This is topic The Single Worst Use of CAP Code, Ever: A Rant 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=006450

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 08-03-2004, 09:27 PM:
 
So the Little Lady™ and I don’t agree on a helluvalot, except that we both really enjoy the film Before Sunrise (it’s like, our movie, see?). So we were both delighted to hear that there was a sequel called Before Sunset out in theatres, and tonight we took ourselves over to the Rialto in Ridgefield Park to see if Jesse and Celine ever returned to the train station in Vienna where their mutual lust began. Celine, OBTW, is played by the drop dead beautiful Julie Delpy, may her name be spoken with pure sex forever.

So it’s late in the movie, and Celine and Jesse are in the back of a limousine, and she is finally pouring out her frustration at not seeing him for nine years, and she’s just beside herself at how frustrating all of her relationships have been since then because she continues to measure them against that one night they had together years ago, and she’s crying her eyes out, and it’s a fine bit of acting and a beautifully composed shot, and your heart is breaking for this woman . . . and then what do you think goes flying by just at that moment, right across her angelic face?

So, like, did some sick schmuck actually sit down and watch this film to determine what would be the single WORST spot to insert an anti-piracy gimmick? Is that what happened here, Sparky? I mean, you’ve gotta be freakin’ kidding me with this shit! Right over this woman’s face, at the absolute emotional peak of the film! Red Dots!! I mean, what the hell is going on here, ya know!?! Can’t whoever is responsible for this be just a tad more judicious about where he aims his freakin’ bingo card marker, and when? Huh? Huh? Huh?

I mean, hey, c’mon.

Okay. Deep, calming breaths . . . .
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-03-2004, 09:29 PM:
 
Master and Commander was incredibly bad. More recently I noticed it was disrupting in Girl Next Door and Village. Some prints it's there but it's so small I can tune it out, others are IN YOUR FACE!!!

I say we should use this thread to log bad CAP coded prints and see if we can come up with a pattern.
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 08-03-2004, 10:31 PM:
 
I recall seeing them show up multiple times on "Man on Fire". I never really paid attention to them before, but they were a little too obvious when I watched that movie.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-03-2004, 10:54 PM:
 
There are a variety of CAP Code methods in use today, each associated with a particular laboratory. The newer codes are likely evolving to make them less noticeable, yet more robust for tracking pirated videos. It is not inconceivable that multiple types of watermarking may be used on a given print.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-03-2004, 11:17 PM:
 
Both The Vilage and Spiderman 2 had extremely bad CAP code. I'm glad studios feel that it is worth ruing the movie just to save a couple of bucks. Watching a movie in a movie theater just isn't a good experience anymore, and CAP code plays a very large percentage of that reason.[av=h]
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-03-2004, 11:22 PM:
 
CAP code is generally so bad that I expect to see those digital measels and security chicken pox appear on just about any shot in the movie with a bright or nearly white background.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-04-2004, 09:14 AM:
 
I cut CAP code frames out of Men In Black II because they popped up when they were in that giant white toilet room thing. These giant orange spots showed up like "BANG!" and half the audience said, "What the hell was THAT??"

What was interesting to me was the dots extended beyond the 1.85 frame. WTF is the point of that? If I video tape the movie in the theater, how will they use the dots that don't show up on the video to tell where I was when I did it?

Maybe the CRAP Coding machine was mis-calibrated or something.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-04-2004, 11:41 AM:
 
The ones I saw on The Village were rather large and blurry, like someone had dripped chemistry on the print.

Maybe we should start treating CRAP code like lab splices.
When you find an offending frame, cut it out.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-04-2004, 11:49 AM:
 
Master and Commander is probably the most egregious example I've ever witnessed.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-04-2004, 11:57 AM:
 
So has anyone ever really been caught pirating by way of cap code anyway? Or was this just something Valenti cooked up?

Mark
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 08-04-2004, 12:00 PM:
 
I wonder if it's 'legal' to cut out the CAP code?? Is it, in any way, a violation of booking agreements? Can there be consequences for a theatre if it's discovered they're cutting the frames??

Ron Yost
 

---

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 08-04-2004, 12:29 PM:
 
I would plead ignorance and cut them anyway. I would just say that I saw red damage on a few frames and cut them out like lab splices.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-04-2004, 12:45 PM:
 
Exactly. If it's a problem for the studios, I'll splice them back in when the print leaves. But as far as I'm concerned giant orange dots in the middle of the frame of white is a "print defect." Especially when I can stand in the back of the theater and hear a murmer start amongst the audience members when the dots go through.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-04-2004, 01:01 PM:
 
Mark,
John Pytlak says that CAP code has helped in the past. Not sure about this current version. He won't site any specific examples, though. So as far as I'm concerned, it's all speculation.
[av=h]
Also, as far as removing CAP code not being "legal", did any theaters sign an agreement saying they would not? NO! There is nothing they can do. You just have to decide on which is more annoying, the CAP code or the missing frames. Unfortunately it is a lose-lose situation. Quality is not a priority for the labs that do this.

Also, do the studios know how incredibly easy it is for would-be pirates to go in and delete the frames where CAP code is visable before encoding into MPEG/DIVX/Whatever? People who pirate movies will most likely also pirate software programs like Adobe Premiere or Vegas Video or some crappy NLE. It could be done easily. This immediately makes CAP code 100% useless.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 08-04-2004, 03:04 PM:
 
Since I have to pay for my movies now, I've given up on going to any mainstream movie now because of the crap dots along with the substandard presentation in the area (including visible lights-up cues that ruin the ending, which complaining about has done no good)- with the prices theatres charge I'm better off waiting til I can buy the legitimately-produced DVD for just a couple dollars more than a theater ticket. Video done right still beats film done wrong.
I've noticed crap-coding going back to "Nutty Professor 2" but I assumed that they were just some sort of defect. Knowing now that they're put there intentionally, I would request replacement reels for anything I noticed the crap dots on. Changeover cues are disrupting enough, but at least they serve a purpose for somebody somewhere (they do need to stop using those too though, and use them only on prints that they KNOW are going to a changeover house.)
I know most theatres don't care about presentation quality (they may say they do, but not actually deliver), but somebody somewhere has got to put their foot down and tell the people behind this that it's simply unacceptable. At the very least, be a pain in the ass and keep rejecting prints that have the crap-dots- can a theatre refuse to run a film if they think the print isn't in optimum condition?
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-04-2004, 03:39 PM:
 
Lately for me, I was distracted by Crap Code in Harry Potter 3 and Harold and Kumar.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 08-04-2004, 05:33 PM:
 
Two weeks ago I had 2 critics ask the Dreamworks PR rep what those orange dots were on the print of "Collateral". I told her what they were and what they are for. She had no idea and had never seen them before. She's been with the company for a while.
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 08-04-2004, 05:52 PM:
 

quote: Jesse Skeen

---

Changeover cues are disrupting enough, but at least they serve a purpose for somebody somewhere (they do need to stop using those too though, and use them only on prints that they KNOW are going to a changeover house.)

---

Hell no. I like to count the reels when I go see a picture.
The lab cues are also very usefull in determining how many frames, or feet, have been lost when building up a repertory print.

danny
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 08-04-2004, 06:02 PM:
 

quote: Dan Lyons was the last to post

---

Changeover cues are disrupting enough, but at least they serve a purpose for somebody somewhere (they do need to stop using those too though, and use them only on prints that they KNOW are going to a changeover house.)

---

quote: Bill Gabel

---

Two weeks ago I had 2 critics ask the Dreamworks PR rep what those orange dots were on the print of "Collateral". I told her what they were and what they are for. She had no idea and had never seen them before. She's been with the company for a while.

---

quote: Dan Lyons

---

Hell no. I like to count the reels when I go see a picture.
The lab cues are also very usefull in determining how many frames, or feet, have been lost when building up a repertory print.

---

quote: Carl Martin

---

i'd prefer no cues whatsoever. c/o projectionists can add temporary cues or devise other methods of signalling c/o's.

