This is topic MPAA, you suck! 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=005347

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-18-2003, 05:42 AM:
 
I have had enough of this recent overdone CAP code nonsense and don't know of any nice way to put it so I am just going to be blunt in the hopes someone at the MPAA with half a functioning brain cell reads this, comprehends the problem and does something about it.

Listen up guys, when regular customers complain during a movie about your friggin' overdone anti-piracy marks...KNOCK IT OFF!!! You are RUINING the moviegoing experience and KILLING our presentations! Just how big do you have to have those marks for them to be effective??? Why did the small, almost impossible to see marks work so well for so many years, yet as of 2003 that system had to be taken to such current extremes? Someone tell me why this is!

I am 100% for preventing movie piracy and have always done whatever is in my power to ensure that this does not happen, including personally confiscating tapes and cameras from people who tried to bootleg a movie in my theaters and providing tips to the studios as I get wind of them, but if the marks have to be this godamn obnoxious for the system to work, then it is time to find another system. My customers have started to complain about the random "reflections" and "splotches" in the picture it has gotten so out of hand lately.

This has got to stop.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-18-2003, 09:14 AM:
 
Is this stuff actually CAP coding (gone astray) or is it some new system?

Either way, it has to stop!

It's time for the MPAA to use this new crap on their screener tapes. Really, little magnets inside tapes are useless for piracy prevention. Make screeners with this new huge garbage or even print the screener recipient’s name and home phone number on the image. With a little engineering you could 'easily' do this with VHS screeners, it wouldn't be that difficult.
 

---

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 09-18-2003, 09:38 AM:
 
The rate that they're going, I honestly wouldn't be supprised to see a scrolling banner at the bottom or top, no wait, right though the middle of the movie asking patrons not to pirate this movie.

Of couse this wouldn't effect those that get a hold of screener tapes months ahead of the release, digitize them and post them on the 'net.

I'm too am doing all that's possible to prevent piracy, but come on guys, take a look at what's out on Kazzaa, its not someone with a camcoder sitting in the back of an auditiorium somewhere.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-18-2003, 09:45 AM:
 

quote:

---

Is this stuff actually CAP coding (gone astray) or is it some new system?

---

quote:

---

Do they put CAP coding on the DLP presentations?

---

Kodak has developed invisible watermarking technology for Digital Cinema:

Kodak Watermarking for Digital Cinema

Kodak Digital Watermarking Technology

Kodak Paper About Data Embedding Technology
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-18-2003, 10:10 AM:
 
More specifically, CAP code is not used on DLP presentaions. Just digital watermarking, if anything.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-18-2003, 10:15 AM:
 
The original CAP code Kodak developed for the MPAA is primarily used on film prints, although it could be transferred to Digital Cinema.

The new Kodak watermarking technology for Digital Cinema can carry much more information, including details like the specific projector and the date and time the unauthorized copy was made.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 09-18-2003, 11:22 AM:
 
Underworld has those marks too. It was almost as bad as Freddy vs Jason.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-18-2003, 11:57 AM:
 
Even I have noticed this more lately. And there doesn't seem to be any attempt to place it unobtrusively. Sometimes it repeats many times in the same reel, but never appears in other reels. Weird, very distracting, and probably not very effective in its goal.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 09-18-2003, 12:20 PM:
 
Perhaps we all should simply refuse to accept a print with these obviously distracting and presentation-marring 'codes'(read: defects), and DEMAND a new, 'codeless' print...and keep switching prints over and over until the studios and/or labs get a friggin clue!

I agree with you Brad! This does suck!

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-18-2003, 12:26 PM:
 
Good projectionists and caring theatres invest time & money to make sure that marks DON'T get on the films, and here we have the film companies putting distracting marks in films ON PURPOSE. Sheesh!
 

---

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 09-18-2003, 01:58 PM:
 
I first noticed this very obtrusive coding on freddy Vs Jason, and I'm seeing it more and more now.

These bozos STILL believe that the source material for pirate DVD's and VHS's comes from someone with a camcorder in the back of a cinema. I can't remember the last time I saw a pirate done that way. All the pirated stuff I've seen anything of in the last few years has been of very high quality, coming I suspect form within the distributors/studios. One DVD a friend showed me had text across the top of the screen that said something like 'NOT FOR RELEASE'. Now where else other than th estudio or it's staff can that have come from? Not from J. Bloggs with his camorder in the back of a cinema, that's for sure.
 

---

Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 09-18-2003, 02:03 PM:
 
I agree, the red blotches suck.

Annoyed the hell out of me on one of new Stars Wars movies (cant remember which, they were both bad) and it is really out of control on the English movie 28 Days Later (shot badly on digital cameras) but not a bad show for a Zombie film and Omega Man clone.

Seems to me they pick bright backlit scenes to do it, and also mostly towards the end of reels, as well.

It is embaressing to watch.

That said, I think they should get rid of reel change cues.

However I've never heard of a patron COMPLAIN about either of these things.

Bill.
 

---

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 09-18-2003, 02:24 PM:
 
John,

Good to hear that Kodak is not associated with this atrocity. Its becomming exceedingly hard for projectionist to "do film right" especially when is it compromised before we even get it.

I'm REALLY suprised that the directors are allowing their films to be marred in this fasion.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 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?
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 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").
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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?
 

---

Posted by Chris Trainor (Member # 9) on 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
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 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
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 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
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 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?
 

---

Posted by Chris Trainor (Member # 9) on 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
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 09-19-2003, 01:06 AM:
 
For clarification, these new CAP codes are only on Deluxe prints, right?

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-19-2003, 02:15 AM:
 

quote:

---

For clarification, these new CAP codes are only on Deluxe prints, right?

---

quote:

---

Who the hell cares if some cruddy copy from a camcorder hits the internet?

---

quote:

---

Hollywood Faces Online Piracy, but It Looks Like an Inside Job

By JOHN SCHWARTZ

When "Hulk" hit the small screen early, Hollywood hit the roof. Two weeks before this summer's film adaptation of the angry green giant opened in theaters in June, copies started showing up on file-sharing networks around the world. The film cost Universal $150 million to make and distribute, but anyone with a fast Internet connection, a big hard drive and plenty of time could see it free.

Advertisement

Hollywood is desperately worried that it will soon face the widespread illegal copying that has bedeviled the music industry — and that prompted record companies to file lawsuits last week against 261 people accused of illegally distributing copyrighted music online. Piracy of works in digital format, like DVD's or high- definition television is, in theory, so simple that whole movies could be zapped around the globe with a click of a mouse — a prospect that Jack Valenti, chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America, has told lawmakers "gives movie producers multiple Maalox moments."

But the early debut of "Hulk" was not the work of the armies of KaZaA-loving college students or cinephile hackers. The copy that made its way to the Internet was an almost- complete working version of the film that had been circulated to an advertising agency as part of the run-up to theatrical release. And "Hulk" is not alone.

According to a new study published by AT&T Labs, the prime source of unauthorized copies of new movies on file-sharing networks appears to be movie industry insiders, not consumers. The study is "the first publicly available assessment of the source of leaks of popular movies," according to its authors.

Nearly 80 percent of some 300 copies of popular movies found by the researchers on online file sharing networks "appeared to have been leaked by industry insiders," and nearly all showed up online before their official consumer DVD release date, suggesting that consumer DVD copying represents a relatively minor factor compared with insider leaks.

"Our conclusion is that the distributors really need to take a hard look at their own internal processes and look at how they can stop the insider leaks of their movies" before taking measures that might hamstring consumers' technologies and rights, said Lorrie Cranor, a researcher at AT&T Labs and lead author of the study.

The production and distribution process provide a better choke point, Ms. Cranor said, than antipiracy measures that could hamstring consumer electronics devices and computer networks. "If you're not going to worry about the insiders, it's kind of pointless to worry about the outsiders," she said.

The insiders might be workers in production or promotion, or even Academy Awards screeners, to whom the studios send thousands of advance copies of DVD's each year. "The movie industry ought to treat everybody within its influence equally, from studio executives and investors, down through movie editors, truck drivers and out to the critics," concluded Ms. Cranor and her coauthors, AT&T Labs researchers Patrick McDaniel, Simon Byers and Dave Kormann, and Eric Cronin of the University of Pennsylvania.

Ken Jacobsen, senior vice president and director of worldwide piracy issues for the motion picture association, said he had not yet seen the report, but added that its conclusions seemed off.

"The industry experience is the awards screeners are a source for piracy," he said, but primarily during the Oscar-judging season. "The industry experience also is, on a rare occasion, a copy gets out of a postproduction house and enters the pirate marketplace. And the industry experience is that a majority of movies enter the pirate marketplace as a result of illegal camcording" in theaters. Digital piracy, he said, is "a serious problem for us now."

Still, large-scale swapping of high quality, full-length films and HDTV programs is out of the reach of all but the most wired consumer because the files are gargantuan, said Raffi Krikorian, a graduate student in the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has researched the difficulty of digital copying.

However, Josh Bernoff, a principal analyst at Forrester Research, cautions that when the technology does grow robust enough for movie trading, consumers will almost certainly do it. In a recent survey of 12- to 20-year-olds published by the company, 20 percent said that they had downloaded a feature film. "I'd have to say when one out of five young people has downloaded a full length movie from a file sharing site, you do have a problem here," Mr. Bernoff said.

Advertisement

But the downloads were probably of low quality, he said, and the economic effect is "basically nil — there's no evidence whatsoever that people are not going to the theater or not buying DVD's or not renting videotapes because of this activity." Solid figures are hard to come by, but estimates in recent studies put the daily movie downloads between 350,000 and 400,000.

Like many experts in the field, Mr. Krikorian said that consumers were still several years away from being able to zip large digital video files to each other. Hollywood, he said, "shouldn't worry about Internet piracy now, because that's not feasible," he said. Instead, he suggested that the industry learn from the mistakes of the music industry and focus on building business models that will allow the companies to give customers what they want, "so they don't have to look like the bad guys, suing 12-year-old kids."

Much of that planning is already going on, Mr. Bernoff of Forrester said. Studio leaders "are absolutely determined that they will not allow to happen to them what has happened to the music industry," he said. They see video-on-demand through online distribution — if made easy to use and priced right — as being far more attractive than the hassle-filled process of video file swapping, he said. Studios might have to be willing to release movies to the Internet earlier than they would like to compete with pirates, he said, but a good industry strategy will "shut down the illegal distribution" by making it irrelevant.

While Hollywood is supporting new laws to toughen penalties to fight online piracy, it is also imposing better control over internal security. The case of the premature "Hulk" turned out to be a success story because federal investigators traced the online copy back through identifying numbers. The person who put the movie online, Kerry Gonzalez, had received an early copy from a friend at an advertising agency. He pleaded guilty to copyright infringement in June.

Ms. Cranor and her colleagues acknowledge that the industry has taken some steps, but concluded that substantially more could be done.

To Mr. Bernoff, those moves are crucial to any industry strategy for fighting digital piracy. "They have to mind their own store," he said.

---

quote:

---

Rather than give CAP code a bad name, we should come up with a separate name for this mutation -- I propose we start calling it "CRAP Code" until we get the real name of the process.

---

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 09-20-2003, 04:09 PM:
 
edited for spelling 9/21/03

Is it me, or does anyone else notice the fact that anyone outside the MPAA clearly sees the fact that the piracy issue involves industry insiders more so than paying movie goers with camcorders.

DVD rips that I have seen were not made from a camcorder. Jack Valenti needs to get his head out of his ass and see what is happening in the REAL world. Not the convoluted world he resides in.

to the MPAA for ruining the last few movies I've screened. Even in the gloomily dark print of 'Underworld' I still saw the damn CRAP CODE . Same thing with The Fighting Temptations. No wonder people are slowly deciding to wait until the DVD/Video release to see the films at home, in peace, with no CRAP CODE to annoy the piss out of them.

End of rant.

[ 09-21-2003, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Jason Black ]
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 09-20-2003, 04:20 PM:
 
Jason: Why is it clear? Do you have data to support your conclusions?

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-21-2003, 02:55 AM:
 
I hope the MPAA and Mr. Jack Valente will wake up and accept the fact that much piracy is done from within the industry itself - even before the movie is released in the main stream market.

But I would probably think his reply would be, "My little angels wouldn't even think of doing that."

Yeah, right!
 

---

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 09-21-2003, 09:05 AM:
 
When they release copies to the trade folks, they should put individual codes on each copy. Then they would know for sure where the copies came from.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-21-2003, 10:00 AM:
 
Bah...forget that. If someone needs to review a film they should watch it on film (and pay me to screen it). There are some studios that refuse to give out screeners except possibly at awards time when many of the films will have already come and gone from theatres. "Screenings not screeners!" is one of the little blurbs I have for the bottom of my invoices.
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 09-21-2003, 12:15 PM:
 
Jhawk,

Raw data? No.

16 years of personally walking auditoriums during shows, monitoring crowds, etc... and I've not ONCE seen anyone filming a show! I have, on occasion, prohibited folks from taking camcorders in past the lobby. My theatre is situated in an outdoor shopping/dining/entertainment attraction and we are also in one of the top visited travel destinations on the East Coast. I have no reason to believe that the persons I have stopped actually planned to tape the movie. The few have always been more than respectful enough to leave the equipment in our office or return them to their vehicle.

The stuff I've seen online, for example, simply could not have been 'filmed' on a camcorder inside the theatre. The quality was just too good. No ghosting, flicker, background noise, nothing. If someone can explain to me how this is possible to accomplish prior to a film even being released to theatres (limited or wide) I think Mr. Valenti's overly hyped 'theatre video taping' myth would be exposed for what it really is, a thinly veiled attempt to shift blame to the theatres and not accpet the fact that there are, in fact, problems within the distribution side of the industry. You know, like the Democrats do....
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-21-2003, 01:22 PM:
 
Jason, I certainly agree. Thank you.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 09-21-2003, 01:34 PM:
 
Jason: Thanks for clarifying.

I think you should not say something is "clear" unless you actually have evidence to support it.

It is my understanding that the industry's focus is in fact not on online piracy, but rather on mass-produced pirate DVD/VCDs, of which the majority are distributed overseas.

That you have never seen a camera in a theatre is not really representive. It only needs to happen in a very small number of places in order for it to balloon out of control, especially when it involves elements like organized crime, or complicit theatre management/staff, etc., etc.

The MPAA (studios, etc.) clearly acknowledge there are multiple sources for piracy, including both taping in theatres as well as leaks within the studios and screener tapes. I'm sure they're pursuing all possible angles.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-21-2003, 02:36 PM:
 

quote:

---

John Hawkinson wrote:
I'm sure they're pursuing all possible angles.

---

quote:

---

John Hawkinson also wrote:
The MPAA (studios, etc.) clearly acknowledge there are multiple sources for piracy, including both taping in theatres as well as leaks within the studios and screener tapes.

---

Why is it clear? Do you have data to support your conclusions?
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 09-21-2003, 10:49 PM:
 
John,

I can tell you now, before this goes back and forth much further, that, you are, in your reasoning and or beliefs (whichever you prefer to call them/it), in the minority.

Is there a problem with piracy? You'd better believe it. Does it originate at the theatre level as Jack Valenti would have you believe? Doubtful. I've spelled out *my* reasoning in my prior post. I'll give you credit, in that it does only take one person 'videoing' the movie with a camcorder to turn out thousands of pirated copies of a film. However, if there was never a sneak to the public prior to the initial release, what does that tell you? It damn sure wasn't John J. Public who sat sat there with his trusty JVC helping the pirating empire.

The Hulk, for example. Found on the web, what, two weeks prior to initial release? You didn't explain to me how such high quality (pirated) copies are available prior to theatrical release, whether limited or wide. Allow me to spell it out a little more *clearly* I-n-s-i-d-e-r-s in the creation/distribution side of this industry. Until there are ramped up efforts to weed out those deepest inside the industry we will continue to suffer from lost revenues, across the board. My single biggest complaint in simply that the MPAA is placing far more blame on the theatre level than they are in their own backyard! On top on our 'Babysitting - Quality assurance - Complete Customer Satisfaction - Mediator - Security Control - Quality Presentation - Income security' duties we now are 'Anti-Piracy-Eliminators'. Phffttt...

What I, as a local level theatre manager, want to concentrate on is ensuring that my patrons see the best presentation our theatre can offer. EVERY TIME THEY COME. It has gotten to the point that, quite honestly, I can't accomplish even this one fundemental task due to the placing of hideous CRAP CODE sporadically thoughout the prints. Like I said earlier, can one really wonder why John J. Public desires to sit at home and watch a flick on DVD, often with superior sound and overall comfort?

Someone needs to, somehow, shake the shoulders of the MPAA, as well as the distributors, producers, directors and actors/actress' so that they may, for once, see the effect that this new CRAP CODE will ultimately have on their own personal livelyhood...

Do you disagree? Does anyone disagree?
 

---

Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 09-22-2003, 12:00 AM:
 
Perhaps screening copies are the appropriate place for the self-destructing DVD's.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-22-2003, 12:17 AM:
 
Better yet, maybe the MPAA should point their finger at themselves instead of the theatres. Just like corporates....the higher they are in the chain of command, the more corrupt they are. That has been proven many times over.

