making Jack (It's-A-Cancer-In-The-Belly-Of-The-Industry) Valenti's job seem relevant, allows them to be oblivious as to how these visible CAP marks ruin presentation -- who cares, as long as we stop PIRATES. Obviously if you conjure up this piracy mirage as be-all and end-all, well, hell, who cares if it ruins the work of hundreds of actors, technicians, the director, the DP and everyone else listed in the credit crawl -- to say nothing of the AUDIENCE!

On the one hand there is the bogus argument against film because after a few passes "it gets all dirty and scratchy and no longer 'pristine'", so chuck the projector and install DLP; on the other hand, these same people don't seem to mind that they purposely put BIG FREAKIN RED DOTS all over the image. What are these people on crack?!

Frank

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 08-31-2003, 05:09 PM:

I thought the red specks were intentional subliminal blood drop shots like you see in FIght Club. So it was copy protection?

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 08-31-2003, 11:22 PM:

What if we just removed the offending frames? (j/k) [Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-31-2003, 11:27 PM:

Pravin, that's what I thought at first too, it would have been a cool effect maybe, but obviously that's not the case.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-01-2003, 12:27 PM:

As far as I am concerned, it's a defective print and should be returned for a replacement. [Mad]

Frank

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 09-02-2003, 12:38 PM:

Maybe I haven't noticed them (CAP CODES) before, but now it almost as natural to see them as it is to see the changeover cues. The are really large brown dots that happen during scene changes.

Now, it makes it really hard to watch a movie without being distracted by these marks.

Paul

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 09-02-2003, 12:48 PM:

For me Freddy Vs Jason is the only film where I have seen any dots.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-02-2003, 01:36 PM:

The size of the tiny dots on the CAP Code Kodak developed in the early 1980's was only about 30 microns (0.03 millimeters) in diameter, and never in the same location in the image. You really had to be looking for them to see them on the screen, but our friends in the FBI and MPAA were pretty good at finding them in pirated videos, and verifying and decoding them.

Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 09-03-2003, 06:06 PM:

I have seen the codes in a few prints, but nothing was as bad as Freddy vs Jason. I remember seeing it about 5 times in as many minutes. One time the dots appeared RIGHT ON FREDDY'S FACE. It wasn't a close up shot (his head was only taking up a small portion of the screen), and it was the one part of the screen that everybody was looking at. I understand the need for anti piracy measures, but this is just leading to poor presentation. I am hoping this will not ruin my upcoming LoTR Marathon experience.

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy to be shown in theaters this December

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 09-05-2003, 03:14 AM:

I noticed it on reel 4 of Dickie Roberts tonight. I saw it about 12 times, but it was probably on there more that I didnt catch.

Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 09-05-2003, 04:43 AM:

I saw it about 3 times on Dickie Roberts. It wasn't very obtrusive. Nothing like Freddy vs Jason.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 09-05-2003, 08:49 AM:

I noticed them pretty bad for the first time on X2. I believe it was Reel 2 or 4, and there was a lot of white area in many of the scenes. There they were, "bloop, bloop, bloop" If I didn't know they were CAP code, I would think there was something wrong with the print or it was dirty.

The industry is shooting themselves in the foot. This logic of, "Let's mess up the print so that no one will want to copy it" is stupid. As if Digital and DVD needed one MORE thing going for them...

"Yeah, but on FILM you see those little brown and red dots everywhere, and those big ones in the corner every 20 minutes, and those little black ones all over the place...."

=TMP=

Posted by Jeff Klump (Member # 1870) on 09-05-2003, 04:29 PM:

The piracy measures are back again in "The Order". When will the insanity stop?

Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 09-06-2003, 01:06 AM:

Where is the best place to fire off an email complaining about this? I know it won't do any good, but I am going to do it anyway.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-06-2003, 04:35 AM:

Tom is right,

quote:
The industry is shooting themselves in the foot. This logic of, "Let's mess up the print so that no one will want to copy it" is stupid. As if Digital and DVD needed one MORE thing going for them...

.

It would be like the Movado watch company putting scratch patterns on their watches or Levi's putting a pattern of tears in their jeans to prevent knockoffs. It's a stupid idea and it's driven by a stupid compulsion that's perpetuated by

1) an old man who needs to prove to everyone that he is doing something to merit the money they pay him and the relevance of the organization he heads, namely the MPAA

2) this peculiar Hollywood ego thing where everyone there thinks the movie they just made is soooooo hot that all 50 million people who own camcorders will risk breaking federal law and FBI warnings plus incur a $100,000 fine/10 years in jail to steal movies....movies, one might point out, that before you can say, "Ahrrr, me mate-ies, 'tis a pirate's life," are out on DVD for $12.99....$9.99 in the bargain bin, which is less than the price of a ticket, coke and popcorn.

3) "movie pirate" stories are floated to the media over and over because it makes it seem like there is such an insatiable demand to see a movie that staggering numbers of people are willing to pay $10 to see a street copy made so poorly that it's akin to watching TV with bad rabbit ears in the midtown of Manhattan.

Truth is, the studio people, because they are never quite sure what is reality and what is a movie script, have actually come to believe this myth that piracy will bring their industry to its knees, and like someone struck with a mental illness, cannot stop obsessing about this non-reality. It also is a convenient way of shifting blame away from some of the awful crap that's churned out of that town. This process allows everyone in the credit crawl to believe that the reason their picture, say one like GIGLI, did not make any money was....piracy -- not that the picture sucked, but PIRACY; all those people buying pirated copies instead of buying tickets.