---

Carl: I would agree IF we could be sure that the other "Projectionists" KNEW how to place temporary cues properly. Sadly, that is not the case. The record for most cues on a reel that I've seen so far is EIGHT sets on each reel! Other than all the varoious scratched cues my favorite is the paper dots with the permanent adhesive! Worse than masking tape by far!

Thomas: Absoutely! Theatres should file suit!

CAP coding doesn't work, people complain and the industry doesn't give a ! kinda like the worthless carpool lanes and metered onramps here in Cali.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 08-05-2004, 06:14 PM:
 

quote: Thomas Procyk

---

Congratulations, MPAA. Your plan has backfired and you are costing the theaters money. They should all file a class-action lawsuit against you.

---

YESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The worst CrAP I ever saw was on Paycheck. Saw Touch Of Pink this week, and come on, did that really need CrAP code on it?
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-06-2004, 11:36 AM:
 
I'm quite serious about the issue, and I think there's a legitimate case. These questions have been asked hundreds of times, but no straight answer has been found:

What is the exact purpose of/in what manner is copyright protected by this CAP code?

--If it is to decode the dots on a pirated copy that was made in the auditorium, how is it traced back to the perpetrator? Are the theater or its employees liable if this occcurs? If so, are they being compensated for these security measures?

--If it is to decode the dots on a pirated copy that was made when a print was stolen and run through a telecine, how is it traced back to the perpetrator? Is it possible to track down the bootlegging facility by means of the CAP code, or does it simply prove the fact that the copy was made from the stolen print?

It has been several years since its introduction. How well has the CAP code served its purpose?

--Have there ever been any arrests leading to convictions for film piracy resulting from the use of CAP code? Have any unauthorized copies containing the CAP code been successfully traced back to its origin/perpetrator?

So if it has no clear method of apprehension, thus no clear purpose, and has been unsuccessful at what it was intended to accomplish, then it's useless. As many have stated here, it interferes with the presentation, detracts from the story, and has generated complaints from customers. There is no doubt that this practice is compromising quality standards and hurting business, and thus theater owners and patrons of CAP coded films are entitled to monetary compensation in the amount of hundreds of billions of dollars in punitive damages.



=TMP=
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-06-2004, 01:02 PM:
 
Articles with details of successful use of CAP Code were reported in trade publications in the early years after the original Kodak-developed version of CAP Code was introduced in 1982:

Time Magazine, 6/6/1983 ("Says Joseph Moscaret, Security Vice President of Paramount Pictures: Using this technique, we caught a guy in 24 hours")

Hollywood Reporter, 5/16/1984 ("Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom")

Hollywood Reporter, 6/25/1984 ("Star Trek III", "Top Secret")

Variety, 12/12/1984 ("...know precisely which print was transferred for each such cassette, to which theatre that print was delivered, and by whom."

Los Angeles Herald Examiner, 2/28/1985 ("Beverly Hills Cop", "Dune")

Variety, 5/28/1986 (Warner Bros. release of "Cobra")

Newsweek 7/27/1987 ("It was found that pirated tapes (of "Dune") found in 16 countries had been copied from just two prints", the article reported multiple arrests and seizures)
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-06-2004, 01:42 PM:
 
Actually the worst cap code eer is in the film-tech chat room and no matter how much I clean the monitor with FG those orange spots don't go away
No doubt next we will get chat room rain leading up to a changeover cue everytime a new post is made to it
 

---

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 08-06-2004, 01:49 PM:
 
Kill Bill, Vol. 1....worst cap code for me. Beautiful scene at the end "winter wonderland"....picture looked stunning, all of a sudden....BLOOOP.....still pisses me off
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-06-2004, 01:54 PM:
 
But Dean, it's worth it to have every single print look like crap, detracting from the enjoyment value of the theatrical experience in order to catch a would be pirate! Where are your priorities? [av=f]
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-06-2004, 05:14 PM:
 
From John's post it would seem the original Kodak cap code (which wasn't obnoxious) worked, then a few years later it became useless and incredibly annoying.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-06-2004, 08:58 PM:
 
How the hell did the crappy VHS camcorders of the 80s pick up the original CAP code dots that no one can see, and now all of a sudden with high end digital camcorders with variable shutter speeds and everything else, we need these gigantic orange dots that look like emulsion damage?

How did this work in the past, and now with better cameras, we need bigger dots?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-06-2004, 10:30 PM:
 
My guess is that smarter people worked on the original CAP code. We know John is smart. But the people behind the current version simply cannot have an ounce of intelligence.[av=k]
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-07-2004, 07:54 AM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

My guess is that smarter people worked on the original CAP code. We know John is smart. But the people behind the current version simply cannot have an ounce of intelligence.

---

quote:

---

Despite extraordinary advances in technology, the motion picture industry has yet to eliminate a very costly problem – movie piracy. Those pirated films often are made by using a camcorder to record a movie as it is being projected in a theater. At Kodak, Emerging Technologies scientists developed a technology called digital watermarking that can be used to identify illicit copies of movies and help track down and put a stop to piracy.

For movies that are distributed electronically to theaters, a Kodak Digital Cinema projector can continuously embed a small amount of data into the movie when it is shown. Each showing of the movie is given a unique, invisible digital watermark identifying the date, time and theater of that particular showing. So if a camcorder is used to capture that movie, the videotape also records the watermark embedded throughout. As a result, a series of frames from a suspected bootleg copy of a movie can be examined to determine the time and place of theft, which can help with the apprehension of movies pirates.

Kodak recently demonstrated an industry milestone: the extraction of 16-bit digital watermark data from as few as 15 frames.

---

quote: Dean Kollet

---

If they started to put stuff in the soundtrack like they did in the picture, I would flip a shit.

---

Start flipping Dean. Haven't you been listening? The insertion of beep sequences into movie soundtracks (by DTS anyway) has been going on since at least December of 2003.

Old thread here
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-07-2004, 01:44 PM:
 
Regarding John's articles, do you happen to have the full versions somewhere? Or at least a bit more detail? Sorry for being skeptical, but I'm just curious how it all works. I know how it's supposed to work, but fail to see how it does.

("Says Joseph Moscaret, Security Vice President of Paramount Pictures: Using this technique, we caught a guy in 24 hours") -- Which guy? The guy selling the tapes, the guy who made the dupe, the guy who stole a print? How was he caught? Red handed selling the tapes, or traced back to his apartment and apprehended while sitting on the toilet? It doesn't explain how the CAP code DIRECTLY led to his arrest, just that "someone" (a male) was arrested. Additionally, this claim comes from someone who apparently had an investment in the technology.

Variety, 12/12/1984 ("...know precisely which print was transferred for each such cassette, to which theatre that print was delivered, and by whom.") -- Again, this leads me to the same old question, "Now what?" So they found what print was used to make the tape, and they know which theater that print was at. Whooptie-freaking-doo. Did they arrest the manager? The projectionist? Station a security guard in case a person tries to dupe another movie? What this shows is that a given copy can be traced back to a print, but then you hit a dead-end. You have evidence of a crime, and a scene, but no perpetrator.

Newsweek 7/27/1987 ("It was found that pirated tapes (of "Dune") found in 16 countries had been copied from just two prints", the article reported multiple arrests and seizures) -- Who was arrested? The original person who made the tape from the print, (which would make the CAP code successful in its purpose) or just "multiple" persons who were selling/distributing the copied tapes who were arrested in a "raid" or the such? (which would make it unsuccessful, as conventional methods were used in the apprehension). CAP code dancing around the screen is enough to give anyone "multiple seizures." (say, there's a lawsuit.)

I assume all of the other articles that cited titles were titles which were CAP coded under Kodak's system. Or were those related to arrests/successful apprehension of pirates as a result of the code?

Most pirated films from the internet are encoded with a "bug" or logo of the group who did the ripping/encoding/distributing anyway, so why not use that? Why mar the theatrical presentation? Most DVD or VHS dupes are made from screeners, anyway.