Some of the dot coms and telephone giants come to mind....
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-22-2003, 12:44 AM:
 

quote:

---

Perhaps screening copies are the appropriate place for the self-destructing DVD's.

---

quote:

---

Types of Piracy
...
VIDEOCASETTE PIRACY
Camcording
Screeners
Back-to-back Copying
...
THEATRICAL PRINT THEFT

---

I think that just about covers it.

Jason, you're quite right that piracy prior to the release of the movie either involves screener tapes or piracy at trade screenings or similar. As above, I'm sure the MPAA is well aware of this.

You go on to ask, "Someone needs to, somehow, shake the shoulders of the MPAA, as well as the distributors, producers, directors and actors/actress' so that they may, for once, see the effect that this new CRAP CODE will ultimately have on their own personal livelyhood...¶Do you disagree? Does anyone disagree?"

Not really, but I recognize it is a lot more complicated. The people who make the decisions about whether to apply CAP code or not are probably not the most technical folks, and the pressure on them is really high to make sure that they are producing results.

I doubt the MPAA is really the place to fight the battle. As I understand it, the problem in this case is that Deluxe has developed a CAP code which is much more intrusive, and their studio clients request they apply it. Properly getting to the bottom of this probably involves careful and polite communication with people at Deluxe to find out what's going on and why, and any effort to change it probably involves a request through one of their studio clients. I suspect it is a careful political battle and one that is hard to have in public view on a web site like this, hence the lack of response from John P.

With respect to screeners, I am under the impression that non-Oscar screeners are under pretty tight distribution, and may be individually coded. Piracy due to Oscar screeners is detectable because Oscar screeners tend to only come out within a relatively narrow range of dates.

Back on page 3, Joe says "There aren't any codes on screener tapes and DVDs, except to say "please don't copy"." How sure of this are you? Even if screeners don't have a unique code, there's value in them having a distinctive way to differentiate a screener-derived pirate copy from some other origin. I'd be surprised if there was not a way to tell beyond the blatant text at the bottom.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-22-2003, 02:46 AM:
 
I've sat quiet long enough here. Rant mode on...

Jhawk, before you continue sucking all of the juices out of Jack Valenti's ass, can you tell us what precisely the MPAA is doing for the theaters and our presentation? Please be specific.

I've got to tell you, if the MPAA did only one thing to make people happy, they should get rid of Jack Valenti. I have yet to meet anyone who likes him past the point of tolerating him. I can safely say most people I've spoken to when the subject of the MPAA came up flat out detests the man. I don't know about you, but I can do without his screaming rants about how evil everyone is in the world and how many bazillions of dollars is lost on each movie that is pirated (yeah, never mind if the movie SUCKED and that's why it didn't do any business!) He puts strong emphasis toward the theaters as if it is WE who are the main cause of all this bootlegging. As has been noted many times here, most of the dupes are from studio screeners and very often these dupes appear before the movie hits theaters!

So then it's got to the the fault of the trade screening theaters, huh? Well the trade screenings have really gotten out of hand, no doubt thanks to the MPAA and Valenti's constant ranting. Did you know they are now using the metallic "wand" sensors on people before they enter the auditorium for these screenings? Yup! The airport isn't bad enough, we now have to treat everyone (even movie critics who we want to be in a good mood when they view the product) as if they are criminals...and it's not even effective!

Just last week there was a local screening where they were wand-probing people entering a screening auditorium, and even though the metal detector kept going off, they let the people go through anyway without further investigation. WHAT'S THE DAMN POINT???

Besides, these security people they send into the booths to "protect" the film have no friggin' clue as to what they are supposed to be looking for. Think I'm kidding? Try this one (I like to see just how intelligent the security is)...place a blank VHS tape in the slide port window the day before the show, such that it is hidden in front of the projector. When the movie is over and the guy is semi-paying attention to you but not standing right behind you, walk over to the window, pull the tape (sliding it on the port to make some noise) and then walk right by him over to a table where you then put a label on it and write the movie title that just screened in large enough letters that they can read it and leave it on the table. Will they even do anything? NOPE! Fucking useless! Those security checkers are nothing more than a false sense of security for the MPAA and the studios. Try the tape test. Try putting some metal in your pant pockets. I'm not kidding. They are that dumb.

Regarding screeners, I have spoken to several people regarding this and all of them have admitted there are no copy-specific markings on the DVD/tape. Hell, even if there was and the few people I've spoken to were unaware, if the MPAA wants to deter piracy then it needs to be blatantly obvious on the screen to anyone viewing it, duping it and buying it. As I recommended to them, just how hard would it be to burn in the person's name in the corner of the screen that it was to be delivered to? Not hard at all! In fact, Disney used to do this (and still may) on all of their workprint animated tapes. The funny thing about those Academy screeners are that they are EVERYWHERE! If the MPAA is going to do something about preventing bootlegging, then they should put their foot down and not allow ANY Academy screener tapes and DVDs from now on. The Academy members should HAVE to go to an actual 35mm presentation to screen the film, or they may not vote on it. Of course that would be smart, so that clearly won't happen. Beside, no Academy member would dare let their copy of a movie out of their hands where it could be copied, right?

So all we hear from Jack is bitch, bitch, bitch, whine, moan, yell, scream, insult, point the finger, etc, etc, etc and what do we end up with? A new super evil version of the CAP code! If this is completely Deluxe's fault, then I would like to know who is responsible. However I don't see our pal Jack putting forth any effort into walking over to Deluxe and pointing out to the higher-ups that the new incredibly obnoxious CAP code is destroying our presentations! (While he's at it he could point out their low quality printing in general too.) Instead all I see him doing is screaming at everyone during his speeches, not giving a damn about the presentation we all work so hard to put on to our patrons. (Remember, that is the point of this thread.)

I won't even begin to get into those super lame anti-piracy trailers the MPAA was just pressuring theaters to run. What a great idea. Let's pick on the people who just PAID to see the movie in a THEATER and shove it in their face. Ummmm, hey Jack, your audience that trailer is preaching to are the HONEST PEOPLE!

Jack, your approach to the problem is only angering people and the attempts thus far to help the situation are a joke. If you refuse to retire, at least put forth some of that anger-energy into getting the studios to use an anti-piracy marking system that isn't so distracting from our presentations. The original CAP code worked fine and was not so obtrusive to the "good folk" who paid to see the film.

Alright Jhawk, I just did my public bit to Jack Valenti in the only way I figure he can understand, direct, rude, and annoying. Now it's your turn to call up Deluxe and get them to stop their CRAP code and make sure when you are talking to them to get them to fix the registration issues with their printing. I'm sure you will succeed with your delicate touch, because they care. For the sake of everyone's presentations, prove me wrong.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-22-2003, 04:14 AM:
 
Re: The MPAA Anti-Piracy trailer:

As has been mentioned before, this will not reduce piracy. If someone is determined to pirate a movie, no warning will deter them. You know those FBI warnings on videos? Think that stops any piracy? Nope. In order to understand the pirates, you must think like one. And trust me, they don't care about signs and onscreen warnings, etc. If the trailers become commonplace, then people will ignore them just like the FBI warnings on videos. Has anyone actually read one of those FBI warnings? People will just start their camcorders AFTER the trailer plays, if that's the way they want to pirate a movie.

If movie piracy is stopped to the point of being almost a non-issue, I expect to see movie profits SOAR. Seriously. If overall income does not go up by significant amounts, then that will be admitting that piracy is not as much of an issue as Jack would have us believe. Does anyone here think studio profits would jump significantly if piracy were stopped 100%? I'm talking an increase of at least 5 to 10 million per movie here. If you do believe this, please state your reasons why, with detail.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-22-2003, 01:18 PM:
 
Joe said:

quote:

---

Does anyone here think studio profits would jump significantly if piracy were stopped 100%?

---

I don't think it would for three basic reasons.
1. I have never seen a pirated movie.
2. Many of the movies produced today are garbage. They should pay me to watch them.
3. If someone thought I was going to download or pay for a crappy copy of some crappy movie from some sleeze-box web site, that person who thinks that is nuts!

When did the movie Titanic hit the market? That was almost 6 years ago. Well, since that time I bought 4 DVD's. Those were Titanic, Dazed and Confused, Detroit Rock City and Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

And yet, I run the damned things. You would think that of the numbers of movies I have run over the past 6 years, I would have purchased more. NOT!!!!

I have more important things to waste my money on.

Hey - we forgot something. Promotion DVD's. I have one here that was just that. Six Days and Seven Nights. Here is the promotional copy. I am sure this cost the studios Billions of dollars in lost revenue because of this being a free copy. That's why I have mine. It was free.





Notice the little tag "Not For Individual Sale"

Mr. Valente, please get off our butts. We are not the problem. You know where the problem is....maybe we would support you a little better if you would support our efforts. Obviously, you are not doing that.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-22-2003, 01:31 PM:
 
Paul: The studio is paid for the rights to use a film for those "free" promotional videos. I got "Muppets Take Manhattan" and "Buddy" DVDs packaged with boxes of cereal. I got five promotional DVDs when I bought my DVD player three years ago.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-22-2003, 01:44 PM:
 
John, that is interesting. Who pays the studio?
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-22-2003, 01:47 PM:
 
Best Buy, Kelloggs, Sony, or whichever company is running the promotion.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-22-2003, 02:02 PM:
 
They must really be getting a sweet deal from the studios. I wonder how much it is for an individual title movie.

If I had to pay a dollar per copy to a studio and ran off 1 million DVD's I would at least like to get my investment back, that's for sure. Can't do that if I give them all away with no charge. Most of those movies are duds anyway.
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 09-22-2003, 02:08 PM:
 
I wonder if DeLuxe could (or would) do anything to alter the method of producing CAP-coded prints if they weren't instructed to do so by those paying for the prints? How could they, by themselves, alter an existing CAP 'application' system (if that's what it's called), without approval (and compliance) of their customers??

Since this seems to have happened very recently, and if it's the case that they're the only lab doing it, I wonder what their reason was for changing the process so suddenly?? Also, is DeLuxe Toronto following along on prints headed to the U.S. (Gawd, I hope not, since I think their prints are vastly superior to D.H.)??

Possibly the studios don't care at all what the coding LOOKS like, as long as it's there???? Doesn't seem likely to me.

Ron Yost
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-22-2003, 02:16 PM:
 
John Pytlak and/or Kodak should sue for patent infringement or defamation of character!!!!

Can you sue for "sabotage"
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-22-2003, 02:26 PM:
 
As stated previously, choice of which of several anti-piracy coding technologies is used is made by the distributor, the lab, and the MPAA. Kodak is not involved in that decision.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 09-22-2003, 03:36 PM:
 
I pretty much agree with everything Brad wrote. I do have one comment about the anti-piracy trailer. This doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother you. The purpose of this trailer is not to stop pirates -- as you've said, obviously they're going to continue to steal and copy films.

The purpose of the trailer is to make the public understand that free digital downloading of movies, which hasn't happened much yet because the technology isn't there, is illegal and has ramifications. They're trying to brainwash the public into this understanding so they don't face the same problems that the record industry is now facing. Will it work? Probably not. Is it offensive? I really don't believe it is...it's not threatening, it's low key and it focuses on people behind the scenes who work in the industry. I have not detected a negative reaction to it by patrons in a theater.

Meanwhile, I never thought that Academy voters should be permitted to vote on a film unless they saw it in a theater. How can one compare watching a film on television, frequently in mono, with experiencing it in a theater, especially if it's distributed on VHS. If they're too lazy or too elitist to see it in a theater, they should lose their voting credentials.

And I don 't understand how the CRAP code is going to stop camcorder recording of films. So let's say you know it's print 142 and it was playing at the Main Street theater. How does that affect the person on the street who is selling these illegal copies? It's easy enough to tell that these are pirated copies..what difference does it make which theater it came from? I still maintain that such a cruddy version of a film doesn't negatively affect theater revenues anyway.
 

---

Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 09-22-2003, 04:05 PM:
 
If the film is put on the internet before it is released in theaters, it tells you it was an inside job, and knowing which theater had that film could help. However, if the movie was put on the internet after release, then it could have been anybody who watched that film, and I find it hard to believe they can blame a particular person at the theater. At best, they can get mad at a manager, for not having the ushers do enough theater checks to notice somebody taping the movie.
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 09-22-2003, 04:32 PM:
 
"If they're too lazy or too elitist to see it in a theater, they should lose their voting credentials."

Amen, Martin.

Ron Yost
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 09-23-2003, 11:38 AM:
 
further, if they're too lazy to watch _all_ the films nominated in a particular category (in a theater), they should not be voting on that category. hard to enforce, i know. but the academy could at least help out by setting up real screenings of nominated films in the weeks before voting (maybe this really happens? i don't know.). this would help deserving films win on their own merits, rather than the films with the biggest campaigns.

on the other hand, the oscars have way too much clout as it is and don't need the boost that apparent legitimacy might provide.

carl
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-23-2003, 11:49 AM:
 

quote:

---

...the Academy could at least help out by setting up real screenings of nominated films in the weeks before voting (maybe this really happens? i don't know.).

---

Yes, it really happens. Special Academy Screenings are held in theatres in the key production cities. AFAIK, Academy members are also allowed free admission to any theatre upon presentation of their membership card (it's usually indicated in the movie ads during that time).

If I was a member of the Academy, why would I ever want to see a film on television rather than in a really good theatre?

Of course I wish that anyone that has received an Academy Sci-Tech award would be eligible for this privilege.

http://www.film-tech.com/trailers/filmtechpytlak.html
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-23-2003, 11:53 AM:
 
I agree -- these are movies, not videos. Academy members should be required to see them in theatres, not on VHS or even DVD on a $300 Apex TV.
 

---

Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 09-23-2003, 12:51 PM:
 
Darn,

In 1978 I allowed some students to film 'your the one that I want' from GREASE on Super 8.

I've always felt bad that I let that happen.

However these days people can 'tape' the movie from their cell phone, how do you stop that?

Bill
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-23-2003, 02:23 PM:
 
Gee, I remember buying a bootleg Super-8 reel of that song from "Grease" from a street vendor in Times Square in 1978! Always wondered where it came from.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-23-2003, 07:32 PM:
 
Ok John, I'm calling Jack (Valenti) tonight and telling him about your support of bootleggers! Since he is my close personal friend, I'm sure he will be most interesed in your admission of guilt.

BTW: You had 2 more months and the statute of limitations would have run out!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-25-2003, 01:43 AM:
 
I especially like the last line. Nah, I'm sure none of them thar members would EVER give out tapes/DVDs to others that might make a copy of it. That would just NEVER happen! The bootlegs are all coming from Joe Blow and his camcorder in the theatres! That guy just doesn't know what he's talkin'!

>>> Phil

From Variety:

---------------------------------------------------------------


Posted: Wed., Sep. 24, 2003, 8:54pm PT

quote:

---

Bye bye screeners

---

quote:

---

Variety/Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. said:
The majors have weighed alternative plans, including disposable DVDs (which are unviewable after a limited amount of time) or "fingerprinted" copies (which include initials or a number on the screener, making the source easier to trace). But, for various reasons, those have been rejected.

---

quote:

---

John Hawkinson wrote on page 4:
Back on page 3, Joe says "There aren't any codes on screener tapes and DVDs, except to say "please don't copy"."

How sure of this are you?

---

quote:

---

Reston Firm Sees Future in Fighting Movie Piracy

By Ellen McCarthy
Thursday, September 25, 2003; Page E01

Cinea Inc. is only three years old and some of its ideas about video and film piracy protection are years away from commercial use. But the film industry's growing alarm over piracy put Cinea squarely in the sights of acquirers.

This week, Dolby Laboratories Inc., a firm that created the digital standard for film sound and is eager to exploit the revenue possibilities of digital film, bought Reston-based Cinea. The deal between the private companies (neither would disclose the terms) was as good an endorsement as Robert Schumann, co-founder and chief executive of Cinea, could have hoped for.

"From our perspective, [Dolby is] the best way to move this business forward," Schumann said. "They bring expertise, financial resources, but mostly they bring great relationships in Hollywood and in the consumer domain around the world."

Internet piracy is a far less pressing problem in the movie industry than it is for music companies, but that may not hold true for long. Theater executives fear that as high-speed Internet connections become more prevalent, the exchange of pilfered movies could skyrocket.

"It's something that studios not only are taking seriously, but it's got to be one of the main initiatives. We're all doing everything we can to avoid the fate of the music industry," said Ronald C. Wheeler, senior vice president of content protection for Fox Entertainment Group. "We're definitely afraid it's going to come to that, and more quickly than people realize, unless we take action now."

Dolby's purchase gives Cinea the money to develop and market its products, Schumann said, and something potentially more valuable: Dolby's Rolodex of contacts in a worried movie industry.

Schumann is a veteran of Digital Video Express, a Richmond subsidiary of Circuit City that tried to sell encrypted DVDs. The special discs could be viewed for a certain period of time and then shut off, allowing viewers to pay a lower fee to watch a movie without having to return it to a rental store. The technology never took off and Digital Video closed in 1999, but the industry's struggles with piracy continued to interest Schumann.