Ah, to be a shrink in that town.

Frank

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-06-2003, 06:31 AM:

Anti-piracy coding of prints has been very effective in tracking film piracy, often leading to the arrest and conviction of those involved. But I agree that the "watermarking" must be unobtrusive, and not obvious or easy to find.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 09-08-2003, 01:09 AM:

John,

I'm just wondering to what degree these "very effective" methods have been in capturing the true film pirates. The ones with duplicating machines and printed boxes, ones that are selling the bootlegs to generate a profit. Not just the occasional "Bob with a videocamera" or "Jimmy downloading from KaZZa" people.
You never hear about the big raids on the news. There aren't people with thousands of copies of Return Of The King waiting to be shipped. You just get the occasional guy selling the usual garbage on the street corner, and those dumb enough to buy it. Or some lonely teenager who took the time to obtain a copy, sit there and encode it on his computer, then compress it ten times over just to earn prestige in some chat network, and those dumb enough to download it.

And what do these stupid little dots all over the picture do anyway? So the "authorities" obtain a bootleg copy of a movie and watch it for the CAP code. Okay, so now they know they are watching a bootleg from print 3699 from the Local Multiplex. Then what? Arrest the management? Attempt to track down the patron who taped the movie two weeks ago? Tie up the projectionist with polyestar film? I fail to see what exactly we're "tracking" here... At least the coded numbers that pop up on Studio Screener tapes mean something. (Hint Hint)

Film piracy is as much of a threat now as software piracy was in the 80s and 90s. And the owner of a software company is now the richest man in the world. 'Nuff said.

=TMP=

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 09-08-2003, 06:32 AM:

CAP coding is put on by the labs, at the studios' request. The different labs have various (more or less similar) techniques, but the main problem is to make uniquely recognisable patterns that are robust enough to survive poor video, and, more importantly, high levels of compression, and yet not too obtrusive to the viewing public. Oh - and fitting the process into the already hopelessly short time allowed to get all the prints made:-(
Every single copy of a feature is coded - there are no exceptions for trial prints, check prints, show prints or any other prints - in particular it's those early prints that seem to be the subject of pirate copying, so it would defeat the object if they weren't coded. So, there's no point in sending coded reels back for replacement.
If you don't like the coding, or don't think it has any purpose, don't complain to the lab - get on to the distributor or the studio.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-08-2003, 10:30 AM:

quote:
If you don't like the coding, or don't think it has any purpose, don't complain to the lab - get on to the distributor or the studio.

YES YES, I blame the studio! Now we're talkin turkey!

And Dominic also said:

quote:
but the main problem is to make uniquely recognisable patterns that are robust enough to survive poor video

That's the point. This is sheer lunacy -- sheer,boadering on gossamer. They are ruining the presentation for ALL movie-goers based on the idea that a poor camcoder video copy is somehow going to bilk them of millions. It's a MYTH. Will a guy in a trech coat videotaping a movie in the theatre loose some money for them, possibly; will it be financially devestating to the profit line on that film? Come on. The bozos who will watch the result of that kind of copying probably so fringe that they wouldn't have payed to see it in the first place. And if the studios are claiming that the copying is being done in the theatre with more sophistocated equipment, then they are implying that a whole group of industry people have to be in on a conspiricy because you can't simply spirit away a 35mm telecine in your back pocket. It would be a piece of equipment that would be seen by lots of people, and most of them who are involved with the industry would have at least a marginal understanding of piracy....especially now with those very informative anti-piracy spots they play (there's no smiley face for sarcasm, or it would go here.) It's a LOT of trouble to make a good transfer and why would anyone do that? How much money could they possibly expect to return? I'll bet more money is lost by unscrupulous exhibitors who skim off the top. It's much less trouble to do that than set up a telecine and a distribution network to sell the stuff.

Sorry, IMHO, the argument that big, fat, VISIBLE CAP codes placed 7 and 8 times in one reel of a film are necessary to stop piracy is unconvincing. The studio has every right to protect its property, but not at the expense of the movie-going public who are PAYING to see the film. They are not the theives -- they are the GOOD guys and they deserve better than to have there film experience marred by a badly conceived security system. The original idea may have been a good one and the miniscule 30 micron CAP that Kodak designed might very well have been practically invisible, but the thing on FREDDY is as big as a feakin SUV. I say, get 'em out of the prints!

And last point. How serious can the industry be about anti-piracy when almost on a daily basis I see guys with suitecases of knockoff videos selling them on the street corner in Brooklyn? Go after THEM. Find out where they get their stuff and you'll find the priates. But don't ruin the theatrical presentation for the ticket buying public.

BTW, does anyone know who you report those vendors to? I called the police once but they seemed to only be concerned with the fact that the guy didn't have a vendor license. They just shoed him away.

Frank

Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 09-08-2003, 04:20 PM:

I have already sent an email to webmaster@newline.com, explaining how bad my Freddy vs. Jason experience was.
Now, I wonder if they will CAP code the two extended editions of Lord of The Rings, when they are released in theaters this Xmas. After all, at that time, they will both be available on DVD, and there will be no reason to copy them with a Video camera.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 09-08-2003, 11:37 PM:

There you go! They should release ALL movies on DVD first, before they go to theaters. That way, since they will already be on DVD, no one will want to copy them from the theater. Piracy will be stopped dead in its tracks! [Smile]

=TMP=

Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 09-09-2003, 03:12 AM:

If you let congress decide, that might happen [Big Grin]