Perhaps the full articles would give more insight, and I'll try to find and read them, but thus far my questions have remained unanswered and the CAP code system has yet to proove itself as an effective means of tracking down the individual who made the transfer.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 08-07-2004, 03:18 PM:
 

quote: Thomas Procyk

---

Regarding John's articles, do you happen to have the full versions somewhere? Or at least a bit more detail? Sorry for being skeptical, but I'm just curious how it all works. I know how it's supposed to work, but fail to see how it does.

---

This question has been asked before, to the point of outright DEMANDING how CAP coding works, but John wouldn't budge, claiming 'divulging trade secrets' and 'compromising CAP code's effectiveness'...

You can try again, but I don't see this going anywhere.

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Dennis M Dow Jr (Member # 1970) on 08-07-2004, 07:29 PM:
 
As far as I know the Crap code on each print is an Identification marker that is used to determine where the print was copied.... And it was pretty bad on Catwoman, DreamCatcher, The Village and a few others..... wish they would find a way to make it more obscure than smack dab in the middle of the frames
 

---

Posted by Steven Jantzen (Member # 2575) on 08-07-2004, 07:52 PM:
 
wow, i guess I am absolutly blind.

I have never even heard of CAP code, let alone seen it. I watched both the village and catwoman, and i never seen anything. Maybe if you could point out where in the movie they where, i could look for it. As far as an audience member, I cant say that i've seen a lot of CAP code in action, i guess you just have to know it's there.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-07-2004, 08:43 PM:
 
Steven, you are lucky. Once you see it, it will destroy your moviegoing experience forever.

If you are POSITIVE that you want to know, click here.
 

---

Posted by Matthew Jaro (Member # 1786) on 08-07-2004, 10:41 PM:
 
In response to Jesse and Carl: Changeover cues are vital. I know there is some thought of removing them in release prints. Any current print is likely to be run in a changeover house after its first run, either at a second run house, or much later in an art house or a venue like the AFI.

Getting rid of the cue marks would be the worst possible idea. When people ask me how changeovers work, I tell them about the cue marks and they say they never noticed them. So how bad can that be? Temporary cue marks are an equally bad idea because people mark XXXs on the frames with sharp objects, and you don't know if this is a cue or a scratch. I've missed changeovers because of stuff like that.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-08-2004, 01:10 AM:
 
Nah, visual c/o cues no longer need to be printed on a print. If one needs cues, one can just put clear splice tape on the print at the appropriate places and listen for the clicks when they run through the gates. I would think that this is all the visual or auditory cueing a competent c/o operator would need.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 08-08-2004, 02:24 AM:
 
Steven, not every print has CAP code on it. The majority of them unfortunately do, but not all of the prints. You may have just got lucky

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-08-2004, 03:02 AM:
 

quote: Matthew Jaro

---

Changeover cues are vital. I know there is some thought of removing them in release prints. Any current print is likely to be run in a changeover house after its first run, either at a second run house, or much later in an art house or a venue like the AFI.

---

quote: Matthew Jaro

---

I tell them about the cue marks and they say they never noticed them. So how bad can that be? Temporary cue marks are an equally bad idea because people mark XXXs on the frames with sharp objects, and you don't know if this is a cue or a scratch.

---

quote: Matthew Jaro

---

Getting rid of the cue marks would be the worst possible idea. When people ask me how changeovers work, I tell them about the cue marks and they say they never noticed them. So how bad can that be?

---

I noticed the changeover cues on the very first movie I saw in a theater, when I was all of 5 years old. I asked my mom what the holes in the movie were, but she had no idea. I didn't find out until much later what purpose they served.

I know the current cap code is getting pretty bad, becuase friends of mine that wouldn't know DTS from mono through a Radio Shack speaker are noticing the splotches in a lot of the current movies.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-08-2004, 07:30 AM:
 

quote: Thomas Procyk was the last to post

---

...at least a bit more detail? Sorry for being skeptical, but I'm just curious how it all works. I know how it's supposed to work, but fail to see how it does.

---

quote:

---

— NUMERICAL INDEX OF STANDARDS, RECOMMENDED PRACTICES
AND ENGINEERING GUIDELINES

---

quote: Matthew Jaro

---

The modern prints don't have holes (like the Clint Fahr cue markers made)

---

The Clint Phare cue markers did not make holes. They scribed the emulsion.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-08-2004, 01:37 PM:
 
"An awful song that is too loud??" That pretty much describes the mood of the Matrix films.

Cue marks are cool and should stay.

I wonder how much it costs a studio to have CAP code put on the prints for a typical run.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-08-2004, 05:40 PM:
 
Alright I've had enough and I'm about to rant!

quote: John Pytlak

---

Thomas: I've told you all the public domain information you are entitled to know. Disclosing any more would be helping any potential film pirates lurking here with their criminal activities.

---

FYI John, that kind of response is precisely the wrong answer to be giving and sets most people off on this damned cap code. The people here are TRYING their damned best to put on a great show! When someone comes on and reports a section of a reel that has a lab splice with fogging and sound dropouts the recommended solution is "order a replacement reel" and an explanation is given as to why the labs are so overworked and things like that occasionally happen. GREAT! Problem solved. Granted if the prints had arrived 2 days prior to the opening day of the film, the problem would've been solved before the first couple of thousand patrons paying to see that print would not have had a botched moviegoing experience. But hey, at least there is a solution.

But what happens when someone comes on here and complains about this crap code from hell that keeps getting bigger and more obnoxious? Well it's all blamed on piracy and NO EFFORT toward a SOLUTION is given! Yes that's right, it's nothing more than a "well geez, we'd love for you to have a great presentation, but kiss off because the cap code is this new marvel of anti-piracy technology and it's caught at least a half dozen pirates over the last 20 years."

If it is really some all-powerful unbeatable code, then somebody needs to get their butt on here and explain it to put the fear of God into everyone over it. Problem is that it isn't all that it's cracked up to be and everybody knows it.

Tom, since John wouldn't answer your question, I will. Divide the screen into sectors. Now label the sectors. Place an ugly cap code dot in this sector, and that sector, and that sector and that sector. When you see a cap coded frame, you see which sectors the evil dots appeared in and do whatever the cap code mathematical formula of the month is, which gives you the print number. Voila, sounds great on paper!

In the real world it is just ANOTHER thing that is KILLING the moviegoing experience. John adamantly defends the cap code that he helped to invent back in the early 80s, and indeed a lot of thought and care was put into making sure THAT version of the cap code did not distract from the moviegoing experience, for it was VERY DIFFICULT to see until it was pointed out. Kudos to John and the original cap code team for doing it right back then. Back then the dots were so small, even if you knew what to look for, you could tune it out. Not today's bastardization, though.



And then there's Uncle Jack. This guy actually wants us to do body searches, rectal probes and confiscate all items from our patrons...all just to make sure that nobody ends up bootlegging a movie via their wristwatch! Oh but that's not good enough! Now we are supposed to be walking the auditoriums every 10 minutes with night vision goggles, because our customers don't mind being treated like fucking criminals.

Now this is going to royally tick Uncle Jack off, but this falls under fair use because I am making a point here. I was out at a drive-in recently shooting a theater video tour of the operation and something occured to me. Who is protecting the drive-ins??? The last few drive-ins I have been to I did not see body cavity searching going on. Nor did I even see car searching. Surely no professional bootlegger would dare go to the drive-in where they can set up their videocamera rig on a tripod and bootleg the movie without any real chance of being bothered. And heck, there's FM stereo sound available to patch directy into the camera! No more babbling customers or echo'ey acoustics of a theater auditiorium to deal with! For that matter, lots of driveins could be bootlegged OUTSIDE OF THE COMPLEX thanks to a zoom lens and FM stereo sound!