Rather than continue to focus on protecting consumer copies of movies, Schumann decided his new firm would offer products that shield specially screened versions of films for large audiences. Cinea's first product encrypts videos shown on airplanes and in hotels so that they can be played only on equipment sold by the company. If, for example, an airline employee tried to make a copy of a movie, the copy would not play on a normal DVD machine.

The company, funded by a $2 million investment from Monumental Venture Partners LLC of McLean, also developed a "lock-and-key" technology so that movies transmitted to theaters digitally can play only on approved machines at predetermined times. The system protects movies from being hijacked during satellite transmission, or downloaded from theater computers.

Cinea's latest product, which it expects to test this fall, puts individual tags on DVDs sent early to screeners or reviewers, so that if copies are made and put on the black market, they can be traced to their sources. Schumann said several major studios are already using its technology.

The product that could put Cinea on the map is several years from completion. But if it works as Schumann hopes, camcorders in movie theaters -- a low-tech but nettlesome form of piracy -- will become a thing of the past.

Last year Cinea won a $2 million grant from the National Institute of Standards and Technology to create a system that distorts the images recorded by camcorders. The company is working on a special projector, called CamJam, that takes advantages of the differences between images visible to the human eye and those captured by the recorders. Many movie theaters still play reels of film, but the industry increasingly is moving toward digital technology. Cinea's projector, designed to work with digital movies, would emit rays of light and other images that are invisible to viewers but make stolen copies worthless.

"Your video would have a bunch of disturbance, flickers, motions. We're trying to disrupt the value of that image," Schumann said. "No venture capitalist would pay for the research that needs to be done, but if we can get this research done -- and we believe we can -- then the technology will have tremendous value for American industry, particularly Hollywood."

The industry is clearly eager for a solution, claiming that piracy deprives it of aftermarket revenue that can make the difference between a film being profitable or unprofitable.

"It's a problem for all major studios, the directors, writers -- but most of all the people who work in the business in post production and at Blockbuster stores. People who are not high-wage people -- their livelihoods are put to hazard if we can't find a way to deal with this thievery that is going on," said Jack Valenti, president and chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America.

For Dolby, the acquisition is a departure from its traditional lines of business. The San Francisco-based company mainly holds patents on audio technologies, especially noise-reduction equipment. Its Dolby Digital sound system is used on almost every major studio film.

"We see content security as just becoming ever more important in the areas that we do business," said Tim Partridge, vice president of Dolby's professional division. "Our studio customers keep telling us that piracy is their biggest issue of the day. . . . We want to continue to be a major player and we believe that in order to do that, you need to be familiar with security.

"The more we became involved with [Cinea], the more we realized that they had some real expertise, as well as some interesting technologies," Partridge said.

Cinea will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Dolby and remain in Reston. Schumann will be president of the 15-employee subsidiary. Executives Laurence Roth and Jeffrey Segal will also stay.



Robert Schumann, chief executive of Cinea, demonstrates the company's technology for discouraging people from using camcorders to make copies of movies in theaters. (Gerald Martineau -- The Washington Post)

---

 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 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
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 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
 

---

Posted by Ted Costas (Member # 473) on 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
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 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.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-25-2003, 08:42 PM:
 
As I noted, IR blocking filters are available, so IR "jamming" could be thwarted.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Andrew Lee (Member # 1330) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-26-2003, 03:34 PM:
 
It's about time Andrew. I made that pitch to a few people a couple of years ago!
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 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
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 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).

---

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
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 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
 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 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 ]
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 10-06-2003, 01:15 PM:
 
So, Ebert published Steve K.'s letter in the Sunday's Chicago Sun-Times, and it got slashdotted as MPAA Ruins Own Films as Anti-Piracy Measure this afternoon. 395 comments and following.

--jhawk

[ Edit: sun-times link removed, you can find it in the slashdot post.]

[ 10-06-2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: John Hawkinson ]
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-06-2003, 02:22 PM:
 
Provide the text to the news article with credit, John. Those news links do not last forever. Check the FAQ. (Slashdot is not included, as it is not a news site.)
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-06-2003, 03:23 PM:
 
Here's the full text as published in Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man, which is located at http://www.suntimes.com/index/ebert.html.

Q. Have you been seeing spots when you go to the movies? It may not be your eyes! More than 20 years ago Kodak devised a system called "Cap Code" designed to uniquely mark film prints so that pirated copies could be traced to the source. Cap Code uses very tiny dots that flash occasionally but are so small that the average viewer almost never notices them.

Well, something new and horrible has been introduced on some studios' prints. Sort of a giant picture-marring version of Cap Code dots: Very large reddish brown spots that flash in the middle of the picture, usually placed in a light area. They flash in various patterns throughout a given reel while other reels of the same film may have none at all.

A Kodak spokesman who helped devise the original Cap Code says this is not the work of his company but theorizes that it may be intended to be more visible on the murky compressed copies that get posted to the Internet where the original, very subtle Cap Code may be difficult to discern.

On one movie technical forum they are referring to this new system as "Crap Code" or "Cap Code on Steroids." There are reports coming in of viewers complaining of the spots on the pictures. While theaters strive to keep prints free of dirt and scratches, Hollywood starts sending out prints with built-in marring. Among the films known to be afflicted are "Ali," "Behind Enemy Lines," "28 Days Later" "Freddy vs. Jason" and "Underworld," probably many others as well.

Steve Kraus, Chicago

A. You're the expert projectionist at our Chicago critics' screening room, with a fierce love of high-quality film, so I can imagine how upset you are. What's amusing about Crap Code and the other efforts to catch pirates is that most of the thieves are apparently industry insiders. A recent news story says studios may even be discouraged from distributing advance DVDs of their Oscar contenders to academy members, because some of these movies quickly find their way to the Web.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-06-2003, 04:11 PM:
 

quote:

---

[ Edit: sun-times link removed, you can find it in the slashdot post.]

[ 10-06-2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: John Hawkinson ]

---

It is not acceptable to dodge the forum rules. While you could claim that you had not read the updated policy in the FAQ that was posted a few weeks ago in your initial post, your edited version (which was edited before Mike posted the article) was an intentional effort to disregard forum policies. Read the FAQ for your two options regarding news articles. Next offense will be your removal. No further discussion.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-07-2003, 09:35 AM:
 
Let us not fret the details. Crapcode has now acquired the permanence of ink & paper publication!
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-07-2003, 12:47 PM:
 
Yes, and from Roger Ebert, no less. Can a mention on "Ebert and Roeper" be far behind? Somebody needs to get an image of a movie frame featuring Crap Code and get it to Ebert.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-07-2003, 06:22 PM:
 
He's seen the samples that have been posted on this site. In fact I have them posted outside the screening room.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 10-07-2003, 06:28 PM:
 
While those codes are very obvious, the truth is a lot of customers don't care about them. YOu know why. A lot of theater mess up the prints far worse than a couple of seconds of these spots. I had to watch Signs at a new Regal theater with a green line right down the middle. Incorrect framing, cheating on the aspect ratio, holes in the screens, improper focus are all higher priorities.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 10-09-2003, 12:12 AM:
 
A little off topic, but why aren't there this many complaints about how they now put logos on EVERY frame of TV shows? I quit watching TV when that practice started.
I first noticed those dots on prints a couple years ago, and I thought they were due to a lab screw-up or something like that. I'd never have guessed that they were put there deliberately. Good thing some people are at least taking notice of this.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-09-2003, 12:38 AM:
 
Nobody complains about on screen logos, because (a) they're no worse than the crap that's on televison and (b) this isn't the TV watcher's forum.

quote:

---

I first noticed those dots on prints a couple years ago

---

quote:

---

I've never noticed the real CAP code, are there any pictures available?

---

In May 2000, "Carl Welles" started a thread with a photo of the original CAP Code developed by Kodak for the MPAA in 1982:

Original CAP Code Developed by Kodak

The speculation about the details of the coding method was incorrect, but the photo is an accurate representation of the original code when it is printed with the optional edge numbers.
The position in each frame is deliberately random, and the very small dots allowed it to be repeated hundreds of times in a movie. It took almost twenty years for people like "Carl Welles" to actually find the CAP Code, although the MPAA had been using it to track down sources of film piracy since 1982.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 10-09-2003, 09:36 AM:
 
I went to see Underworld last night. The CAP code was very obvious and distracting since the huge bright orange dots did not match the desaturated steel gray / blue color pallete of the cinematography. At first I thought my eyesight was acting up again but after more than 15 - 20 flashes it was killing the enjoyment of the storyline.
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 10-10-2003, 04:24 AM:
 
I thought it was magnificent planning on whoever's part to place these stupid dots in the black and white sequence in kill bill. But I guess that is the idea, make it as obvious as possible.

Maybe this is in the thread somewhere but I havent had time to read it all, but d you guys think the directors/producers are aware of this? Tarrintino doesn't seem like someone that would appreciate this mutilation of his work. I'm sure George Lucas will be delighted to see it on Episode III.
 

---

Posted by Jarred Olsen (Member # 1833) on 10-11-2003, 04:24 AM:
 
I think the MPAA is on the right road to getting rid of piracy altogether. If they increase the number of Code dots, it would look so ugly nobody would want to pirate it!
 

---

Posted by Raphael Jacquot (Member # 1936) on 10-11-2003, 08:06 AM:
 
Jarred, I beg to differ
The MPAA will not be killed by piracy (which, last I checked in the webster was "murder and theft of valuables on the high seas").
The MPAA is committing suicide (as is the RIAA, strange, heh) with all the movies they are coming up with

• terminator 3
• the hulk
• gigli

and a few more I haven't even heard about.
compare these 200M USD movies with what they did with 20M (that's 10 times more per movie) on Underworld...
of course, we all know where the 20M schwartzenegger took for terminator 3 went... the financing of his campaign in california
 

---

Posted by Chris Trainor (Member # 9) on 10-11-2003, 03:11 PM:
 
So.. speaking of insiders being the #1 cause of piracy in the film industry.....

A copy of the workprint to Kill Bill is out. Looks perfect, like off a DVD.... not a cam in a theater... this came off a high quality source... the film has been out what? a day now?

It's amazing how they are screwing filmgoeers with the capcodefromhell crud yet stuff like this comes out within 24hrs of a release.

--Chris
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 10-12-2003, 09:19 PM:
 
So, does this supposed perfect copy have 1) cue dots 2) CAP codes (in the b/w scenes)?

--jhawk

(p.s.: "workprints" are usually not color timed and don't look good at all, in my limitted experience; not to be confused with EK/show prints.)
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-13-2003, 03:56 PM:
 
The Brainiac is at it again... From Broadcast Engineering : Article Link

quote:

---

Piracy problem not worth losing an Oscar

Jack Valenti, the main lobbyist for the movie industry, is now having second thoughts about banning DVD and videotape “screeners” from being sent to voters who select the winners of Academy Awards (see “Beyond the Headlines” 10/6/03).

Sources said Valenti, the chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America, has been under considerable pressure from art-house distributors, actors and directors who say that the ban would hurt their chances of winning Oscars. As a result, Valenti is expected to go back to the studio executives who agreed to the ban and propose a compromise.

That would include marking videotapes electronically before they are sent to Academy members. The videotapes, which could be traced easily, would be delivered by certified mail. But the compromise would not include the distribution of easily copied DVDs, and not every videotape would be marked.

Apparently piracy is one thing, but so big a problem as to interfere with the changes of winning an Oscar. Stay tuned.

For more information visit www.mpaa.org.

---

quote:

---

Can anyone remember a print with the newfangled CAP markings from hell on anything other than a Deluxe print?

---

we're using the term "CRAP code" to denote those tight sharp clusters of bright red-orange dots, right? when they are large diffuse brown blobs spread over the screen, i assume that's normal cap code that just got way over-applied. i saw a few of those on mystic river, r2 (technicolor, according to the credits).

i saw a whole lot of them on r4 of school of rock too, enough that the over-application seemed intentional. however, they were all right at cuts in the film, so at least some attempt was made to hide them from the audience.

carl
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 10-17-2003, 05:13 PM:
 
I went in early this AM to start training a new operator, who didn't show up(needless to say, he will not be with us), so I decided to sit down and screen our print of Runaway Jury that was made up by one of my new guys.

Now, I don't often get the opportunity to screen a print beforehand, and damned if you guys are not right about this CAP code business!! I noticed them numerous times and they were quite obvious. Damned distracting, too. The kid had done a magnificent job making up this print, and here is this all over it!

Interesting that it is a Deluxe print, too. So much for pristine presentation.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-17-2003, 05:17 PM:
 
Deluxe must have stock in the digital cinema business.

I've noticed that while the CAP code used to be on reel 2 (and was admittedly very hard to detect), this new Deluxe CRAP code seems to favor reel 4. Is this the reel everyone is seeing the marks on, or is Deluxe changing up the reels randomly?

Does anyone here have an email address to someone in charge of these things at Deluxe? Don't post it here, but it would be appreciated if you could drop it to me in an email. I have some questions I would like to ask directly.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-17-2003, 06:40 PM:
 
Maybe the CRAP code is part of their "Anti-Piracy Plant Certification".


 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-17-2003, 06:55 PM:
 
What the hell is in that picture that is in the upper-right circle? Looks like cookie crumbs or some sort of crazy mess. Deluxe is obviously unsanitary.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-18-2003, 03:44 AM:
 
Hey Daryl, ya duphus! Post the link!

Damn!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-18-2003, 06:23 AM:
 
Most major motion-picture laboratories are members of the Association of Cinema and Video Laboratories (ACVL) and contacts are listed in their on-line membership directory:

http://www.acvl.org/members.htm

The laboratory usually decides which reel(s) to print any anti-piracy code on. It is entirely possible that multiple coding methods may be used on the same print.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-19-2003, 04:07 PM:
 
From Variety :

BREAKING NEWS!

LA FILM CRITICS ASSN. CANCELS ANNUAL AWARDS

No screeners, no awards per crix
Making its strongest possible statement on the issue currently embroiling the Hollywood community, the Los Angeles Film Critics Assn. has decided not to give its annual awards this year unless the Motion Picture Assn. of America drops its ban on screeners.

Full Story at www.Variety.com

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-19-2003, 05:18 PM:
 
Big loss.
 

---

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 10-19-2003, 05:59 PM:
 
A-Men !!

FJN
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-19-2003, 07:58 PM:
 
You know what then give each critic a individually capcoded ddvd and have them sign a waiver that they are 100% responsible for the financial loss if it is copied and If they will not accept that sue them for refusing to give equal credence to a given title as it would be discrimantory not to
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-19-2003, 08:26 PM:
 
I agree Joe... I've been F*cked outta two Tech "statue" AA cuz of "politics". The hell with ALL of them "Fixed" shows and awards! They are ALL based on "who has the biggest dick" and the most marketing money and most "connections".

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-19-2003, 08:49 PM:
 
The CRAP Code gets another mention in Ebert's Movie Answer Man column this week! Here's the Q&A:

Q. While watching "Kill Bill, Vol. 1," I noticed that several times during the movie, there would be a flash of three or four small dots, arranged in the same formation, lasting only a couple of frames. It could not have been blood spots (my first theory), because this happened even during parts where there was no bloodshed (which were, of course, few and far between). Is this something Tarantino did, or a problem with the print that the theater showed?

Jeremy Gable, Anaheim, Calif.

A. The dots are part of a new studio anti-piracy system that has already been dubbed "Crap Code" by insiders. The Answer Man was right on top of this innovation, with an item in the column for Oct. 5 by Steve Kraus, Chicago projection expert. He says the dots are so large because then they can be seen even on digital versions pirated on the Internet.

The full Answer Man column is at: http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert19.html
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-19-2003, 10:54 PM:
 
Yeah. Big deal. There's too many award shows anyway. How can these critics properly do their jobs if they're not watching the films the way they were meant to be presented?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-20-2003, 12:23 AM:
 
I can only imagine how they would attempt to judge "Best Sound" from their mono RCA television speakers!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-23-2003, 06:54 AM:
 
From today's Hollywood Reporter:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2008400

quote:

---

Oct. 23, 2003

Study: 77% of movies leaked online tied to biz

By Chris Marlowe
Pirating movies for distribution on the Internet is mostly an inside job.

That is the conclusion reached by a team of researchers from AT&T Labs in a new study that found that 77% of all popular movies being illegally traded over the Internet initially came from people who worked inside the movie industry.

Screeners are certainly one source of insider leaks, but they are hardly the only source. The report found numerous weak links where security is lax throughout the production-distribution pipeline. In particular, it cited such other weak spots as audio and visual editing rooms, outside effects houses and outsourced postproduction.

Once films are finished, marketing and distribution offer other opportunities for insiders to leak films. "The sheer number of people involved at this stage considerably complicated content security," the report said. "Many studio employees have access to the final version."

Other professionals who work outside the studios also have access to finished films before they are released theatrically; they include personnel in marketing, advertising, the media and cinema projectionists.

The study cites Universal Pictures' "The Hulk" as one example. It began circulating on the Internet two weeks before its June 20 theatrical release date in a copy that contained incomplete special effects and other elements. Ultimately, the studio discovered that the source for the illegal copy of the film was a friend of an employee at a print advertising firm that was promoting the movie.