So just to prove the point I shot a few seconds off of the screen. The audio you will here in the background is literally recorded off of the built-in camera microphone which was playing through the car's FM radio. As everyone who knows me knows I am against bootlegging, I intentionally did not bother to set up some kind of FM radio that could be patched into the camera mic to show what an incredible audio recording could be achieved, because the idea of a direct patch-in to the videocamera should be obvious enough. This was shot about 600-700 feet away from the screen and no, I did not bother with any kind of tripod, for the same reasons that I present this to make a point, not to actually bootleg a movie. But here it is in all it's glory for you fine folks...18 seconds shot off of the screen at a drive-in with fabulous "internet compression" added to the image to boot...

1.6 megs Quicktime

Clearly the only solution to prevent piracy is to no longer release films to theaters. All movies should just go straight to DVD and all theaters should close. It's what Uncle Jack would want.

BTW, if anyone wants to see how annoying cap code is, just log into the chat room. We fully protect our chat room with our own special cap code just as obnoxiously as the MPAA does on the prints that destroy our presentation.

Sorry John and seriously, no offence is intended here, but the cap coding blotches have gotten so out of hand, it's hard for me to believe that anyone supporting the current version of the cap code gives a flying shit about presentation. And my demonstration above of the kind of quality that can be had just by pointing a 24P camera at the screen proves that NOTHING will stop the criminals who are dead set on bootleging. Remember the phrase "make it idiot-proof and we'll build a better idiot"? This is really no different. The MPAA can come down harder and harder with more and more obnoxious, insulting and offensive rules and policies to put our customers through, but the pirates will just change the way they do things and very little will be accomplished in the end. At least, what little IS accomplished will be more than counteracted by all of the negatives associated with Jack's recent anti-piracy attempts.

With as close as DVD releases are becoming, I'm getting more surprised the MPAA is even bothering anymore.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-08-2004, 06:31 PM:
 
So Brad, how do you *REALLY* about all that?

BTW: I agree. And if I hear one more time about "Film Done Right" and then see all that crap code AND how we all should accept it, I'm going to go throw up! No wonder why VIDEO will take over! You "corporate" guys and your hype are shoving it down our throats in a reverse manner by "excusing" SHITTY quality in film!

Cut the corporate bullshit! It's getting REAL old!

Yours in Christ,

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 08-08-2004, 07:20 PM:
 
I'm speaking here as a consumer...they guy who pulls out the wallet and pays the money that allows this whole business to exist.

I pay to see a movie...all of the movie. I don't want to see any dots, marks, scratches or whatever. I pay for the best presentation possible, and if I don't get it, I don't go back to that theatre.

Yes, CAP code has caught bootleggers. But has it slowed the flow of illegal copies? Nope! We all know that you can find all of the new releases at the local flea market. Can anyone show me one film where any copy protection code has prevented its being bootlegged?

(Digression ahead, but I'll get back to the topic.)

I'm tired of the entertainment industry treating me as a criminal. I recently went to the local outdoor concert site, my first visit there. I was frisked...yes, hands on the body, slapping around frisked. The "official" reason was to keep out weapons (yes, the Earth Wind and Fire audiences are certainly a rowdy bunch...throw in Chicago, and we'll have a real riot! Better check them folks out.) The REAL reason they frisk is to keep out any form of food or drink that might keep me from buying a $5.00 or a $7.00 beer. I will never attend a concert there again. And the industry wonders why concert attendance is down this year?

If a movie theatre tried to search me, I'd be back at the box office, demanding my money back. I will NOT allow that.

Don't you realize you are just giving me another reason to STAY HOME? It's cheaper for me to buy a DVD and watch it under MY control as many times as I want than to go out. If it wasn't for the younger audience looking for an inexpensive place to go, the film business would be in big big trouble.

Mr. Pytlak, you helped develop a system that was simple and effective, but its gotten out of control. Some day, maybe we'll have guard towers in the theatres, with the MPAA petitioning Congress for a license to shoot violators.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Stanley (Member # 943) on 08-08-2004, 07:56 PM:
 
Mark you just covered it all in your post. Many people feel the same way.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-08-2004, 09:08 PM:
 
You are all complaining to the wrong person.

Facts:

1. I worked on the Kodak team that developed the original CAP Code for the MPAA in 1982. So I am knowledgeable about the original technology, and have carefully followed developments in watermarking technology.

2. The MPAA and its member distributors have had all rights to and control of CAP Code since 1982. Kodak had no further direct involvement, other than providing occasional technical assistance to the labs using the Kodak-developed CAP Code.

3. For over 20 years, CAP Code was successful in tracing the origin of pirated prints.

4. Recently, for a variety of reasons, the original Kodak-developed CAP Code has been supplemented by watermarks that are more visible. Kodak was not involved in developing these new codes.

4. Distributors value CAP Code enough to pay extra to print it, and to decypher it from pirated videos. They know what CAP Code is, and view and approve "check prints" having the codes.

5. Distributors have a right to protect their property from piracy.

6. Piracy can occur in post production, in distribution, during shipping, in theatres and from "screener videos". Different safeguards and deterrents are needed at each stage. CAP Code is only one of many anti-piracy measures.

7. The visibility of watermarks is a known issue. Reducing the visibility of watermarks is desirable to make them less distracting to the audience, and harder for pirates to detect all of them.

8. It is likely that watermarks will evolve to less distracting, yet very robust, methods such as the technology Kodak has developed for Digital Cinema watermarking.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-08-2004, 09:22 PM:
 
I guess the one thing sort of forgotten is that the distributor owns the print and can issue form they want (in an extreme they could even send it out prescratched) and as much as we don't like it it is not a projectionist job to remove or alter it
The distributor who owns the print has the right to decide in an extreme case if the lost revenue due to capcodded loss of patronage is offset by the longer bootleg prevented window but they with full knowledge put it there in nthe first place
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-08-2004, 10:01 PM:
 
All I know is last night I saw some pretty distracting cap code in Collateral. When the cop investigates the first death and he looks out the window to the pavement below, as the camera shows us the bare pavement, big rust-colored dots flash on the screen. It's as if they deliberately selected that shot to make the dots stand out as much as possible. The show was crowded and you could see heads in the audience react to the flash of those out-of-place dots. There's nothing like being jolted out of the movie and into thinking "What the hell was THAT?"
 

---

Posted by Steven Jantzen (Member # 2575) on 08-08-2004, 10:19 PM:
 
first of all, Brad and Aaron, thank you very much for the pointers. Even after reading that link brad, I still have not been able to find any CAP code in our copy of the village, though my PM says he sees it clear as day. I guess i'm one of the lucky people that don't ever see it. (I never was any good at the "3d magic eye" puzzles, so go figure).

Second (con't with CAP code)
I am currently enrolled in college, and as such certain file sharing services are common sites. I'm not condoning bootlegging, a certain amount of skill goes into acting and directing, not to mention the photography and all that entails. I have however had freinds who obtained bootlegged copies of movies, and have such been notified by the movie companies, specifically paramount, to cease such activities. A gentle slap on the wrist if you will, and after that, they took the hint, and stopped. I have watched some of these said movies with them, and even then I never noticed any dots on the screen. (for being bootleg, they were pretty high quality.) Again, I guess i just can't see it.

Third
Pertaining to the C/O marks
I find them quite handy when previewing a movie. Even before becoming a projectionist, when i saw them I really didn't care, it didn't detract from the experience. well, at least not for me. When I build up a print and I go to preview it the night before opening day, I find that with the C/O I can switch my attention from the movie that I am enjoying long enough to make sure the splice goes through correctly, then switch my attention back to the presentation and the actual movie itself. Yes, it grabs my attention whenever the first C/O cue goes through, and then I'm alert to watch the splice. I simply see no problem with them.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-08-2004, 10:30 PM:
 
Steven, log into the chat room and watch the screen. That's cap code.

John, let's be completely clear on this. Nobody is pointing the finger at you saying that the evil current cap code marks are YOUR fault. Everyone knows they aren't. Still, you know how corporate heads work. You get some geezer having a coronary at the mere thought of an eye patch and then he starts ranting and bitching and yelling about how pirates are "THE" reason for the industry's problems. (Not to mention any names here of course *cough Jack cough*) He throws out some numbers (valid or not) and everyone nods their heads in greed and corporate politics and then they make a decision to try the idea being presented which "will stop bootleggers". Then next month they try something else because the first technique didn't seem to affect the overall numbers. Then another month or two down the line they implement something else, all based upon the thought that this crap isn't bothering the paying customers, because they aren't smart enough to see the big picture that they ARE losing customers slowly but surely to home video!!! Before you know it, the cinema industry will have all of our customers with the same attitude that Mark Lensenmayer did such an excellent job of conveying above, and the cinema industry gets ran into the ground.

But if you want to get technical and you absolutely insist on pointing fingers, sure it is technically *partially*, in an small and minute way, your fault for helping to devise something which ended up becoming this horrific blob of dots destroying presentations worldwide. (Still though, it's not your fault of what it turned into and everyone knows it.) Pointing out the obvious such as "it's the distributor's print" and "the original cap code was effective" does nothing. It's like the old saying "does a bear shit in the woods?" Well duh!

This industry needs someone in a position such as yours who TRULY DOES CARE about film done right to speak up against the evildoers at the MPAA and slap some sense into them over the current bastardization of the cap code. With some of the excellent watermarking technology available today (developed by Kodak and others), there is no excuse for people to be using today's CRAP code. The links you have provided on the technology is more than enough to prove my point. Come on John, be our savior. You DO care about film done right, don't you?

BTW John, did you enjoy the 18 second movie? Please let me know what print number that came from.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-08-2004, 11:16 PM:
 
Ya know Brad, I'm not sure it's some "geezer" as you say. From my experience in the biz world it is **ALWAYS** the mid 20-30's something asshole marketing guy or pencil-pushing financial geek that feels he has to make a name for himself no matter what the cost is to all...including destroying a company.

Oh, and let's not forget the lawyers! I'm not sure which of all those mentioned should be executed 1st.

I vote to bring back torture!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-08-2004, 11:26 PM:
 
Catching a few pirates after the fact is way more important than film done right. Again I ask (and I don't think it has ever been answered): do studios honestly think that for every movie downloaded, every pirate copy sold, that they would have sold a legitimate movie ticket? So when the studios say "We lost 2 million bucks to piracy", how do they know? It's just a guess. It's not even an educated guess. They cannot possibly predict which people who have pirate copies of the movie would buy a real ticket.
[av=e]
And then you get morons like Jack (yes, Jack is a moron... that is fact and cannot and will not be disputed) who are extreme hypocrites by ranting about piracy and then raving about how much more profit the industry made in a single year in the same speech. How can I take his rants on piracy seriously if he says the industry is doing better than ever? Well, I can't. And neither should you or anyone else. Do people really expect me to feel bad that the makers of any given movie were not able to squeeze every single penny possible from it, even though they already live lavish lifestyles and the people who pirate such things do so because money is not as accessible to them and the pirated copies are cheaper? Things like CRAP code are attacking a symptom, not the cause. Such is typical in corporate America.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-08-2004, 11:57 PM:
 
The drive-in issue is interesting. Have the pirates thought of this? Crap code is, *sigh*, one way to find out. Unfortunately the solution there would be to exclude DI's for first run, at least til the film has been out awhile. They are probably not a major revenue stream so easy for Hollywood to squash them like a bug.
 

---

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 08-09-2004, 12:01 AM:
 
The original CAPcoding was subtle, caused little offence, and seemingly helped to track illegal copying onto video.

The original question was probably: "can we mark the print lightly enough to be visually OK, but still to survive video copying?" The answer given by John's team at Kodak was "Yes".

The same question now seems to have a different answer. "Visually OK" is probably the same level, but "survive video copying" now includes severe compression and a range of other digital techniques. The answer now, to the same question, is probably "No". If the dots are acceptable, they won't be useful to identify copies.

But the studios still want "Yes" so they have had to bend their definition of "visually OK", rather than come up with a completely new system.

However, to attach any blame to John Pytlak seems to be particularly useless, and to devalue and discredit the entire argument against the new coding marks.

And if anyone could come up with a way of identifying the source of a copied print that is more visually acceptable than the present version, that was practical and effective, I'm sure the studios and the labs (as well as the projectionists) would be very interested. Nothing forthcoming from here though???

Perhaps a unique pattern of applicator spread on the edge of each print would do the trick (oh! there I go, off into the cyan track argument;-))
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-09-2004, 12:19 AM:
 
I am going to use John Pytlak as a HYPOTHETICAL example here.
[av=k]
Let's say that I was commisioned to videotape the wedding of John Pytlak's daughter (I have no idea if John's daughter(s) are married or not in real life, but keep in mind this is hypothetical). It was a fantastic ceremony followed by an amazing reception. Remember, family of the bride pays for just about everything at the wedding. I got some great footage and edited it all together onto a DVD or videotape (doesn't matter).

Obviously, I am going to charge per copy for the wedding. So if John wants 5 copies, he gets 5 copies. If he wants more, he has to buy more copies from me. That's generally the way it works. In order to make sure that John doesn't simply dub down some copies himself and send them off to friends and relatives, I encode the video with CAP code. Right as the bride and groom kiss, huge orange-brown dots appear for 3 frames in a row right on the bride's face! There would also be frames of CAP code as the bride is walking down the aisle, throwing of the boquet, speeches during the reception, and of course the dance with daddy. Each copy of the wedding I gave him would have different CAP code so I could identify which tape/DVD it came from. Would I be within my legal rights to do this? You bet I would, since it is actually my product and I made it and am making money off of it. Would John appreciate this? He'd damn well better!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-09-2004, 12:24 AM:
 
Yeah Phil you're right. It is always someone on either extreme (some young "whipper snapper" just getting into the business and thinks he/she knows how to run the company without any experience) or someone so "Valenti-ish" they cannot adapt to current times and situations. So I'll give ya that.

Steve, I don't think most drive-ins open films on the nationwide release date. Since the industry appears to only be interested in that first weekend's worth of profits anymore, and 90+% of all anti-piracy measures seem to stop after opening weekend, I'd say the drive-in thing isn't all that important to them. Still, it's just that all that bitching over and over, shoving anti-piracy stuff down everyone's throats...and yet the most fabulous bootleg could be done at a drive-in is something that the MPAA has put forth ZERO EFFORT toward. (Other than the absurd crap code, of course.)

Dominic has some good points here, but surely even he can see (and admit) how out of hand this whole cap code thing has been getting over the last year or two. Of course he works at a lab, so he won't. Right Dominic?

I still want to put forth my challenge to the MPAA that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to overcome their CRAP coding. I wish someone from a studio would give me official paperwork to bootleg a certain movie of theirs at my choice of theater (of which no one would know) and then let them announce publicly what theater it came from. Either it would work and the fear of God would be put into everyone, or it would fail and then maybe we could get rid of the crap code for a better watermarking technology that doesn't distract from the presentation. Come on studios...who's going to take me up on this? You're paying for the CRAP code on every film you print...let me prove it works or prove it doesn't! Either way, the studio wins on the demo by proving once and for all that it works, or proving that they have been paying $$$ for years on a system that isn't as effective as they are led to believe.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-09-2004, 12:48 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Yeah Phil you're right.

---

Oh MY! I'm gonna print this and post it on my trophy wall over my bed! This is the 1st time in the 5 years I've known Brad that he has said that! I AM IMPRESSED!