The study arrives as the film industry is embroiled in a controversy over the MPAA's screener ban. "The data does show that the screener copies are contributing to Internet piracy," said Patrick McDaniel, a researcher at AT&T Labs. "But it's important to know that the ban is not going to solve the whole problem, and we have no way of knowing how much it will help."

McDaniel said it was not possible to break down the relative importance of the different links in the chain.

Figures supplied by the MPAA report that last year, its member companies and their subsidiaries sent out copies of 68 titles for awards consideration. Of these, the associations' investigators tracked the source of pirated copies directly to screener copies for 34 films. "We know that awards screeners are in fact a source of piracy, and the screener ban was implemented solely to help prevent that," MPAA spokeswoman Marta Grutka said.

The copying of commercial DVDs accounted for a relatively insignificant amount of the illegal films, the study found, as only 5% of the movies first appeared online after their corresponding DVDs were released.

While some titles appear online weeks before they are released theatrically, on average, the movies first appeared on the Internet 100 days after their theatrical release and 83 days before their DVD release.

Universal Pictures was the hardest-hit studio during the research period, which covered 18 months beginning in January 2002. Fifteen of Universal's 18 releases were pirated. Warner Bros. Pictures came in second, with 78% of its 37 movies turning up for downloading. Only Sony Pictures Classics came out unscathed as none of its seven releases appeared online.

The study also charted the length of time between a film appearing online and its release date. Noticeable spikes in the availability of illegal titles occur during the week before and the week of theatrical release and in the month before the commercial DVD release. McDaniels said this information could be a valuable clue for pinning down the sources.

AT&T Labs' findings were reported in "Analysis of Security Vulnerabilities in the Movie Production and Distribution Process," a paper written by McDaniel and his teammates Simon Byers, Lorrie Cranor and Dave Kormann.

Their work began by listing the 419 movies that had reached the top 50 with the highest boxoffice yield during the 18 months from Jan. 1, 2002-Jun 30, 2003. They eliminated those that were released or screened outside of the United States before their U.S. release. Of the remaining 312 movies, they found 183 of them being illegally traded online.

The researchers then determined what date the movie first appeared on the network, which they did by combing one of the main piracy hubs known as a content verification site. Those sites, as described by the study, act as indexes and provide information including file names, date of uploading, quality and a unique file identification. Then they downloaded a representative segment of each movie.

A checklist of criteria was used to determine the source of the films. Some of the signs the team said indicated "insider sources" include a DVD-quality copy posted before the commercial DVD was available to the public, visible timecodes, the inclusion of watermarking and text reading "property of" studio or "for your consideration." McDaniel said several of the online films also had sound artifacts or editing-room artifacts, like a version of "The Rookie" in which the boom mike could still be seen.

Other movies showed a characteristic combination of poor visual quality but excellent audio quality. McDaniel said this was typical of a projectionist copying the movie from an unused booth window with a digital video camera but getting the sound from a direct jack into the theater's system.

McDaniel added that the research limited itself to one file-swapping network and one content verification site, both of which he said were widely known and used internationally, to ensure that their work could be replicated by other researchers. "So the problem could be even wider than we show because there are other networks," he said.

The MPAA, however, said the use of only one content verification site was a flaw in the methodology. "By doing that, they in effect minimized the impact of camcorder recordings on this problem because most of those sites eliminate the poorest-quality copies," Grutka said. "This could have the effect of exaggerating the percentage of higher-quality films."

The research report ends with recommendations for how the entertainment industry could improve the current situation. It recommended specialized players or extensive digital rights management systems, but these remain expensive and are not yet practical.

"There are some very inexpensive things that can be done and in the near term, but it would require some cultural changes," McDaniel said. "Basically, the industry has to handle material as the millions of dollars of investment it is."

The industry first needs to establish a chain of custody, such as is used to keep track of important legal documents and automotive design development plans, he argued.

"We want to help the movie industry understand what their problems are, and our study supported that the industry had to look at their internal processes to help mitigate these emerging problems with Internet piracy," McDaniel said. "There are a lot of emotional arguments out there. The more information we get, the sooner we can get past these problems."

---

 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 10-23-2003, 05:00 PM:
 
A tad bit after the fact.. BUT...

Jhawk,

PLease see John's post as the proof behind my comment of "knowing" that the underlying problem of piracy stems from insiders...

I didn't say I told ya so..
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 10-23-2003, 05:14 PM:
 
Jason directs me, "Please see John's post as the proof behind my comment of "knowing" that the underlying problem of piracy stems from insiders..."

I'm afraid I cannot see it as "proof." 1) The AT&T study shows that a significant fraction of piracy comes from screeners and related sources; it does not show that other kinds of piracy are insigificant. 2) At the time, I questioned whether you could support your assertions with hard data. That those assertions may turn out to be true does not mean you were except from supplying data at the time. At least, not in my academic analysis. YMMV.

BTW, McDaniel et al's paper (pdf format) is on the web, as is the abstract (html format).

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-23-2003, 05:32 PM:
 
Please explain to us stupid, non-academic people what YMMV is. Until explained otherwise, I MUST assume it means "Yo Mama Misuses Vasoline"
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 10-23-2003, 06:29 PM:
 
Sorry, Joe, it's not an academic term. "Your milage may vary."

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-23-2003, 09:19 PM:
 
Thank you Joe for asking that... I was too embarrassed to ask. I mean, I'm one f*cking intelligent person, Mike told me, but I was at a loss as to what that meant!

Don'tcha just love it when those "out-of-tune" with society things are posted? It makes us ALL think we are clueless to the finer things in life.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-23-2003, 09:21 PM:
 
Well I also tend to agree that insider's are the source of most pirate DVD's
Just try to take your laptop and PSA video camera into any lab screening room and deal with the security
Interestingly I had to fdisk my harddrive after I did an alignment at a theatre that was doing a pressscreening where the PSA was set up to do the light levels.
Even though it was back in its case before the print arrived the security firm fdisked my laptop because it was connected to the soundsystem to check for print erros with dras10

needless to say the bill got alot bigger now where did I put that software disk to reload
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 10-23-2003, 10:54 PM:
 
John H,

I knew you'd bring up the fact of my 'assertations' prior to this post. Sometimes I tend to do things to stir up the pot, as is evidenced in this post..

I still stand steadfast to my original statement that the main problem in piracy (or the outright pirating of films) is WITHIN the Industry, not within the Consumer level.

I'm sure that this will stir up yet another discussion on the merits therein.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 10-24-2003, 12:01 AM:
 
All this is well and good. However, the only item that relates to us directly is... What percentage of these "leaks" are connected to trade screenings and "after release" copying? Anything earlier than that is out of our direct control. Accordingly, it's high time the industry start pointing fingers (and suspicion) where it belongs and get off our backs. I've been seeing accusing posts for months about this issue, yet everything seems to point to screeners and earlier processes, none of which I have any influence over.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-24-2003, 09:03 AM:
 
Even if most film piracy occurs upstream of theatres, theatres need to be vigilant in their print/digital file security procedures and in policing audience attempts at piracy. I wouldn't want to explain why my theatre has been tracked as a source of pirated copies:

http://www.infocusmag.com/03August/prezdesk.htm
 

---

Posted by Jim Spohn (Member # 1547) on 10-24-2003, 09:20 AM:
 
Screw em!! I'm going to start selling blank video tape at the snack-bar.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-24-2003, 09:23 AM:
 
Jim Spohn wrote:

quote:

---

Screw em!! I'm going to start selling blank video tape at the snack-bar.

---

I've met some of those FBI agents working with the MPAA -- they take their job very seriously.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-24-2003, 02:22 PM:
 
Anyone who would arrest someone over a blank videotape deserves any sort of bad press and lawsuit that would accompany the harassment. The MPAA is all-too-quick to point their finger at someone for being a bad person and take action when there is nothing wrong. We need someone new in charge. The current security procedures we have in the industry are for the most part insulting and non-effective.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 10-24-2003, 03:07 PM:
 
In todays Daily Variety, the Banner Headline says
MPAA: GIVE PEACE A CHANCE

The Winners

• The Academy: The decision reasserts the org' primacy
  
  Duplication Facilities: Let the work begin!
  Messenger Services: UPS & FedEx will tote those tapes
  Screning Rooms: More at a premium than ever.

• SAG: A key Oscar voting bloc, they're mad as Hell.
  Hollywood Foreign Press,BAFTA: No More screeners for the
  them.
  
  Niche units: For them it's still a bitch.
  
  Jack Valenti: He's taking the heat, but it wasn't his
  idea in the first place.

quote:

---

Anyone who would arrest someone over a blank videotape deserves any sort of bad press and lawsuit that would accompany the harassment.

---

quote:

---

I was not suggesting that Mr. Spohn be arrested, but just responding to his flippant comment. Worldwide law enforcement is very serious about prosecuting piracy.

---

I know John. You have said that hundreds of times. I heard you the first, second, third, forth and all the way up to a few hundred times into that comment. You could just add that to your signature, ya know.

We all know how serious these industry people are about stopping piracy. We also know how insulting their actions are becoming and how ineffective they really are. Just watch. Piracy will go down a little bit, then shoot right back up as bootleggers learn how to get around the new security. Even security at trade screenings is a joke. Like I have said before, it is a false sense of security and nothing more.

The MPAA needs to put their efforts on the studios, or the studios need to take responsibility for their own foolish actions (screener tapes, various video copies during production, etc). Most people I've spoken to are so put out with the Valenti group shoving the blame down theater owners/staff's throat that the recent attitude is "fuck 'em. Let someone bootleg the stupid movie."

It is the wrong approach.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-24-2003, 09:27 PM:
 
Phil:

I've always tried to respond to all private e-mails in a timely manner. The ONE you sent about that obscure date code came just as I was getting back from ShowEast with the backlog of being away from the office for a week, and then preparing for and attending a week-long worldwide engineering meeting in Rochester, so I didn't have time to dig into decades-old records of that particular date code. It doesn't fit any of the information in my files, so I will need to check other areas, and even other manufacturing plants. Sorry for the delay.

You should know better than to say:

quote:

---

John, it appears to me, most time that you do not support us end-of-the-line people but rather gravel to the big $ studio/production people.

---

I find that statement a personal insult.

I am sincere in my feelings about movie piracy. Part of the reason is that I have been involved in fighting piracy for over 25 years, and have seen first hand how pervasive and damaging it is to the industry I have spent my career trying to help improve.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-24-2003, 11:24 PM:
 
John, as we discussed in chat this evening, my comments are my personal thoughts and in no way are meant as an insult or to be demeaning to you in any manner. On the contrary, I highly respect you, your knowledge, and your industry position.

As I mentioned, we are all on the same side of this issue. It just gets a little rubbing to constantly being reminded of Kodak's position. We ALL get it. It seems many times you treat us as though we were unruly teenagers or 10 y/o's.

Also, the last email I sent you was sent to you on 10/05/2003...almost 3 weeks ago. I know you are busy, but a "looking into it" or a "go to hell" reply would have been really appreciated... BTW: my 1st email that went unanswered was sent 03/07/2003… FYI.

Please let me know what part of my post personally offended you. It was not my intention. I will see if I can re-word it and still get my point across. Or just drop it all and move on? Your call.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 10-25-2003, 02:43 AM:
 
So, what have we learned from this thread?

1. The Dots SUCK
2. They seem to come from the Deluxe Hollywood lab
3. Don't say anything to John Hawkinson unless you have your research handy
4. Piracy comes from both before and after the print is released
5. This topic is about as interesting as "Neumade Vs. CIR"
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-25-2003, 07:09 AM:
 
Phil:

Thank you for the apology. The offending phase was:

quote:

---

...most time that you do not support us end-of-the-line people but rather gravel to the big $ studio/production people.

---

You then went on to complain publicly about being slow to respond to your question about an unusual date code, which has nothing to do with the matter at hand. As we discussed last night, I have been unusually busy since before ShowEast. Brad knows this too, since he's patiently waiting for me to caption dozens of photos from ShoWest that he sent me a few weeks ago. Your note about the obscure date code will take time to research and answer properly. I TRY to answer personal notes in a timely fashion, and I know I've usually responded promptly to your notes (e.g., the notes about Eric at iWERKS), but with hundreds of correspondence a day crossing my desk, some may fall through the cracks. If so, I apologize for those I've missed or been slow to answer.

As far as sounding like a broken record on movie piracy, I have a passion about fighting the harm this is doing to the industry, having been involved since I worked on the original Kodak CAP code team in the late 1970's. I could argue that others here are likewise sounding like a broken record criticizing the MPAA and their approaches to fighting piracy. Let's fight piracy together, and not fight each other.

Let's leave the original postings as they stand, so people understand the original thread and how we are still friends with differing views.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-25-2003, 08:36 AM:
 

quote:

---

John Pytlak wrote:
Let's fight piracy together, and not fight each other.

---

quote:

---

Let us not fret the details. Crapcode has now acquired the permanence of ink & paper publication!

---

I'M FAMOUS!!!

Um...No, I'm not. Apparently somebody else beat me to that expression in the CAP Code thread that John P referenced with a link.

Wow. Small world.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-28-2003, 03:32 AM:
 
"Phil's Philthy Phlicks" private screening room will now be open to ALL Academy members for 1st run films starting Nov 7th...NO video cameras allowed!

From Variety 10/27/2003

---------------------------------------------------

Posted: Mon., Oct. 27, 2003, 5:47pm PT

Studios face space odyssey

Screening rooms are jammed

By DAVE MCNARY


This article was updated at 7:20 p.m.
A lot of folks are still angry about the clampdown on screener tapes, but at least one small group is clearly upbeat: The owners of screening rooms.

"It's an all-out, illogical panic this year," one awards consultant said. "The scramble for screening rooms was already intense in recent years because of the expanding horizon of awards shows. The only ones with a real advantage are the studios that have their own screening rooms and a contending film."

Execs at many screening rooms say their space is only available at offbeat times, like 2 p.m. Tuesday or 11 a.m. Saturday. Premium time is gone.

As a result, film execs are seeking out less traditional venues, such as the renovated James Bridges Theater on the UCLA campus in Westwood, which is booked every evening through Thanksgiving.

Awards-hungry execs are coming up with alternate plans as well, such as making plans to four-wall local theaters, following DreamWorks' lead with "The House of Sand and Fog" next month.

In addition, honchos said they are trying to negotiate with exhibitors about admitting awards voters. Last year, the exhibs admitted for free voters from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences but they balked at giving the same treatment to members of the guilds and other kudos-voting orgs. This year, some studio planners are trying to work out deals that would allow the exhibs to admit other voting groups.

Directors Guild of America spokesman Morgan Rumpf estimated that demand for the guild's two theaters at its Hollywood headquarters is up as much as 25% from last year. And demand was so heavy for the DGA's renovated screening facility in Gotham that the guild decided to forgo any ceremonies when the theater reopened on Oct. 14.

"We're already adding times in the early afternoons and weekdays that had not been utilized in previous years," Rumpf said. "We are trying to accommodate as much as possible. I can't really say if it's because of the tighter schedule for awards or the screener ban."

The decision by the Academy to move the Oscar ceremonies to Feb. 29 had prompted studios to book screening rooms earlier than usual. The MPAA's announcement four weeks ago that it had banned screeners accelerated that trend.

Of course, there's always some wiggle room. Film companies often book spaces and then cancel or reschedule the screening, for a variety of reasons. One awards consultant said he expects some trading but no surrendering of timeslots booked at studios or such well-known venues as the Aidikoff, Clarity, the DGA, Harmony Gold, Raleigh, Sunset Screening, the WGA and the Wilshire.

UCLA's 276-seat Bridges Theater is also used as a classroom screening facility for first-run films through the student-run Melnitz Movies programs, the UCLA Documentary Salon series and films by alumni, as well as a venue for industry screenings.


© Copyright 2003, Reed Business Information,
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. © 2003 Variety, Inc.
Use of this Website is subject to Terms of Use. Privacy Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-28-2003, 05:45 AM:
 
Sounds like a good business opportunity for someone who can really show "Film Done Right" in cities with lots of Academy members.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-28-2003, 06:31 AM:
 
Piracy issue or not, screener tapes are evil. If the Academy members can't take time out of their busy schedules to see and hear films as they were meant to been seen and heard (either in screening rooms or commercial theatres), then they shouldn't be voting for the Academy Awards (tm) (r) (c), anyway.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-28-2003, 06:43 AM:
 
Has it changed or didn't a condition of being eligable for a oscar the film had to screen in a LA theatre
 

---

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 10-28-2003, 11:15 AM:
 
76th Academy Awards Rule 2: Eligibility

Rule Two
Eligibility

1. Eligibility for Academy Award consideration is subject to Rules Two and Three, and to those special rules approved by the Board of Governors which follow.