BTW: "whipper snapper"? HA! That's hilarious! I haven't heard that term since I was 12! HA!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-09-2004, 01:12 AM:
 
I would love to see the results of Brad's proposed test. I don't see how it would or could give away any "trade secrets", and the expense would be all on Brad since he'd be the one who took the time and taped the movie and then mailed the tape back to whoever needs to get it. Also, it needs to be proven to everyone that this works if we want to, like Brad sez, "put the fear of God into them" and make it so they are less likely to pirate movies.
[av=v]
I don't wanna hear any of this "Well I'm sure they tested it in the lab and it works" or "The companies wouldn't pay for it if it didn't work" bullshit. Obviously pirate copies are still being made. The CAP code is not working. It is failing to stop or even slow down piracy (according to Jack's figures). Like I said, it is only addressing a symptom, not the cause. And it's pissing off a lot of moviegoers in the process. Good job.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-09-2004, 08:10 AM:
 
I'm not sure what such a test would prove. My objection to crapcode is that it is annoying to watch, not that it doesn't work. I presume it works well enough that they are willing to pay for it and I would guess it's been tested either deliberately or by monitoring file sharing networks for off-screen copies. How well that works, that is, what they do with the knowledge that it was shot off the screen at the Bijou in Podunk is a different matter entirely.

If they agreed to the test (which they won't) and were unable to identify the source of course everyone would scream that all this crap(code) is for nothing (and of course it may simply be an isolated example while it works on average). But if they do identify the theatre, what then? Will it quell the objections? I don't see why.

So what's the point?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-09-2004, 12:18 PM:
 
Fine Steve, someone give me legal permission to bootleg 10 movies and we'll get an average. I think people would be shocked to see how INEFFECTIVE it really is, despite the handful of people who have been caught via the cap code. I also think most studio people don't have a clue as to how the cap code works and how it "protects" their films. I'm betting it's one of those things that is just automatically ordered when new prints are struck without any thought being put into it, sort of like how the signature box is pre-checked for you when you make a post here. Otherwise, why did New Line pay for CAP coding on the first two LOTR special edition prints when it was already out on DVD???

CAP coding has gotten way out of hand. If you don't think that will help contribute to the end of theaters, you're nuts. It is no longer a subtle thing that few people looking for it notice. Now it's few people who don't notice it. Of course the cleaner and more flawless the presentation is, the more obnoxious the coding becomes due to it standing out more.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-09-2004, 12:26 PM:
 
John P. is also fond of saying that CrAP Coding is only one of many ways they "foil pirates." If there really is a whole arsenal of other methods, why not scrap the one thing that is generating presentation complaints?

Or is CrAP Code really the only arrow in their quiver?
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-09-2004, 12:29 PM:
 
Brad -- I know about the "formula" to decipher the print number from where the dots appear, but what contradicts that is the three prints of The Village which I saw that had them in the exact same place in the frame on each print. Two of the actors were talking in front of a white wall, and they appeared in a Z shape right in the center. All three prints, same shape, same spot. Could it just be a "deterrent" then, like parking a cop car outside the theater?

Drive-Ins in Florida still regularly show first-run on opening weekend. Sometimes double-features even. The Silver Moon in Lakeland is showing Collateral d/f with Anchorman, and Village d/f with I, Robot. Lake Worth Drive In has the same, minus Anchorman. Both locations often sell-out.

John -- I'm certainly not blaming you for anything and would hate for you to get that impression. I do however believe these questions need to be asked at an industry press conference or seminar, where they can be less easily dodged and more rabbles could be roused. I assume NATO has no interest in pursuing this.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-09-2004, 01:28 PM:
 

quote: Thomas Procyk

---

I assume NATO has no interest in pursuing this.

---

quote:

---

... the MPAA are continually researching anti-piracy and there are many options. This has been the hot topic in the industry as of late and it will remain the hot topic until there is an answer to it. Several new proprietary Coded Anti-Piracy (CAP) watermarking codes that better survive poor illegal video copying and Internet distribution are being used, but may be more visible to the audience.

---

quote:

---

Anti-Piracy – John Fithian (President of NATO)
There was a discussion about new versions of “cap coding” (Coded Anti Piracy) by the film labs. Several people voiced their concerns about the obtrusiveness of the new cap coding. The code must be forensically possible to find, yet not so that it is a distraction that hurts the presentation. Distributors are working with labs to find better ways of concealing the code so it is not as obvious to the audience.

---

quote: Dominic Case

---

And if anyone could come up with a way of identifying the source of a copied print that is more visually acceptable than the present version, that was practical and effective, I'm sure the studios and the labs (as well as the projectionists) would be very interested. Nothing forthcoming from here though???

---

quote: Steve Kraus

---

Unfortunately the solution there would be to exclude DI's for first run, at least til the film has been out awhile. They are probably not a major revenue stream so easy for Hollywood to squash them like a bug.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

... fond of saying that CrAP Coding is only one of many ways they "foil pirates."

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Or is CrAP Code really the only arrow in their quiver?

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

Several new proprietary Coded Anti-Piracy (CAP) watermarking codes that better survive poor illegal video copying and Internet distribution are being used, but may be more visible to the audience.

---

quote:

---

..better survive poor ... copying

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

but may be more visible to the audience

---

quote: ShowEast 2003 (October 1, 2003) the minutes show:

---

...may be more visible to the audience.

---

MAY be more visible? Whoever said that is obviously a complete moron who rarely sets foot in a regular theater. There is no "may be" about it. It is absolutely positively 1000% more visible to the audience. Seriously, whoever said that is ignorant and should be kicked out of NATO.
[av=h]
 

---

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 08-09-2004, 06:22 PM:
 
I may have misunderstood your post, but I think not, but I get the impression you're commenting on the visibility of CrAP.

I read the quote to mean that the new schemes being worked on are even more visible than CrAP

Question 3a, 10 minutes allowed - How much anti-piracy mutilation can we feed an audience before they walk out? MPAA members need not answer this question.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-09-2004, 06:44 PM:
 
I was about to say the same thing but Joe beat me to it. What a crock of crap. Have these people not LOOKED at a coded print?
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-09-2004, 07:16 PM:
 

quote: John Pytlak

---

I sincerely believe they are trying to make the newer versions less visible.

---

quote: David Buckley

---

Ahhh .. CrAP actually doesnt work, all of the time

---

quote:

---

Thats a really interesting quote. Looking closely .......

quote: John Pytlak
-----------------------------------------------------
but may be more visible to the audience
-----------------------------------------------------

---

quote: David Buckley was the last to post

---

Several new proprietary Coded Anti-Piracy (CAP) watermarking codes that better survive poor illegal video copying and Internet distribution are being used, but may be more visible to the audience.

---

quote: Dominic Case

---

Yes, look closely. The report John was quoting (dated from late last year), is actually reporting on the situation to date, not on future proposals

---

Oh phew On this occasion, I'm glad its me that read it wrong there. There is (some?) hope...
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-09-2004, 08:36 PM:
 

quote: Dominic Case

---

(b) they possibly deter lawbreakers - to some extent.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Pirates know nothing of CAP code. It took Brad and myself revealing it to the public before John ever mentioned it.

---

quote: Steve Kraus

---

Our eyes are used to ignoring dirt particles.

---

quote: Newsweek. July 27, 1987, UNITED STATES EDITION

---

Copyright 1987 Newsweek
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 40
LENGTH: 1291 words
HEADLINE: A Scourge of Video Pirates
BYLINE: DAVID PAULY with CAROLYN FRIDAY in New York and JENNIFER FOOTE in Los Angeles
HIGHLIGHT: Fake tapes cost Hollywood $ 1 billion in revenues

[...]

Coded copies: The studios are also experimenting with secret ways to mark their movies to help investigators track down thieves. Warner Bros. last year coded 4,100 film prints of "Cobra" before they were sent to theaters. Later it found that pirated tapes discovered in 16 countries had been copied from just two prints. Agents then began investigating the theaters that handled these prints; the probe is still going on. Some studios code movies by inserting a few extra frames into each print. Video labs have tightened up, too. Technicolor, Inc., forbids employees to wear coats in the lab -- to prevent them from stuffing film into their pockets.

MPAA agents, led for former FBI man Richard Bloeser, have had some success bringing pirates into the dock. They recently caught a Brooklyn store owner with 6,000 pirated tapes in his possession; a judge ordered him to pay the MPAA $ 100,000 in restitution. In Paris, police have arrested 14 people suspected of involvement in a French piracy ring and confiscated 2,500 video cassettes, 500 "masters" and taping equipment. In Japan, copyright laws are being tightened and 57,000 illegal tapes were seized in the first five months of this year. Still, the most MPAA agents can usually do is get offenders to stop selling illegal tapes or sue them for civil damages. A criminal case requires the help of FBI agents, who more often than not are busy fighting more serious crimes. Given the difficulties, the best the industry may hope for is to keep video piracy from getting any bigger than it already is.

Copyright 2004 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Otherwise, why did New Line pay for CAP coding on the first two LOTR special edition prints when it was already out on DVD???

---

Sales.

I don't want this to seem cynical, but it's just practical when dealing with a corporate viewpoint:

Everybody's looking for an admission that the markings are VERY injurious to the show, but the folks associated with the companies that make money licensing or printing the codes cannot admit that. The best is going to be a very vague, corporate, & inconisitent PR chorus of We Care. If image quality weren't irrelevant, it wouldn't be there.

They're selling this, you know. It's an additional revenue stream, & they can't recommend something else until they've got something else that will retain that revenue stream.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-10-2004, 01:31 AM:
 
That's the stupidest reason I have ever heard. You must not have any idea how easy it is for the common guy to make an exact dupe of a DVD vs. going through an incredible amount of crap to make a substandard dupe off of a film print.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-10-2004, 01:37 AM:
 
I've been doing a little research...

...and it's all a CONSPIRACY!!

1. Jack Valenti screaming about piracy costing the industry billions of dollars. More must be done.

2. Visual and audible "watermarking" dots become more obvious, and are printed on the films, but are really SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES. Movie studios pay extra to "order" these to be printed onto their release prints. (That's why it was on the extended versions of LOTR. Perfect "marketing" opportunity)

3. People want to see movies more than ever. Opening weekend print runs skyrocket. Labs and film companies profit.

4. Jack Valenti announces record profits for the motion picture industy. But more must be done about piracy. More more more.

Kinda makes you go Hmmmm...

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-10-2004, 02:58 AM:
 

quote: John Hawkinson

---

It stands to reason that the 3 prints at the venue in question are probably similar in print number.

---

quote: John Hawkinson

---

It is easy to imagine the labs being unable to precisely control the positioning of the CAP codes in time. We know the CAP codes are printed on the film stock before it is developed, and that the labs are imperfect at controlling their handling of undeveloped print stock. Cuts are not consistently made at the ends of reels, and if the CAP code printer is a seperate device, as it was for Kodak's CAP code, then its easiest choice is to synchronize with the beginning of the reel (if does any sync).

---

quote: John Hawkinson

---

Was The Village printed by TES or Deluxe

---

It was printed at the Technicolor Hollywood lab (which, BTW is a different entity from TES (the exchange) though they have the same paernt company)...

...and Technicolor is just as guilty as DeLuxe as far as UGLY GIANT CRAP CODE goes: I watched a print of Starsky & Hutch (printed at Tech) that had several instances of the same gigantic nasty CRAP code all thru one or two reels...

it has to stop! Go back to the old CAP code or drop it altogether!!!

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-10-2004, 03:40 AM:
 
You know, I remember seeing scratched in print numbers back in the 80s. It was frequently between the studio logo and the fade up of the feature, but sometimes I would see it in the middle of a reel. It literally looked like someone took an exact-o-knife and scratched the number into the emulsion. Does anyone know if that was some early primitive anti-piracy measure or just an annoying way for the lab to mark reels? (It SUCKED and I always removed that frame...not like the current CRAP code is any better though.)

You know, Buena Vista likes to burn in "print #13" subtitles into their screener prints. Why not just do this to ALL reels on ALL prints? I'm sure our customers wouldn't mind that. But just to make sure that it isn't cropped out, it really should be positioned right over the actor's faces. Preventing bootlegging is far more important than anyone being able to enjoy the movie.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-10-2004, 04:33 AM:
 

quote: Daryl C. W. O'Shea

---

Why would an automated process (the application of CAP, and other coding) have anything to do with the ability of an operator to splice two ends of raw stock together, in darkness, in a race against time (the accumulator running out of film)?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

I remember seeing scratched in print numbers back in the 80s. It was frequently between the studio logo and the fade up of the feature, but sometimes I would see it in the middle of a reel. It literally looked like someone took an exact-o-knife and scratched the number into the emulsion.

---

Yes, sometimes scribed numbers were used by labs that did not have CAP Code equipment, or as a supplement to the CAP Code. Watermarking the same print with several different coding methods (even as crude as a scribed number) provides additional verification.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-10-2004, 09:34 AM:
 
I tried to keep my post last night from getting too long, but I guess I sacrificed too much clarity for brevity.

Carl Martin says, regarding the likelyhood of adjacent print numbers, "...doesn't seem to be the case at all when we get multiple prints (which isn't too often). they might as well have been picked out of a hat." I expect they are more likely to be similar to each other than any other predicable combination . There is certainly evidence that some people get related print numbers with multiple prints, but it doesn't happen all the time. But it's the simplest explanation I can see for similar CAP patterns.

Daryl asks: "Why would an automated process (the application of CAP, and other coding) have anything to do with the ability of an operator to splice two ends of raw stock together, in darkness, in a race against time (the accumulator running out of film)?"

Let me try to explain.

In my imagination, the CAP code printer is a third party device that is added to the film path between the printing head and the developing process. It's a device that can illuminate an array of points on a frame of film instantaneously, and for each reel it is programmed with some information to encode, presumably copy# and title#.

In this picture, the CAP code printer has no idea at what point on a reel it is, all it can know is how much film has passed through it. And if it's designed for minimum functionality, it may not even know how much film has passed through it, if it is designed to simply make a mark every time interval.

Now, if the contact printer is doing frame-count (or other) cueing, then of course it can send an event (pulse, contact closure, whatever) to the CAP code printer telling it "make a CAP code now."

(I was under the impression that cueing was essentially unnecessary for volume release printing, since fades and color timing information would all be done in advance on the internegative (or earlier)).

Anyhow, if the CAP code printer is a "dumb" device, then a human operator needs to signal it to change over to the next copy# and start printing the different code. One method might be for the human operator to press a button on the printer, and course that would not be precise in time (or film position).

The other idea I was thinking of, which in retrospect doesn't make sense, is that the CAP code printer might be synchronized with the physical end of the reel, thus the comment about the imprecision with which the ends of reels are cut. But as Daryl points out, the reel is probably not cut from the previous until it exits the dryer, long after the CAP code would be printed. So that idea was definitely half baked.

Aaron: TES includes the lab (Technicolor Release Print Services) and the exchange (Technicolor Cinema Distribution) both.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-10-2004, 11:13 AM:
 
Most larger labs build there own printers (all based on the Bell and Howel design) and as such it is proprieatry and closely guarded
The current cap code unit is usually a small box located just after the spricket with a high intensity light source and a set of small dies that are opened electrically
A PC sitting on the floor triggers a set of apperture opening and records there combination against the barcode for that roll
since it is done at high speed in continous motion larger dots are necesarry to prevent them becomeing too much of a smear
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-10-2004, 11:19 AM:
 

quote: John Hawkinson

---

(I was under the impression that cueing was essentially unnecessary for volume release printing, since fades and color timing information would all be done in advance on the internegative (or earlier)).

---

Even the high speed printers used for release printing usually have frame count cueing and the ability to change scene-to-scene color balance. At the highest speeds, it takes a few frames for the change to occur, so any changes are usually small "tweeks". Most of the scene-to-scene timing (grading) occurs when printing the original cut negative to make the master positive, which is done at a much slower printing speed, often on a wet gate printer.

For something like CAP Code, eliminating the chance of human error is a good idea. The original Kodak-developed system in 1982 was not fully automated, but modern systems are likely much more automated and tied into the printer's control electronics and the lab's computerized print tracking system.
 