2. All eligible motion pictures, unless otherwise noted (see Paragraph 9 below), must be:

a) feature length (defined as over 40 minutes),

b) publicly exhibited by means of 35mm or 70mm film, or in a 24-frame progressive scan digital format (minimum native resolution 1280 by 1024 pixels), delivered to the screen by an image and sound file format suitable for exhibition in existing commercial digital cinema sites,

c) for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County,

d) for a run of at least seven consecutive days,

e) advertised and exploited during its Los Angeles run in a manner considered normal and customary to the industry, and

f) within the awards year deadlines specified in Rule Three.

3. Films which, in any version, receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than as a theatrical motion picture release will not be eligible for Academy Awards in any category. (This includes broadcast and cable television, as well as home video marketing and internet transmission.)

4. Eligibility is contingent on the receipt by the Academy of the following information on Official Screen Credits forms obtained from the Academy, to be signed by the film’s producer or distributor (unless waived by the Academy) which shall include:

a) full, complete and authentic credits,

b) the name of the Los Angeles County theater where the film has played, and

c) the dates of the Los Angeles run.

5. Eligibility for all awards shall first be determined by credits as they appear on the screen and/or as certified to the Academy by the producing companies, but final determination in any event shall be made by the Academy. The Academy shall not be bound by any contract or agreement relating to the sharing or giving of credit and reserves the right to make its own determination of credit for purposes of award consideration.

6. In the event of any dispute concerning credits, the Academy reserves the right to declare any achievement ineligible or, alternatively, to reject all claims to credit, list credits as being in controversy and withhold any award until the dispute is resolved.

7. The alteration of an achievement by changing a picture from the version shown in Los Angeles County, upon which eligibility is based, shall subject such achievement to the risk of being declared ineligible by the Board of Governors.

8. Motion pictures from all countries shall be eligible for the annual awards listed previously in Rule One Paragraph 3, as long as they satisfy the requirements of the other applicable rules, and contain English sub-titles if released in a foreign language.

9. Exceptions to the eligibility requirements and methods of qualifying listed in Rules Two and Three appear in the Special Rules for the Animated Feature Film Award (see Rule Seven), the Documentary Awards (see Rule Twelve), the Foreign Language Film Award (see Rule Fourteen), the Music Awards (see Rule Sixteen), and the Short Films Awards (see Rule Nineteen).
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 10-28-2003, 11:52 AM:
 
We started getting booked for Academy/Guild screenings by the studios last May. I'm just finishing up on my third month running Academy Screenings. This is the last weekend of the year that is not booked for Guild screenings. We are around 90% full till the end of January.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 10-28-2003, 03:02 PM:
 

quote:

---

3. Films which, in any version, receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than as a theatrical motion picture release will not be eligible for Academy Awards in any category. (This includes broadcast and cable television, as well as home video marketing and internet transmission.)

---

quote:

---

If the Academy members can't take time out of their busy schedules to see and hear films as they were meant to been seen and heard ...then they shouldn't be voting for the Academy Awards...

---

Scott, you're just jealous cuz you don't get the screeners that we all get....

I have well over 500 from the last few years and I always loan them out to my gardener....

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Chris Trainor (Member # 9) on 10-28-2003, 11:15 PM:
 
Gee, I should open up my 'screening room' for these people. "hi guys, grab a beer from the fridge and pick a spot on the futon".

--Chris
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 11-03-2003, 08:27 AM:
 
Just for the record this last Saturday Nov. 1st was the 35th Anniversary of the MPAA's rating system.
 

---

Posted by James Falloon (Member # 1933) on 11-03-2003, 01:50 PM:
 
Hi, not sure if this is the right thread, but could somebody tell me who put these dots on my film (the ones in the frame not the ones between the sproket holes). Are these the crap codes or did somebody screw up at the printers?



and my appologies for having a crap scanner, they sure as heck show up on the screen.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-03-2003, 02:03 PM:
 
James:

It certainly has the appearance of some kind of anti-piracy watermark, but not one that I'm familiar with. (i.e., It's not the original Kodak CAP code, which had much smaller dots). How often does that pattern of dots repeat in the film?
 

---

Posted by James Falloon (Member # 1933) on 11-03-2003, 02:51 PM:
 
I only saw it once, we still run 2000 foot reels and changeovers so i could have missed some if there were more. the problem is these were dark blue dots on a light blue backgound and stood out like a sore thumb. It was on reel 3 of the league of extrordinary gentlemen (scope)
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-03-2003, 03:02 PM:
 
A one time event could be something as simple as a spatter of processing chemicals, where tiny droplets could leave spots like that on the processed print. For example, soundtrack developer will leave dark gray spots of silver if it accidently splashes into the picture area:

http://www.dyetracks.org
 

---

Posted by James Falloon (Member # 1933) on 11-03-2003, 03:16 PM:
 
yeah, but they look like they are arranged in some order, in rows and columns and a uniform size, not a random splash. It's got me puzzled, they certianly don't look like other coding i've seen. (which i saw for the first time the other day - little red dots in the shape of a "L" in the middle of the frame, are these regular cap codes?)
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-03-2003, 03:20 PM:
 
All this MPAA bashing must stop at once! Jack is a living god!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-03-2003, 03:25 PM:
 
I thought only Film-Tech participants could become living "Film Gods".
 

---

Posted by James Falloon (Member # 1933) on 11-03-2003, 03:56 PM:
 
The way I see it, piracy is the equivalent of letting someone just walk into your cinema and watch a movie without buying a ticket. I believe anyone who says it isn't affecting profit is horribly mistaken. However from what I’ve read putting distracting dots on the print it not a wonderful solution.

They need to come up with less intrusive coding schemes, for example how about putting little white dots in scenes of a starry night. The MPAA know they are there but to the audience they look like ordinary stars. And because they are still clearly visible, they will still turn up on pirated copies after compression algorithms have stripped out all the image information we cannot perceive (which I take is the current problem with the codes).
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-03-2003, 08:21 PM:
 

quote:

---

I thought only Film-Tech participants could become living "Film Gods".

---

So what's stopping him?
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-03-2003, 10:07 PM:
 
How about they film a given scene about 3,000 different ways. Like in one version the actor could be holding a regular Pepsi. In another version it could be Diet Pepsi. And so on. If they need more than 3,000 prints then they would switch to Coca Cola products.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-04-2003, 10:47 AM:
 
I haven't checked every possible thread to see if this has been mentioned already. Apologies in advance if it has. On Nov. 2nd 60 Minutes ran a segment on movie piracy: Pirates of the Internet

Pirates Of The Internet
Nov. 2, 2003

It's no secret that online piracy has decimated the music industry, as millions of people have stopped buying CDs and started stealing their favorite songs by downloading them from the Internet.

Now, the high-tech thieves are coming after Hollywood. Illegal downloading of full-length feature films is a relatively new phenomenon, but it's becoming easier and easier to do. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those running America's movie studios know that if they don't do something - and fast - they could be in the same boat as the record companies.

But what's really at stake for the movie industry with all this piracy?

“Ultimately, our absolute future,” says Peter Chernin, who runs 20th Century Fox, one of the biggest studios in Hollywood.

He knows the pirates of the Internet are gaining on him.

“I think it's probably in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions,” says Chernin. “It's only gonna grow. Somebody can put a perfect digital copy up on the Internet. And with the click of a mouse, send out a million copies all over the world, in an instant.”

And it's all free. Chernin recently organized a "summit" between studio moguls and some high school and college kids - the people most likely to be downloading.

“And we said, ‘Let's come up with a challenge,” says Chernin. “Let's give them five movies, and see if they can find them online. And we all sat around and picked five movies, four of which haven't been released yet. And then we came back half an hour later. They had found all five movies that we gave them.”

Did these kids have any sense that they were stealing?

“I think they know it's stealing, and I don't think they think it's wrong,” says Chernin. “I think they have an attitude of ‘it's there.’”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Internet copy of last year's hit, "Signs," starring Mel Gibson, was stolen even before director M. Night Shyamalan could organize the premiere.

In fact, Shyamalan said the first bootleg copy appeared a few weeks before the premiere:

“Before the Internet age, when somebody bootlegged a movie, the only outlet they had was to sell it to those vendors on Times Square, where they had the boxes set up outside and they say, ‘Hey, we have 'Signs’ - it's not even out yet.’ And you walk by and you know it's illegal. But now, because it's the digital age, you can see a clean copy. It's no longer the kind of the sleazy guy in Times Square, with the box. It's just, oh, it's on this beautiful site, and I have to go, ‘click.’"

So how did this happen?

“Through an absolute act of theft,” says Chernin. “Someone steals a print from the editor's room; someone steals a print from the person; the composer who's doing the music … Steals a print, makes a digital copy, and uploads it.”

Digital copies like "The Matrix Reloaded" have also been bootlegged from DVDs sent to reviewers or ad agencies, or circulated among companies that do special effects, or subtitles.

“The other way that pre-released movies end up is that there are lots of screenings that happen in this industry,” adds Chernin. “People go to those screenings with a camcorder, with a digital camcorder, sit in the back, turn the camcorder on …”

It used to take forever to download a movie, but anyone with a high-speed Internet connection can now have a full-length film in an hour or two.

In fact, there are many Web sites where hackers will announce their piracy releases, says Randy Saaf, who runs a company called Media Defender that helps movie studios combat online piracy.

Stahl asked him to show her Kazaa, the biggest downloading Web site out there. “Kazaa is the largest peer-to-peer network,” says Saaf.

It's called peer-to-peer because computer users are sharing files with each other, with no middleman. All Kazaa does is provide the software to make that sharing possible. When 60 Minutes went online with Saaf, nearly four million other Kazaa users were there with us, sharing every kind of digital file.

“Audio, documents, images, software, and video. If you wanted a movie, you would click on the video section, and then you would type in a search phrase,” says Saaf. “And basically what this is doing now, it is asking people on the peer-to-peer network ‘who has 'Finding Nemo'?’"

Within seconds, 191 computers sent an answer: "We have it."

With crisp picture and sound, “Finding Nemo” was downloaded free from Kazaa a month before its release for video rental or sale.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now, you don’t even have to watch a movie on a little computer screen. On the newest computers, you can just "burn" the movie onto a DVD and watch it on your big-screen TV.

And that's a dagger pointed right at the heart of Hollywood. “Where movies make the bulk of their money is on DVD and home videos,” says Chernin. “Fifty percent of the revenues for any movie come out of home video … so that if piracy occurs and it wipes out your home video profits or ultimately your television profits....”

And even if movies still continue to be made, Shyamalan says they wouldn't be any good, because profits would be negligible, so budgets would shrink dramatically: “And slowly it will degrade what's possible in that art form.”

“Technology always wins. Always. You can't shut it down,” says Wayne Rosso, Hollywood's enemy. They call him a pirate, but officially he's the president of Grokster, another peer-to-peer network that works just like Kazaa.

60 Minutes downloaded Grokster’s software for free and asked Rosso questions about his network.

“We're like radio. We're advertising supported,” says Rosso, who estimates that 10 million people have used Grokster each month.

He says he has no way of knowing what people are downloading, “and we can't stop it. We have no control over it.”

And Rosso has the law on his side. A federal judge has ruled that Grokster and other file-swapping networks are not liable for what their downloaders are doing.

“So we're completely legal, and unfortunately this is something the entertainment industry refuses to accept,” says Rosso. “They seem to think the judge's decision was nothing but a typo.”

The studios are appealing that court ruling. And they may follow the music industry and begin to sue individuals who download movies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But they're also fighting the pirates in other ways, with ads about people whose jobs are at risk because of the piracy - people like the carpenters and painters who work on film sets.

And, at the same time, Hollywood is trying to keep copies of movies from leaking in the first place.

“You will very seldom go to an early screening of a movie right now where someone's not in the front of that auditorium with infrared binoculars looking for somebody with a camcorder,” says Chernin.

And once a movie's released, or if copies begin to leak, the studios hire people like Randy Saaf to hack the hackers.

“What we're just trying to do is make the actual pirated content difficult to find. And the way we do that is by, you know, serving up fake files,” says Saaf.

It's called "spoofing," and Saaf and his employees spend their days on Kazaa and Grokster, offering up thousands of files that look like copies of new movies, but aren't.

“It might just be a blank screen or something,” says Saaf. “Typically speaking, what we push out is just not the real content.”

But Rosso says it won’t work: “It doesn't work because what happens is that the community cleanses itself of the spoofs.”

What he means is that downloaders will quickly spread the word online about how to tell the fake movie files from the real thing.

“It's like an arms race,” says Chernin. “There will be, you know, they're gonna get a step ahead. We're gonna try and get that step back.”

“But I'll tell you one thing: I'll bet on the hackers,” says Rosso, who believes the hackers will break whatever block the studios come up with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hollywood knows that downloading off the Internet is the way millions of consumers want to get their entertainment -- and that isn't going away.

“The generally accepted estimate is that more than 60 million Americans have downloaded file-sharing software onto their computers,” says Chernin. “That’s a mainstream product. That's not a bunch of college kids or, you know, a bunch of computer geeks. That's America.”

So, instead of trying to stop it entirely, the studios are looking for ways to embrace it, but also get paid.

Rosso says the best way is to negotiate some kind of licensing deal with him. And he says he would sell Grokster to a movie studio in a heartbeat: “If the movie industry acts now and starts exploring alternatives and solutions with guys like me, hopefully they won't have a problem.”

The idea of making deals with what Chernin calls "a bunch of crooks" doesn't appeal to Hollywood. Instead, Fox and the other studios have just launched their own site, Movielink, where consumers can download a film for a modest fee, between three and five dollars.

“I think you would love the idea that you don't have to go to the video store. You can do this,” says Chernin. “And that's what we're working on. But in order for that to be effective, we have to stop piracy, because the most effective business model in the world can't compete with free.”

A few days ago, Rosso announced that he's leaving Grokster to take over as president of another big file-swapping software company based in Spain. Grokster will continue under new management.
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 11-04-2003, 01:40 PM:
 
High school and college kids are mentioned as being the top downloaders. Guess why? They don't have enough money to legitimately buy hardly any music or movies. When I was in high school, I got around $40 or $45 per month, and that was for entertainment (admission to places I went), video game playing, and buying records. I could buy several 45's per month, and if lucky, one album per month. There is no equivalent of the 45 anymore, so there's no way that high school kids will be able to buy the songs they want.

When I was in high school, I taped a lot of songs off the radio and bought 45s of the songs I really wanted good copies of, and bought a few albums. When in college, I had slightly more allowance, but not much more.

It wasn't until I got a full-time job that I was able to start buying all the music I wanted legitimately. Downloading music from the internet is a lot like taping songs off the radio, except it is usually better quality, but 20 years ago, all you had were records and cassettes and FM radio and the quality difference wasn't as great on most systems people had back then.

As for movies, I could never dream of buying movies until I had a full-time job. I never considered VHS a format worth buying movies on, and Laserdiscs was far too expensive. It wasn't until DVD came along that I started buying movies. However, high school and college kids will always have to find ways to copy things to inferior media until they have jobs and are able to afford DVDs and CDs unless drastic changes are made to the way that music and moves are sold. People, regardless of income, will find a way to play what they want when they want, whether legitimate or not.

Since I got my full-time job back in 1989, I've been the "model customer" when it comes to music, and have been a "model customer" since DVD came along in 1997. The music and movie industries should stop putting so much energy into trying to keep high school and college age people from copying music. If it were technologically impossible for them to do it, what would the industries gain? These people have practically no income, so they wouldn't make any more money off them than they already do. When these people get full-time jobs and have the income to buy, they'll likely replace their inferior illegal copies with better DVD or CD versions, since people tend to have attachments to music and movies from these years. If they weren't able to enjoy these movies and music during their "no-income" years, they probably wouldn't go on that buying spree after getting a full income.

After I got my first full-time job, my objective was to replace all the copies of songs I liked that were taped off the radio with CDs.

Just something the music and movie industries should think about...
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-14-2003, 03:00 AM:
 
More complaints on this thread.

I must agree with Jack. This is yet another FANTASTIC JOB BY THE SCHMUCKS AT DELUXE!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2003, 06:01 AM:
 
I have not seen the "Master and Commander" yet, but it does not sound like it uses the original Kodak-developed CAP code, which used very tiny dots repeated hundreds of times during the movie, and went virtually unnoticed in over twenty years of use on thousands of films.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-14-2003, 11:21 AM:
 

quote:

---

It wasn't on the trade screening? If there is one place it should be, one would think it would be on a trade screening. UGH!

---

quote:

---

it does not sound like it uses the original Kodak-developed CAP code, which used very tiny dots repeated hundreds of times during the movie, and went virtually unnoticed in over twenty years of use on thousands of films.

---

This is impossible to miss... mainly because by the time your brain registers what you saw, it's long gone. You wind up trying to fit the impression into the rest of the content for much longer than the one frame. Then, just as you're about to dismiss the experience, it happens again... and again. Once you've been hit a few times in the face by this thing you start to realize that something's pulling your concentration away from the real content... and that's incredibly irritating...
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-14-2003, 12:14 PM:
 
This new system is indeed very distracting. You're into the film and all of a sudden a bunch of bright orange dots flash, sometimes multiple times. It's ridiculous. Maybe if enough theatres complain about the coded reels being "defective", which by any reasonable definition, they are, the message would get through to the knuckleheads responsible for this atrocity.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2003, 12:53 PM:
 
Here's a link to the first sightings (by John Hawkinson) of the newer code in February 2002, with photos of the dots:

"What are these spots?"

Here's a link to a representative image of a print having the original CAP Code that Kodak developed for the MPAA in 1982:

"CAP Code secrets revealed."
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-14-2003, 02:09 PM:
 
It's ABOUT TIME! From The L.A. Times 11/14/2003 Here

(Note to self: For $1 mil a year, I will apply for the job)

>>> Phil

----------------------------------------------------------

Valenti Likely to Leave MPAA Post in January

Rep. W.J. 'Billy' Tauzin is seen as front-runner to replace the 82-year-old as Hollywood's lobbyist in Washington.

By James Bates
Times Staff Writer

November 14, 2003

Jack Valenti, Hollywood's voice in Washington for nearly 38 years, most likely will step down in early January as chief of the Motion Picture Assn. of America while retaining the chairman's title and continuing to oversee the movie ratings system he fathered, sources said Thursday.

People familiar with the matter said Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) remained the clear front-runner to replace the 82-year-old Valenti, who last summer disclosed he was planning for succession but left the timing vague.

With an annual salary of $1 million, Valenti occupies one of Washington's highest-paying and most visible lobbying positions.

Tauzin's name has been linked to the job as far back as January, with the 60-year-old chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee edging slowly toward the MPAA post amid repeated reports that a secret deal already has been forged.

But sources said there still was no formal agreement between Tauzin and the MPAA.

"There's no final stamp," one source said.

Still, several senior studio executives said it was informally understood that Tauzin would accept the title of MPAA president and chief executive if offered. The MPAA's member studios have given their quiet blessing to the move, sources said.

Tauzin spokesman Ken Johnson said up to this point, "no one from the MPAA and none of the studio heads have contacted him about the position."

But, Johnson said, "is he on their wish list? Absolutely. If Jack Valenti retires, and in fact an offer is made, he will listen to what they have to say."

The MPAA declined to comment.

The MPAA's three-member finance committee — made up of Viacom Entertainment Group Chairman Jonathan Dolgen, News Corp. President Peter Chernin and Walt Disney Co. President Robert Iger — would work with Valenti to finalize any deal with Tauzin.

Earlier, certain studio officials privately expressed reservations about whether Tauzin would be a good fit with the MPAA, while some put out feelers to gauge who else might be available. Executives at Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros., for example, met with former Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke and Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas), who was co-chairman of Arnold Schwarzenegger's successful campaign for California governor.

Hollywood's studios have given Valenti wide latitude in setting a schedule for his departure.

Although he has made it known that he wants to formally announce his retirement as chief in January, sources said the date remains somewhat in flux and Valenti's exit could come as late as March. The studios, people close to the situation said, want Valenti to keep the chairman's title of the organization he has led since being hired away in 1966 from President Johnson's White House staff.

Under the plan being discussed, Valenti also would continue his work with the National Assn. of Theatre Owners on ratings issues. The ratings operation would remain independent from the MPAA.

Sources say Tauzin has been reluctant to formally negotiate a deal with the MPAA while Congress is in session, noting that he is behind three major pieces of legislation — relating to energy, Medicare and Internet spam — that he would like to leave as a legacy.

If Tauzin was hired, he would be unable to lobby Congress for a year under laws aimed at curbing influence abuse.

But sources said the studios were comfortable with Tauzin sitting out 2004 as a lobbyist because they didn't expect much headway to be made on their legislative agenda during an election year.

Even before last summer's disclosure, Valenti had been hinting for a long time that he might want to shed his day-to-day work at the MPAA. Although he relishes the job, it carries numerous headaches.

In recent weeks, for example, Valenti has been the target of intense criticism over his move to stem piracy by cutting off the DVDs that studios send out to promote films for awards. Sources said the uproar had nothing to do with Valenti's planned departure.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-14-2003, 02:48 PM:
 
John, the image posted by John Hawkinson is not the current anti-piracy code we have been calling the "CRAP" code as of late. These dots are not fuzzy. They are sharply defined and a little bit more red than orange. When I get the time, I'll try and locate a frame and post it. They are only on Deluxe prints.

In the meantime, maybe all of the recent insulting things toward piracy protection will calm down a little bit in January.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2003, 02:53 PM:
 
Thanks, Brad. I usually don't get "hands on" with current release prints. Are all the new code dots exactly the same? There could be differences among various pieces/vintages of equipment, and lab location.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-14-2003, 03:05 PM:
 
The dots themselves look the same from print to print, just with slightly different configurations. A common one looks like this (ignore the underscores):

*_*_*
____*
____*
____*_*
____*

As you can probably guess, the fact that they are all in a closely knit pattern and squarely aligned makes them even worse.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-14-2003, 03:10 PM:
 
"see me"?

If you look at that example as Morse code... That's hilarious!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Joe Smith (Member # 190) on 11-14-2003, 03:25 PM:
 
I saw these "red dots" for the first time when I saw "Runaway Jury" last week. Like Jack said in another thread, they were very objectionable to me, and the first few times I saw them they didn't really register. After I realized it wasn't just a bad spot on the film or a reflection somewhere, I though it was someone playing with laser pointers. I finally realized it was on the film and was repeating. It looked to me like very sharp square red spots on the image which resembled the square spots you see on a TV when watching a digital show and some of the screen image gets dropped from the transmission. Kind of like red pixels but larger than one pixel and it appears in 6 or 7 places at once. All the ones I saw in "Runaway Jury" were in the center of the image horizontally and in the lower third of the image vertically. This is objectionable enough to me that I'd consider refusing to see any show that has them. There are some people that can't stand seeing the changeover queues once they realize they're there. Changeover queues don't bother me at all. I rarely notice them unless I happen to be looking for one for some reason, but these "red dots" are a significant distraction and cause the brain to stop concentrating on the show. They're small and quick, but they certainly are unacceptable.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-14-2003, 03:33 PM:
 
I think that the dots I posted are massively out-of-focus variants of the new Deluxe CAP code. This jives with the explanation of them that I got at the time when I went pursuing the issue.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 11-14-2003, 05:26 PM:
 
I don't knwo what is happening in Italy too... Almost EVERY film has a threatening advice in front of it... The entire screen filled with law articles... Like all the audience is there with the videorecorders...

LXG has I believe 30/40 seconds of these advices, the audience starts complaining all times. In Matrix rev. Warner asks to customers to watch for suspect behaviours... And the movie is FILLED with CAP code, also in brighter scenes...

A
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-14-2003, 08:07 PM:
 
Antonio, that's crazy! 30-40 seconds of legal threats to the audience in front of each movie??!! I'd like to see what happens here if they try that in the US. They're nucking futs!!
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-15-2003, 03:10 AM:
 
Yeah we need some pics of the real thing with its cute patterns.

On M&C I only noticed it in Reel 3. But it was severe in that reel. For awhile I was noticing it every minute or so and so I started counting down to myself and sure enough there was another one. Always on the grayish ocean scenes. After a bunch coming on approx. one minute intervals I did notice one at just 30 sec. or so from a prior one. Very annoying. Glad when the reel ended.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-15-2003, 03:14 AM:
 
For what it's worth, I split timed them on my stopwatch during Alien (rerelease directors cut), and got:

00:00.00
00:38.16
00:45.36
01:09.06
05:35.11
06:16.11
06:42.41
07:39.70

and then reel ended at 14:37.32; I started counting somewhere in the middle of the reel as they got annoying. I'm sure I missed quote a few of them.

Steve, did you see it on an advance screening print, or on a regular release print? (Jack notes in another thread that he did not see it at a trade screening.)

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 11-15-2003, 09:03 AM:
 
Jhawk,

I'd bet the print Steve saw was a release print. I noted the very same CRAP on my R3. After the 7th set, I stopped counting. I so desperately want to point this annoying CRAP out to friends and employees, but I dont' want them to be distracted while watching a film. I've already instilled in them the oblivious reel change indicators.. It's funny to watch them try and show/explain to others what they are..
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-15-2003, 11:23 AM:
 
That was on watching a regular print at a theatre last night. I don't recall whether they were on the print I ran a few weeks ago for critics as I was watching only for projection purposes not continually but more than likely they were; I see the dots all the time when running regular prints.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-15-2003, 04:30 PM:
 
From the posts here, it looks like most of this is on the last part of reel 3 (the storm scene). I sort of hoped I could gripe enough to get a replacement reel 3, but it wouldn't matter if it was also full of this stuff.

Steve, there are so many of them in that sequence... that's why I don't think I could have missed them at the screening.

Brad, J-Hawk... mine are also well-defined... Comparatively, J-Hawk's scan looks like splotches.

Don't know what good it'll do, but this will be on top of the topic list when I talk with my booker on Monday!
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-16-2003, 05:07 AM:
 
Well, I have some more scans, but perhaps they're a bit different than what I expected. I noticed one of our 3 prints of Seabiscuit had CAP coding on R7. It's from Technicolor's lab, not Deluxe. CAP coding runs for three consecutive frames (has anyone seen this before?).

Here's a scan of the three frames from the CAP coded print:


And here's a scan of the same three frames from a different print:


Sorry for the variability in scan quality from frame-to-frame. The scanner I used was designed for 8-perf, so there's an interruption before the 3rd frame. I also can't explain why the third frame is a bit dim-looking. All those scratches were pre-existing (and you wonder why we had 3 prints ).

I have some higher resolution images that show this better:

PDF file of two high resolution images.
PNG file of CAP-coded frames.
PNG file of non-CAP coded frames.

It took me quite a while to find these frames on the bench; I kept looking for a single frame that differed from it's adjacent frame, and this failed my test...

Methodology: I counted the distance out with a sync block referenced to the first non-black frame of the reel, but in retrospect, I should have counted from the beginning of the scene, in case of double-chopped ID frames or such. But even if the non-CAP version is off by a frame or three, the point is pretty clear, I think.

I'll endeavor to get some scans of the new Deluxe single-frame cap code when I next run across it. That probably won't be for a couple weeks...

--jhawk

[Edits: specify the size of the hi-rez pix; remove hi-rez link; add explanation; add FT-hosted hi-rez pix ]

[ 11-17-2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: John Hawkinson ]
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-16-2003, 04:20 PM:
 
Mine are in that general area, but they appear (at one time or another) on the other side of center, too. Unfortunately for us, our codes are on the light side of the frame... much harder to miss than your example.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-16-2003, 04:24 PM:
 
I am beginning to feel that Deluxe Hollywood has absolutely no business whatsoever in this industry, they should be shut down, and all of their employees should rightfully lose their jobs for what they have done. They obviously see no problem in ruining presentation with crap like this.

The only way to prevent piracy is to not make movies at all! I am amazed they don't take this step, because they are more worried about the pirates then about the billions and billions of $$$ they already do make.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-16-2003, 05:22 PM:
 
But who is ultimately responsible for this, as John P. would say, film done wrong? It is Deluxe? Or are they merely following "orders" for some asshole that hasn't a clue of how annoying and much this is killing film as a commercial theatre media? Maybe it's the DJs that are responsible… (DJ = Digital Jerks)

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-16-2003, 07:44 PM:
 
Hey, Joe, did you read my post? Those I just posted are from Tech's lab.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-16-2003, 08:04 PM:
 
Phil, thank you for saying what I've been thinking. Everyone is jumping on the labs, but they may just be following orders.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-16-2003, 08:08 PM:
 
Jiggidy Phiggidy Wiggidy J-

No I basically just looked at the pictures. I am illiterate, actually. I can write but I cannot read. But my response wasn't really based on that. It was more of an "overall" concern. If this is spreading to other labs then some other entity needs to lose it's job(s)!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-16-2003, 08:53 PM:
 
Those Technicolor CAP code marking John posted on page 13 are nowhere near as bad as the Deluxe CRAP code markings.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-16-2003, 09:34 PM:
 
It would be interesting to know if the studio's going to hear much about this tomorrow. We're up to around 40 complaints... not to mention 3 or 4 from staff members that were in the auditorium at one time or another & actually noticed... go figure!

This will be the first time I've had complaint one from either staff or patrons. A lot of them thought it was some kind of booth signal... caused by us!
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-17-2003, 01:03 AM:
 
Damn! I knew January was too good to be true! From Variety Here

And, of course Jacko Baby is going to kick himself "upstairs" to STILL pull the strings!

>>> Phil

-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted: Sun., Nov. 16, 2003, 3:15pm PT

Studios won't bomb the ban

Discussions to continue over future action

By CATHY DUNKLEY, DAVID ROONEY


It's final. Screeners will go to Academy members only.
Delivering the final word on this year's awards screeners battle Friday, MPAA chief Jack Valenti held fast to the decision to ban screeners from all groups except the Academy, much to the disappointment of the many groups who've opposed the ban since its inception.

Valenti got back in touch via phone Friday with the various opposition groups, including the IFP, the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn., BAFTA, and the critics groups and guilds, who had been hoping he'd find a last-ditch compromise to extend screeners to groups outside the Academy.

Valenti met with reps of the various groups Nov. 6 and then spoke to them Tuesday, promising a final decision this past Friday.

Many had felt optimistic after their recent talks with Valenti, who was sympathetic and attentive to their concerns.

"I was a little bit surprised, truthfully," said IFP/New York executive director Michelle Byrd. "It felt like in the conversations we've been having, he's been a man of his word. So we were hopeful. Everybody would've been happy to see the ban lifted, but I think now it's final."

Valenti confirmed the ban would stay as is.

Individual decisions

"Each studio on its own will decide whether to send out screeners to the Academy or not," he said, reiterating that the Acad alone had been chosen to receive screeners because it is "the only organization in the country whose membership includes all disciplines."

He once again said the purpose of the ban is to combat piracy, a cause that is "the No. 1 issue absorbing 90% of my time."

"To extend the screeners beyond the Academy would demand many, many thousands more screeners, which would greatly increase the risk of piracy, and that's a risk the studios cannot afford to take," he said.

Other sources indicated that, since meeting with opposition groups, Valenti had fought hard to persuade the studios to weaken their stance and include the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn., possibly the IFP and, even more unlikely still, the critics orgs.

DreamWorks principal Jeffrey Katzenberg and studio heads at Fox were the most strongly opposed to such a compromise.

Disappointment voiced

Los Angeles Film Critics Assn. prexy Jean Oppenheimer, who headed the delegation of prominent critics groups seeking a compromise to the ban, said, "It is very disappointing because when Mr. Valenti called the other day I had the feeling everybody was trying to work something out. Again I feel that screeners aren't really where the piracy problem lies."

Valenti also spoke Friday to Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. president Lorenzo Soria, reiterating the existing MPAA ruling on screeners which shuts that org's Golden Globes voters out of the deal.

"The HFPA is extremely disappointed that the MPAA has unfairly decided to continue the screener ban on organizations outside of the Academy," said the HFPA in a statement. "As we have commented previously, we view this action as discriminatory and an assault on the professional integrity of our members. In spite of the ban, the members of the HFPA will continue making it their mission to see all the motion pictures eligible for this year's Golden Globe awards."

Melissa Gilbert, president and Robert Pisano, chief executive officer/national executive director, Screen Actors Guild said:

"As far as we know, there has been no change in the MPAA decision to give screeners only to the Academy. As we have stated publicly, we disagree with that policy and deplore the discrimination against our members."

Future plans

On a positive note, Valenti however did say he would continue conversations in a formal sense with Award ceremonies groups after this year's Academy Awards presentation to discuss what happens in the future, underlining the ban was for a one-year term only.

Though the exact timetable for these ongoing discussions was unclear, it is expected the MPAA will include tracking of the success of the reduced number of screeners this year in reducing piracy.

"Valenti was certainly interested in having an IFP voice in whatever discussions they have in the future for solutions for next year and beyond," said Byrd. "All this certainly served as a rallying cry for the industry in a very visible way and I would hope that energy will continue."

The priority for many players within the creative community will now be securing their involvement in further talks for longer term solutions.

The Independent Working Group, comprising studios specialty divisions, is expected to hold further discussions in the coming days and will be lobbying heavily with Valenti to be at the table and part of the discussions for next year.

Valenti succession

Aside from the screener issue, many industry sources were also abuzz about succession plans for Valenti.

Sources close to the MPAA chief indicated it was unlikely he would step down in January but that early spring was a much more likely timetable. They would not be drawn on whether frontrunner Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) will be the next MPAA CEO at which time Valenti will remain chairman of the org.

Meanwhile, as the dust settles on Valenti's final word, non-MPAA companies are beginning to make known their plans for screener mailout.

Speaking to investors Friday during the company's quarterly earnings conference call, Lions Gate Entertainment CEO Jon Feltheimer said Lions Gate will be pushing hard for three of its "bona fide Oscar contenders": "Shattered Glass" (which expands to 125 screens this week), "The Cooler" (released Nov. 26) and "Girl with a Pearl Earring" (Dec. 12).

Lions Gate screeners

"We will do everything we can to compete for award consideration," Feltheimer said, noting that while the company respects the MPAA's piracy initiatives, Lions Gate will be sending out both DVD and VHS screeners of its films. "Mailing screeners is one area of award marketing campaigns where Lions Gate and other indies can level the playing field with the majors," he added.