---

Posted by Matthew Jaro (Member # 1786) on 08-10-2004, 11:20 AM:
 
This thread is getting really silly. Everyone is just:

1) complaining to each other, with no one outside this forum listening,

2) figuring out how contact printers work

3) trying to analyze the psychology of the MPAA.

Calling them Crap Codes makes us look like a silly and childish group that can make no serious contributions to the industry.

The only concrete suggestion so far, was Brad's proposal for an experiment. We should really try to think about how to get such an experiment initiated, rather than just bitch about something we all acknowledge is obnoxious.

Perhaps a joint letter to the MPAA signed by some of the more influential members of the forum, voicing these concerns and proposing experimentation to measure the ability of the codes to track prints and the degree of audience annoyance generated by the codes. For example, annoyance can be measured by audience surveys asking them if the presentation was acceptable, and if they noticed red marks in the image.

If we don't do anything concrete, the forum just becomes a mutual admiration society (like AMPAS).

[ 08-10-2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Matthew Jaro ]
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-10-2004, 11:27 AM:
 
They don't just buy the BHP machines?

Gordon, did you actually see the C(r)AP printer? I'm surprised it would have moving parts when it seems that it could be implmented with a cluster of LED's and appropriate optics to focus onto the film, possibly including fiber optics. Enough little LED's in various arrays would give you necessary East/West coverage and North/South is governed by timing. Certainly someone has sat down with a video of the film and determined where to put the dots for each insertion.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if the person who decides where to put the dots, having access to a tape, turned out to be a pirate?
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-10-2004, 11:32 AM:
 
MPAA Anti-Piracy Information:

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

quote:

---

...Camcording: Pirates use hand-held video cameras to record motion picture films off of theater screens and then copy these films onto blank videocassettes and optical discs for illegal distribution. These illicit copies are not only distributed to pirates in the US, but also shipped overseas and distributed through illegal channels even before the film’s international theatrical release.

...Videocassettes can also be analyzed on special electronic equipment to determine if they are counterfeit as well as to identify the source of the piracy.

...THEATRICAL PRINT THEFT

Theft of a 35 or 16 mm film print from a theater, film depot, courier service or other industry-related facility for the purpose of making illegal copies is one of the most serious forms of piracy. This type of theft allows the pirate to make a relatively high quality videotape from the theatrical print, which then serves as the master for the duplication of unauthorized videocassettes. Fortunately, this type of theft is extremely rare due to the difficulty in obtaining the prints illegally and also in transferring the print to another format, such as videocassette.



...Many entertainment companies use copy protection technologies to protect their films against theft and some delivery systems for film content already use some form of copy protection

...The motion picture industry has pursued those who distribute devices that break copy protection in any format. While no technology has yet proven foolproof, the industry continues to implement protection technologies which raise the threshold of difficulty and expense for the pirate and therefore help reduce piracy.

...The MPAA maintains a toll-free anti-piracy Hotline number (1-800-NO-COPYS) in the U.S. for retailers and consumers to call if they suspect piracy. In addition, complaints can be directed to the MPAA email hotline at hotline@mpaa.org.

...The majority of camcording in theaters in the US is conducted out of the New York City area. In addition, this is where the majority of large-scale video laboratories are located.

---

quote: Pytlak

---

Videocassettes can also be analyzed on special electronic equipment to determine if they are counterfeit...

---

quote: Pytlak

---

...THEATRICAL PRINT THEFT

---

If the actual print was lifted from the theater, I doubt any kind of anti-piracy code would be at all helpful. The theater would most likely notice that the print is gone and report it missing. If only one print is reported missing and one print is eventually found, then it doesn't take an MIT grad to figure out where the print came from.
[av=k]
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-10-2004, 12:34 PM:
 
John, per your post on the last page, I have a hard time believing that the machine has to be manually reset with each reel. Ever notice the bar codes that are printed onto the leaders? I would think that as the film passes a scanner, the bar code is read and that not only initiates the "pinchers" (to hold the film and start the accumulator, which gives the lab operator X number of seconds to pull the roll of film off and start another core winding), but I would think that the bar code also would automatically reset the crapper for another reel (whether it's a different crap code or not). Remember, for the purpose of resetting the crapper, the bar codes wouldn't have to be different. All it needs to "say" is that "this is the head of the reel" and "this is the tail of the reel". Those bar codes probably contain other information, but for the purpose of simple automation, that is all that would be needed.

Matthew, for clarification, the original CAP code was called the CRAP code initially as a joke. Nowadays the term CAP code tends to refer to the original code from the 80s and the term CRAP code refers to the current "spilling of red paint on the film" code.
 

---

Posted by Matthew Jaro (Member # 1786) on 08-10-2004, 12:52 PM:
 
So Brad --- what do you think about trying to get your proposals for experimentation initiated?
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-10-2004, 12:52 PM:
 
For the sake of not confusing the new, blatantly visible code with the one John invented, I shall henceforth try to refer to it simply as the "antipiracy watermarking code" or APW code instead of CAP code.

quote: John Hawkinson

---

Is it possible to be more concerete? I realize the subrun you project for didn't have 3 prints of The Village and so you probably cannot go and pull the three frames in question.

It stands to reason that the 3 prints at the venue in question are probably similar in print number.

---

quote: John Hawkinson

---

CAP coding is a tool that is used by law enforcement, just like many other pieces of detective work (fingerprints, fuzzy memories of witness, etc.). It provides useful clues.

---

quote: John Hawkinson

---

"Is it possible to track down the bootlegging facility by means of the CAP code, or does it simply prove the fact that the copy was made from the stolen print?" Of course you know that the CAP code only identifies a print uniquely, not when it was bootlegged.

---

I'm confused. I didn't mention anything about a timeframe of when the dupe was made. Unless you meant "where" instead of "when", but then that would defeat the purpose of the APW code, since it's meant to track the print back to the theater.

What I was trying to say is this: If the APW code is supposed to decode into a print number, authorities could see where the print was shipped to and go from there. Let's say the print number comes up for a print that "fell off the truck" on it's way to the multiplex. So now they know the dupe was made from the stolen print. Is that all of the information it provides, or do these dots somehow lead to a trail into a dark basement with the telecine machine sitting next to the shipping containers? I fail to see how they would actually track anything in this case. It would be very interesting to learn how these "bootlegging factories" were tracked down. Did the code lead them to it, or did they just follow the guy home after he folded up his table at the flea market/street corner?

quote: John Hawkinson

---

Absence of a "clear method of apprehension" does not mean that there is "no clear purpose." It need not be clear to the public in order for the studios to find it effective, and the clarity of the method does not necessarily speak to the clarity of purpose.

---

Not to get into politics here, but that method of thinking could lead to a very dangerous power structure in a very unstable and fear-laden society.
But on a serious note, if this "security measue" has gotten to the point where it's clearly detrimental to the enjoyment of the presentation, (detrimental to the service that the industy offers to the public) then there had damn well be a clarity of purpose. It should be DEMANDED that it be made clear to the public as to why they're paying increasingly higher ticket prices for increasingly blotched presentations. Are we subsidizing the cost of this "technology?"

As for the experiment, I don't think it will work. You are having to ask permission from the very people who implement/support this method. I can see it already where a theater employee would "happen" to catch you with his or her night vision goggles, or some other form of planned apprehension.

I also fail to see why the MPAA isn't using the CHEAPEST and MOST effective way of apprehending people who distribute pirated content: Download a few copies yourself and track the IP addresses. After a few college kids get dragged out of their dorm rooms in their underwear, word will spread that they don't mess around. Heck, we could even get Phil to do the dragging!!

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-10-2004, 01:05 PM:
 

quote: Tommy Boy

---

Heck, we could even get Phil to do the dragging!!

---

quote: Thomas Procyk

---

As for the experiment, I don't think it will work. You are having to ask permission from the very people who implement/support this method. I can see it already where a theater employee would "happen" to catch you with his or her night vision goggles, or some other form of planned apprehension.

---

quote: Steve Kraus

---

What do you bring to the equation that is of benefit to them?

---