Samuel Goldwyn Films has revealed its plans to mail out VHS tapes only to the Academy, the HFPA and critics groups for "Japanese Story," for which the distrib is pushing Toni Collette in the actress category; while Newmarket Films will supply DVD and VHS copies of "Monster" and "Whale Rider," the latter is already available commercially.

Those titles will go to the Academy, HFPA and some critics groups and guilds. The "Whale Rider" push will focus on Niki Caro for director and adapted screenplay and Keisha Castle-Hughes for supporting actress. For "Monster," Newmarket is pushing Patty Jenkins for director and screenplay, Charlize Theron for actress and Christina Ricci for supporting actress.

(Meredith Amdur in New York contributed to this report.)


© Copyright 2003, Reed Business Information,
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. © 2003 Variety, Inc.
 

---

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 11-19-2003, 01:15 AM:
 
I'm just glad I know what these red dots are now. I never noticed these until I opened my new theatre and I suspect now that's because my old lamps were underlit severely with old equipment. This summer has been very bad with them. No customer has mentioned them yet, but most of my staff has noticed. Pirating hasn't hurt theatres that much if any. Most nerds that download Matrix a day early are still waiting in line to buy tickets.

I was about to post a thread asking what they were and stumbled across the complaint from Master and Commander. I agree the storm scene was terrible, it completely stole my attention from the scene and ultimatly ruined the feeling in it.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-24-2003, 10:01 PM:
 
The game continues... From Variety 11/24/2003 Here

>>> Phil

----------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: Mon., Nov. 24, 2003, 6:46pm PT

Indies sue to block screener ban

MPAA accused of anti-competitive behavior

By DAVID ROONEY


Just as the dust was finally settling on the screener battle, it's about to get ugly again.
A coalition of independent filmmakers along with IFP/Los Angeles and IFP/New York Monday filed a lawsuit in New York seeking a court order to force the MPAA to lift the ban in time to impact this year's awards season, allowing individual distributors to determine when and in what manner to distribute promotional screeners.

The plaintiffs have accused the MPAA of conspiring with studio chiefs to eliminate competitive rivalry, of using their control to erect barriers and disadvantage small, independent film producers, and of conspiring with the American Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences to unlawfully disadvantage other competing critics' evaluation and awards events.

The group has been granted a hearing Wednesday morning in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

MPAA spokesman Rich Taylor said the org's legal consul had not yet seen the suit. However, he added: "from the early quotes and reports I've seen it (the suit) seems to ignore the intent of the ban which is to reduce piracy and preserve the industry for motion pictures big and small."

The official complaint charges the MPAA with mandating "an anti-competitive, unjustified, and unnecessarily restrictive ban." The group states that the ban constitutes an unlawful restraint of trade under U.S. antitrust laws.

The coalition includes IFP members, producers whose films are being released by studio specialty divisions and are among this year's awards contenders, and producers without current releases at stake who are concerned with the negative effect of the screener ban on the independent sector.

"This has been a long-term campaign to right the wrong of the MPAA screener ban," said a statement from the group. "We have written letters, placed ads, held meetings, and tried every way to get the MPAA to reverse its decision of Sept. 30.

"Unlike the major studios -- who can buy public awareness through expensive promotional campaigns -- independent filmmakers rely on recognition through awards to attract talent, financing, and box office revenues. As a last resort, to protect the interests of independent filmmakers and the film-going public, we have taken the step of seeking court-ordered relief of the ban."

The plaintiffs include Antidote Films' Jeff Levy-Hinte ("Thirteen," "Laurel Canyon"); Elemental Films' Ross Katz, ("Lost in Translation"); Robert Altman and Josh Astrachan of Sandcastle 5 Prods. and Killer Films chief Christine Vachon ("The Company"); HeadQuarters' Susan A Stover, ("Laurel Canyon"); Anthony Bregman, Anne Carey and Ted Hope of This Is That ("American Splendor," "21 Grams"); and InDigEnt principals John Sloss and Gary Winick ("Pieces of April").

"I don't feel that the MPAA set out to injure independent films," Levy-Hinte told Daily Variety. "They've clearly demonstrated they don't know enough about independent filmmaking to give it that much attention. What they did was try to give the impression of fighting piracy but they came up with an ill-conceived and defective means of doing so."

"It the ban is allowed to stand, it could damage not only the films in release this year but our ability to release independent films in the future," he continued. "Studios can buy publicity but we have to earn it."

Other producers involved include GreeneStreet Films co-founder John Penotti, Forensic Films' Scott Macauley, Independent Entertainment's Scott Rosenfelt, Joana Vicente of Open City Films, Peter Broderick of Paradigm Consulting, Eva Kolodner and Yael Melamede of Salty Features, Sarah Pillsbury and Midge Sanford of Sanford/Pillsbury Prods. and John Cole of Talking Wall Pictures.

Move marks the latest and most aggressive step taken by the bicoastal IFP, which has spearheaded an anti-ban charge involving much of the creative community. The org's exec directors from both Los Angeles and New York -- respectively Dawn Hudson and Michelle Byrd -- signed on as plaintiffs.

"We tried every possible avenue and did everything we could including informing the MPAA ahead of time of what we thought the antitrust violations were but they didn't reverse the ban," Hudson said. "We had to act in a way that we hope can still have some effect on this year's awards season."

"There were two major issues here," Byrd added. "One was the desire to move quickly in time for this year's awards and the other was the need to register a complaint loud and clear. Not to stand up at this moment in a more proactive manner would mean that the way the thing went down this year would have established the tone for the future also."

One of the chief complaints from the IFP, the studio specialty divisions and the creative community as a whole has been the total lack of dialogue between the MPAA and its member studios with any organization or individual beyond their executive ranks.


© Copyright 2003, Reed Business Information,
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. © 2003 Variety, Inc.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-24-2003, 10:12 PM:
 
Good ol' Jack Valenti sure does do a great job at screwing things up for everyone. First the hideous CRAP code from hell, then offensive "anti-piracy" trailers, now a nice screw-job toward the independent studios!

You rule Jack! Way to go buddy.

(Now how about retiring?)
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-25-2003, 04:41 AM:
 
Umm...wouldn't it be easier to withdraw from membership in the MPAA (thus avoiding the screener ban altogether) than to sue the organization?

Anyway, this whole screener thing is dumb. Movies should be seen on film, and attending screenings is the responsibility of the Academy members. If they don't accept this responsibility, then they should resign.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-25-2003, 08:07 AM:
 
It doesn't seem to me that there is a legal case here.
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-26-2003, 08:52 PM:
 

quote:

---

I'll endeavor to get some scans of the new Deluxe single-frame cap code when I next run across it. That probably won't be for a couple weeks...

--jhawk

---

quote:

---

I can cut a few frames out if someone can scan it.

---

I hope you're not serious.

Danny
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-27-2003, 08:48 PM:
 
I suggest that the task of gathering sample images of Crap Code (tm?) be left to those who can do so without cutting the film. One can make a good fair use claim against copyright infringement but outright theft of studio property is not going to be condoned. Especially when its completely unnecessary to steal film frames to obtain the images. Just because you might be able to get away with something is not justification for doing it.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-27-2003, 09:54 PM:
 
i raised my eyebrow at that suggestion too, but then i figured it could perhaps be justified along the same lines as cutting out lab splices. it's an interference in the presentation. personally, i don't think i would do that though.

carl
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-27-2003, 10:56 PM:
 
Putting aside any legal issues as Steve raises, I would hope no one would willfully "damage" a print.

It would be a perfect example of, as John P. would say, Film Done WRONG!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-28-2003, 02:06 AM:
 
I was thinking along the same lines Carl, I would say that a splice is much less annoying than the dots. As far as willfully damaging a print, Hello? the print is already damaged by the dots!

Anyway, This may not be the MPAA but I recieved an email today stating that my print for the sneak of The Last Samurai will not only be arriving at 9am on Saturday morning but will be accomanied by a security guard who is to remain with the print all day. I wouldn't be surprised if he showed up handcuffed to the cans like the secret service and the nuclear football.

So, now there is no way to screen the print unless we cancel one of our first shows and I have to put up with some cocksucker in my booth all day!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-28-2003, 02:21 AM:
 
You can get a good picture of the frames while the reel is on the rewind bench with light shining through. No need to cut or damage the film in any way. You can get VERY detailed shots with this method.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-28-2003, 08:54 AM:
 
Put tape lines on the floor so that there is about a 10x10 foot boundary, give him a chair and tell him he is not to leave that space if he is to stay in your booth. If he wanders from that square, have security evict him. Don't forget to give him a courtesy cup in case he needs to go to the bathroom.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-28-2003, 10:18 AM:
 
I have no problem with the couriers watching from the booth (if the publicist in control of the screening allows it); there is a theatre-type chair by the soundrack and a large spotlight type port to watch through. Typically it's the same one of two guys from Network Courier. However, I have made them sign disclaimers (good indefinitely) releasing me from liability if they slip and bump their head or something. I figure they don't have to be there, it's just a courtesy, so no reason I should assume any risk no matter how small.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-28-2003, 11:00 AM:
 
Actually that's a good idea. Theaters should come up with some painfully long 30 page legal contract for any "non-employee" to have to sign who wants to stay in the booth during a show. The studios would be spending so much damned time and money dealing with their legal department trying to get things cleared that could very well put an end to this insulting foolishness.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-29-2003, 02:31 PM:
 
In another thread, Bruce Hansen asks, "Why should the MPAA dictate to the studios? Shouldn't each studio decide weather to send these things out or not?"

The MPAA is a group of studios, and they met together and made an agreement to handle screeners in a particular way. No single member studio has the prerogative to simply break that agreement (presumably; it's not as if they've published the exact text of the agreement and any penalties).

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-29-2003, 05:18 PM:
 
Discussion of screener tapes should continue in a separate thread. This one's getting all clogged up.

We already have enough anal retentive moderators, but if you'd like to apply, jHawk, please request an application from an administrator.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-30-2003, 09:11 AM:
 
I love Brad's idea. Hand those security guards with infrared goggles and the guy they send up to the booth to watch the projectionist, a four page document to sign that has all kinds of clauses about holding the theatre harmless in any legal action a patron may level re: the way they were handled (or manhandled) or any other dispute. It also should hold the theatre harmless in any injury the guard might substain while anywhere in the theatre -- like when the 60yr old guard tries to walk up five flights and then has to climb a rung ladder to get to the booth.

And while we are at it, how come the studios gets to dictate to theatre owners THEIR contract (which I assume is created without benefit of bargaining negotiations with exhibition). How come the theatre owners don't get to dictate to the studios an exhibitors' Master Contract? Seems to me there really is a tenuous balance of power here -- exhibitors need product, but studios are seriously dependent on a definative number of screens available for any film opening. If only one or two members of NATO decide that they will not play films from a studio that does not agree to the owner's contract, the non-compliant studio would be in very big financial trouble. Just imagine if 30% of the screens available to distribution on an opening weekend are missing from the economic model. Seems that NATO could demand that the Master Contract be negotiated, not simply handed to their members. The fact that exhibition has recently been consolidated by reason of the chains gobbling up other chains, gives them even more power. They could very easily insist that Master Contract be molded more to their liking, or at least that it is authored jointly by bargaining and negotiation.

Frank
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-30-2003, 12:03 PM:
 

quote:

---

And while we are at it, how come the studios gets to dictate to theatre owners THEIR contract (which I assume is created without benefit of bargaining negotiations with exhibition).

---

quote:

---

Putting aside any legal issues as Steve raises, I would hope no one would willfully "damage" a print.

It would be a perfect example of, as John P. would say, Film Done WRONG!

---

NEVER deliberately remove sections of a print or make unnecessary splices that will destroy the continuity. If you are trying to show examples of a print problem, take photographs of the affected frames on a rewind bench WITHOUT damaging the print. If test samples are needed for measurement or testing, the head or tail leader can be used, if it is replaced with appropriate labeled leader.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-12-2003, 11:59 PM:
 
OK, as promised.

On Nov 16, I said, "I'll endeavor to get some scans of the new Deluxe single-frame cap code when I next run across it. That probably won't be for a couple weeks..."

Here you go (just a gif for now, but it's clear enough):


This is from R2 of Once Upon a Time In Mexico, and is an example of the new Deluxe CAP code (aka "CRAP" code, by some). Printed at Deluxe Hollywood. This is an anamorphic movie,
so you'd need to stretch x2 to understand the full visual effect.

Note that this was two consecutive frames long, different from the old Kodak CAP code (1 frame), the earlier versions of the new Deluxe CAP code (1 frame), or the new TES cap code (3 frames). (Perhaps frame numbers are/were variable, I don't have good data on that).

It does stand to reason that multi-frame CAP codes are harder to defeat, since they will show up better in frame-by-frame compression algorithms, and will defeat CAP code (and dirt) removal algorithms that try to remove single-frame high-contrast small elements.

If anyone has the patience or proper tools (editting -style viewer, I suppose), I'd be interested if there's data on how many frames long the new Deluxe and TES cap codes are, beyond my limitted dataset.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-13-2003, 01:48 AM:
 
Great example John!

I don't understand why all those assholes bother with the "codes"? What a bunch of fuckin' idiots! I FULLY believe the jerks that want to push "video" into the theatres are behind this. Oh, BTW...I am NOT someone that believes in conspiracies.

Wouldn't it make more sense just to put a visible plain-English code there? You know, like all those POS cable/TV stations with their logos. They could print throughout the film in the lower right corner of the frame: "Thank you for watching Deluxe Print #458712AK768"

Then there would be NO doubt!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-13-2003, 01:56 PM:
 
I asked my friend whom I worked with if he really wanted to know what CAP code was before he went and saw LOTR:TTT Extended and he said he didn't mind.

When he got back from the screening, he said "those red dots were annoying as fuck!" And not only that, but his roommate who has never worked in a booth or seen a film print or knows what CAP code and copy protection is, asked him in the middle of the film, "What the hell is up with those red dots all the time?"

This is getting WAY out of hand. I propose everyone who finds a cap-coded reel relentlessly order replacements until you get one without. And destroy the CAP-coded ones beyond the point of runnability before you send them back. For security reasons, of course.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-15-2003, 03:49 PM:
 
Thomas Procyk wrote:

quote:

---

...And destroy the CAP-coded ones beyond the point of runnability before you send them back.

---

Much as you might object to something, those prints are the property of the distributor, who likely authorized and paid the lab for any anti-piracy coding. There are much better ways to change industry practices than to willfully damage property.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-15-2003, 07:33 PM:
 
While I agree with John that intentionally damaging reels is not the way to solve the problem, I am all ears. So John, just exactly how do you propose this nonsense be put to an end? And by putting an end to this, I mean an effective way to put an end to it, not meetings of committees that drag on and on over the course of months or years.

So far the only effective proposal I've heard is to blow up the Deluxe Labs building.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-15-2003, 08:39 PM:
 
The solution to this problem is relatively simple. If enough customers complain and demand a refund or raincheck because the movie they pay GOOD MONEY to see is DEFECTIVE, the message will be received LOUD and CLEAR. We need someone like Roger Ebert to take this cause up and educate moviegoers as to how movies are being mutilated by the studios. This REALLY pisses me off!!! Every print of RotK, arguably the most-anticipated release of the year, will be defective, right out of the lab. F-ing idiots!!!!

EDIT: You can let the MPAA know how you feel about their mutilation of movies via email: hotline@mpaa.org I just did.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-15-2003, 09:35 PM:
 
Never underestimate the power of the pen (or keyboard).

State the facts, and be professional and businesslike in your correspondence.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-15-2003, 09:39 PM:
 
Oh yeah, I agree. I managed to express my outrage and disgust at this practice, while not invoking the F-word even once! (Even though I badly wanted to! )
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 12-16-2003, 02:57 AM:
 
Yet another scathing review of how stupid CRAP Code is:

It's supposed to be a review of 'Master & Commander, but more time is spent bashing the CRAP Code

Epic, grandiose and brilliant, "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the
World" is nonetheless marred by a smirking performance by Russell Crowe
and a new problem affecting studio releases in 2003, piracy prevention
marking.

Yes, my fantastic movie-going experience watching this often- beautiful film
was nearly destroyed by the appearance of distinct dots throughout one of
the film's most engrossing scenes. The scene in question features a
torrential storm and its effect leaves one featured shipmate of the crew that
is our protagonist here stranded and left for dead. But I couldn't tell you
what shipmate/actor it was because I got incredibly distracted during the
highly important scene by the appearance (no less than six times) of dots in
light areas of the frame. These dots are now being splayed across the
frames of studio films in the lab, by the order of the film's distributor(s) (i.e.
the "studio") in order that the print may be "marked" so that if someone
pirates it (copies it and distributes it), the source print can be identified and
the culprit more easily tracked.

This is a new trend in the theatrical exhibition of films and one that is about
to cause this viewer to abandon watching films at the theater altogether.
This revolting and ugly effect took me out of what was a truly captivating
scene in a wonderful film to the point of where I completely lost track of
what was going on in the story. Because of this, a pivotal plot point of the
film totally escaped me. This left me so angry that it took me an additional
five minutes to recover and get back into the film. It is completely
unnecessary for the studio to allow such a thing to occur.

All this was done for a concept that is highly questionable. Not only is piracy
NOT an issue in the United States, but many studies that have been
completed about piracy have lead to the overwhelming conclusion that films
are copied and "stolen" at the level of the labs and the other areas within
the studio system itself. In other words, it is not consumers who are pirating
films but those contractors/ sub-contractors and agencies who work for the
studios who are responsible. For the studios to allow the domestic releases
of their fare to be marred for a supposed crime that simply is not taking
place (at least, not in the ridiculous numbers that they suggest it is) is
simply unacceptable.

As consumers, we must do all that we can to change and eradicate this
insipid new program established by "Hollywood." I suggest that we write
letters, get on-line and complain at every opportunity and, if necessary
begin to boycott films that have these marks.

As for "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World," it is a brilliant
film, one of the best you will see during this holiday season, even if it takes
20 minutes to get used to Crowe's thespianism run amuck. Go immediately
to the nearest multiplex showing the film and buy a ticket. Watch the movie
and try not to let those disturbing markings in the film ruin the feature for
you. Then, when the film is over, go out to the lobby, get a manager, and
demand that they give you your money back since the print was "dirty" and
"marred."

...Back to your regularly scheduled Film-Tech session...

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-16-2003, 03:55 AM:
 
Again, I have to ask, where is NATO on this issue? Do they just sit around collecting dues from their theatre members? Isn't it painfully obvious that if people start reacting like that reviewer it can only be bad for box office business?

It would be in the theatre owner's best interest as well as the interest of the consumer, his ticket buyer, to do the same as the writer suggests -- refuse to play films that are so blantly scarred with these crap codes. NATO should take an agressive stand and inform the studios that supplying prints that are mared with non-picture information in the image area will be considered a damaged print and thus put the studio in breach of their own Master Contract which obligates them to supply prints in good condition, discounting normal wear and tear. NATO should make a statement that if the studio delivers prints that contain deliberate, distracting marks in the image area, they will be considered prints not "in good condition" as contractually required and will be considered by the NATO member as a breach of contract. That then puts the ball in the theatre owners ball park. The theatre could pull the picture because the studio deliberatly sent a print that will cause the theatre to loose business.

NATO should be very sensitive to the fact that unhappy customers will be ruinous for business. All that has to happen is a few high profile reviews like Ebert and Ropert slam this practice, and it could easily become an abatros around the studios' necks that they will want to be rid of quicker than they send titles to DVD.

Hmmm, why not send off an email to those two, perhaps quoting the above. Start a fire....who knows, it could become an inferno.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-16-2003, 06:51 AM:
 

quote:

---

It's supposed to be a review of 'Master & Commander, but more time is spent bashing the CRAP Code

---

quote:

---

Frank wrote:
Again, I have to ask, where is NATO on this issue?

---

Why would they care? NATO is one of those organizations that take forever to get even the most simple task done, because they make sure all of their members are incompetent before they join or too busy to ever paticipate. Why else would they be so ineffective? If they were competent, they would move a lot faster and be a lot more help to the industry. Just look at their idiotic logic on trailer volume. Decreasing the volume over a period of 10 years or something retarded. The whole thing could have been over and done with years ago if they had the balls to just axe the db level then and there. Guess what, it's STILL a problem thanks to NATO.

NATO is ineffective. And only real action from them (not propaganda talk from Pytlak) can prove otherwise. I'd like to see NATO prove me wrong, but that's not gonna happen.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-16-2003, 09:49 AM:
 
I do not speak for NATO, the labs (ACVL), the distributors (MPAA), the theatre equipment manufacturers and dealers (ITEA), or similar trade organizations. You need to take your issues directly to them.

Here are the contacts:

http://www.natoonline.org/officers.htm

http://www.natoonline.org/contacts.htm

http://www.acvl.org/officers.htm

http://www.acvl.org/members.htm

http://www.mpaa.org/about/

http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/

http://www.filmjournal.com/applications/guides/alpha.cfm?PageID=11111130

http://www.itea.com/officers.html
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-16-2003, 12:27 PM:
 
Of course, I meant destroying the prints in jest. They would probably charge you and/or pull all your bookings for that studio if you returned them a buzzsawed reel.

John has a GREAT idea. Let's swamp all the organizations, (Studios, MPAA, NATO, etc.) with letters explaining our dissatisfaction with X presentation at X theater because of the crap code. If you see a movie at the theater, send a letter to the theater's corporate office (although with some chains, you'll only get a pass or two with a "Dear Valued Customer" letter) letting them know that you were distracted by this.

We should start the Film-Tech Lobbying Organization. "FTLO" sounds official, too! Imagine, "Oh shit! The FTLO is after us again!"

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-16-2003, 12:44 PM:
 
Thomas: The idea is not mine. But well-reasoned, business-like, professional communication will have much more impact than childish ranting or bashing. Trying to disrupt business by your suggestion of "...Let's swamp all the organizations..." is not likely to convince those who can make beneficial changes, and will reduce your credibility.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-16-2003, 01:37 PM:
 
John is right. Corporate people do not respond well to immature ranting and raving. Those kinds of complaints are readily dismissed by "them". If you keep to the facts, state your concerns, etc. and do it relatively politely, they are MUCH more likely to pay attention. That doesn't mean you can't be indignant -- just don't be "rude".
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-16-2003, 02:23 PM:
 
Why not just a letter that says "YOU SUCK!!!1!!!@!!!" and nothing more? Surely they'll know exactly what is being referred to.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-16-2003, 02:36 PM:
 
I think the point these guys are trying to make is that organizations like NATO are well meaning, but are far too worried about their organization and being politically correct (aka: taking forever to get a simple task done). As a result, if we play by their rules and send in a happy little pc-worded letter, they will read it and nothing will get done. On the other hand if everyone attacked them with various flavors of "you suck" (as Joe recommended), they will throw those out in disgust that someone could actually be so blunt.

So either way, we're screwed if it's up to organizations like that and we are back to blowing up the Deluxe Labs building.
 

---

Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 12-16-2003, 02:47 PM:
 
Educate your local reviewers. Once they see the code, they will look for it on further occasions so as not to look ignorant and then comment. Company heads listen to shareholders who read newspapers and then complain about the value of their stock falling. This is a roundabout route, but sometimes effective.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-16-2003, 02:50 PM:
 
I basically agree with Brad on this, although I would think that if NATO, Deluxe, and <insert distributor name here> were to get large quantities (i.e. thousands) of semi-polite letters (on paper, not email or faxes) over an extended period of time, all of which complained about crap-code and how it ruins movies, someone at one of those organizations might eventually get the idea that something is wrong and needs to be fixed.

Even that is kind of unlikely, however. The scary thing is that if people stopped going to movies because they got sick of the crap code, the MPAA would produce a report that blamed the drop in attendance on "evil movie pirates" and would probably come up with something much worse, thus perpetuating the cycle. And they'd probably convince Technicolor and other non-Deluxe labs to go along with it, too, so it would go from being a one-lab issue to being much more widespread.

Thankfully, I deal mostly with art-house titles which, for the most part, aren't crap-coded.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-16-2003, 03:22 PM:
 
Is this intentional image damage limited to just one distributor? Which one(s)?

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 12-16-2003, 03:41 PM:
 
Honestly, I can't imagine that the MPAA or anyone else would be concerned with anything that the we have to say. If customers or the average Joe started complaining about it then maybe they would listen. Why would they care that the people showing the movie has a problem with something? People are still paying to see the movie.

I say that you make up flyers to inform your customers about the coding and persuade them to email the MPAA and tell them that they have a problem with it.

It's kind of like when you have a lazy co worker and you complain to the boss about it and he or she brushes you off, but when one customer complains about the lazy worker, that guy is toast.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-16-2003, 04:24 PM:
 
Perhaps as part of the "What's Showing" telephone announcement:

"In theatre 92, we are pleased to present 'Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' in Dolby Digital EX surround sound. This blockbuster is shown in the trendy and highly artistic orange-dot crap code process. Please go to the New Line Cinema Message Boards on the internet and let them know how much you enjoyed this revolutionary concept. Showtimes are..."

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 12-16-2003, 09:40 PM:
 

quote:

---

Is this intentional image [assuming you are referring to CRAP code... -AS] damage limited to just one distributor? Which one(s)?

---

quote:

---

I say that you make up flyers to inform your customers about the coding and persuade them to email the MPAA and tell them that they have a problem with it.

---

Sure, let's call attention to the coding and ruin the movies for everyone. That'd be good for business.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-17-2003, 03:32 PM:
 
Various comments:

• I addressed Phil's comments to me in private e-mail, but it was not my intention to be difficult.
• I don't think Brad is correct about the Seabiscuit CAP codes being potential Kodak CAP misconfigurations. John P. had previously suggested some of the early very out-of-focus new CAP codes I posted images of were misconfigurations ("knocked out of focus") or "a different [non-Kodak] version of CAP code" (see "What are these spots?").
  It seems unlikely to me that the Seabiscuit CAP codes are misconfigurations (especially because of the number of consecutive frames), but I'm sure it will become clear with time.
• ROTK has Deluxe CAP coding on R5 (in Minas Tirith), but it is very infrequent. I only noticed 5 or 6 instances, and they were not terribly distracting (at least, not compared to other films); compare this with the 20-30 instances we've seen in other films.
• Do we have any theories how the number of CAP coded frames is decided upon? It does not seem to have an obvious corelation with the brightness of the reel, likelyhood of piracy, studio, or print number (at least, not that I have noticed).

quote:

---

Sure, let's call attention to the coding and ruin the movies for everyone. That'd be good for business.

---

quote:

---

Trying to disrupt business by your suggestion of "...Let's swamp all the organizations..." is not likely to convince those who can make beneficial changes, and will reduce your credibility.

---

Oh, and CRAP code is not disrupting business?!? Maybe business NEEDS to be disrupted. When calm, "professional" (i hate that word. It was invented by corporations just like "excellence") and credible letters don't work, maybe it's time that we take things a step further. Whatever that step may be is up to the people in charge and how they choose to handle or not handle the problem they are presented with.

Also, "swamping with letters" doesn't necessarily mean RUDE or "unprofessional" letters, it just means a lot of freaking letters. One or two from a few people won't change anything, no matter how much they make you believe it will. However, if they got just ONE from everyone on this site, it would certainly get their attention on the matter. And if it doesn't, maybe a melted reel in the cans will.

Taking a bit from Howard Beale in "Network": "I want everyone to send a telegram to the MPAA saying 'I want the Crap Code stopped NOW!' A million telegrams... by 10pm tonight, I want them KNEE-DEEP in telegrams denouncing every god damn thing that's wrong with this 'Code' in the whole godless world! I want the Crap Code stopped NOW! I want the Crap Code stopped NOW! I want the---*collapse*..."

And Brad,

quote:

---

So either way, we're screwed if it's up to organizations like that and we are back to blowing up the Deluxe Labs building.

---

You should know by now that terrorism doesn't work. People shout, and write, and rally, and protest, and get laughed at. Then when a suicide bomber blows up a building, "What do they want? Why did they do this? Faceless Cowards!" No one will get the message...

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 12-18-2003, 12:36 PM:
 
Deleted Post

[ 12-18-2003, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Richard Greco ]
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2003, 01:47 PM:
 
Tom, something tells me a bomb wouldn't go off with no one around. On the contrary, there would be cheers and applause from a large group of happy people standing around the building.

(By the way, since I know there are enough stupid people out there who are incapable of getting the joke, no I am really not suggesting anyone literally blow up the building.)
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-18-2003, 01:51 PM:
 
Out of curiousity: are the prints that play at the MPAA screening room crap-coded?
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-18-2003, 02:13 PM:
 
No, Most of the time they are original answer prints. Not the stuff you guys get in the theatres.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-19-2003, 06:16 AM:
 
I say, get the projectionists who run the clips they show at the Academy Awards to switch reels at the last minute, substituting ones with Crap Codes on every clip. THAT should burst the blood vessels in a bunch of studio execs' brains!
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-19-2003, 07:58 AM:
 
But don't they use DLP now for running the clips at the Academy awards.
 

---

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 12-20-2003, 08:39 PM:
 
When I saw ROTK at AMC's Avco a couple days ago the cap code in reel 5 was quite obvious and appeared 3-4 times. The print must have been a regular print as there were a lot of lab splices throughout as well.

Last night I saw the same film at the Arclight and it must have been a select print. Besides not having any obvious lab splices the cap code in reel 5 was nearly undetectable. I only saw it twice and both times it was in a dark spot in the middle of a frame right before a change of scene. The dots looked smaller too.

It's interesting that cap codes in select prints are less obvious than regular prints. Of course I'm assuming what I saw was a select print.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-22-2003, 05:16 PM:
 
Show Prints and Select Prints are better than the regular prints they make and ship to theatres.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-22-2003, 05:46 PM:
 
What is a "select" print? I've had EK prints and "show prints," which as far as I know are the same thing (prints off the original negs). I don't think I've ever gotten anything labelled as a "select print." Is it just a regular release print that has been pre-screened, or is there something different about the printing or processing that makes it better?
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-22-2003, 06:02 PM:
 
Sometimes it depends on the lab, but it's basically the same thing. In Hollywood/Westwood the first run houses would get two prints when they opened a feature. The theatre would get a Show Print and a Back-up print. The first print would be the print to use and second would sit stand-by in the the booth. It would most of the time be a regular release print. Other first run theatres in the area would only get one print. It all depended on the theatre as to who got a select prints. When I would do print checks of a feature, sometimes the lesser graded prints would be send to the Drive-Ins.
 

---

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 12-22-2003, 10:36 PM:
 
I'm probably using Technicolor's term for a showprint. Booking info. and cans that say "REG" are the regular prints and "SEL" are the showprints. AFAIK.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-23-2003, 08:42 AM:
 
It's my understanding that a "select print" is not necessarily an EK print, but rather is a print that has had some special attention payed to it. That special attention might be grading by Dolby's distribution group, or more careful grading from the lab, or it might simply be a print in a special pool that bookers only send to some theatres.

So, a priori, I don't think you can assume it means any particular thing, but it may be evident from leader inspection or knowledge of how a particular studio handles their "select" prints.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-23-2003, 01:08 PM:
 
THX, Dolby, and others work with the labs in evaluating, classifying, and certifying release print quality. Here are the THX guidelines:

http://www.cybertheater.com/News_Views/THX_TAP/thx_tap.html

quote:

---

REEL REVIEW

After the answer print is finalized, the printing laboratory is ready to manufacture release prints. The two main release print manufactures in the United States are Technicolor in North Hollywood, and Deluxe in Hollywood, California. Deluxe also has a facility in Toronto, Canada, and there are several Technicolor locations outside the US, including London and Rome. On average, TAP reviews the picture and soundtrack of approximately 600 reels per month. At an average of 20 minutes per reel, that is about 200 hours a month, or over eight 24-hour days.

TAP's reel reviewers have a wide range of experience, including editing, post production supervision, and motion picture lab work. The average experience is 7 years, and two reel reviewers have been with TAP since the program's inception.

TAP samples release print reels at the lab, grading them A, B, C, and Reject. An "A" grade reel is perfect, including built-in problems approved on the internegative. A "B" grade reel has minor negative or positive dirt. A and B grade reels can be set aside for select release prints. Some customers have special screenings or certain geographical areas where they want select quality release prints.

"C" grade reel defects include:

o A moderate amount of negative and positive dirt

o Mild developer rubs (yellow streaks in the dark part of the image)

o Splices (clean and well-made, with no more of a minor pop in the sound track)

o Minor color or density shifts from what was approved on the answer print

C grade reels may be acceptable for general release, but not select release areas

Rejects:

Reject Picture (RP). Multiple combinations of C grade problems, e.g., excessive negative and positive dirt or scratches, splices with color shifts and/or loud pops in the sound track, and color or density shifts greater than what was approved in the answer print.

Reject Sound (RS). Any reel with a sound problem, including digital dropouts or failures.

The grading process takes into consideration where on the image the defect shows up -- a blob of dirt on the main character's face is more serious than over a background. The longer a defect lasts, the more severe the effect on the grade. Any problem that draws attention to itself and draws the audience out of the film gets a reject or C grade. Reels with clean splices, for example, get a C grade, automatically.

A customer that uses TAP extensively will have statistically valid, detailed quality information on how the film labs perform film by film, as well as by year by year.

---

Other links:

LedJer Services

Kodak ScreenCheck

Dolby Distributor Services

Deluxe Labs

Technicolor Labs
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 12-23-2003, 01:30 PM:
 
I don't believe that THX has done print selection/grading since the spin-off to Creative and the dissolution of the TAP program.

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-23-2003, 01:36 PM:
 
Still on the THX website.
 

---

Posted by Dino Panagiotopoulos (Member # 1579) on 01-15-2004, 11:40 AM:
 
Apparently the RIAA has come out with their own version of the Public Service Announcements. Its no Manny Perry but I like this one better

RIAA
 

---