Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: UK anti-piracy ad.

This is topic UK anti-piracy ad. 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=007504

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-05-2005, 01:56 PM:

Anybody here in the UK looked at the anti-piracy thing in the Pearl and Dean reel this week? It's the second one of this type that I've seen; compares seeing a film at the cinema with watching a pirate copy at home. It goes something like:

'The cinema won't be the only place to see this film when it's released, some people will watch an illegal copy; the picture will be much, much smaller, the sound will be tinny, the colour will be be faded, and the view will be disrupted by whoever needs the toilet in the rows ahead.'

Now, most of those may be disadvantages to pirate copies, but can somebody please explain to me how seeing the film in a cinema is supposed to avoid the last one? Do people in cinema audiences only get up to use the toilet if a pirate recording is being made at the time? Surely this could be an advantage of watching a (legitimate) DVD at home, rather than going to the cinema? Actually, I seldom see people leave their seat during a film, but if this is going to be given as a reason not to watch a pirate copy made with a video camera in a cinema, then it would also be a reason not to watch the film in a cinema.

Did anybody else find this really stupid?

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 10-05-2005, 02:39 PM:

I think this refers to the fact that the camcorder is down in your lap and is further blocked from a direct view of the screen unless someone has figured out how to place and disguise a camcorder on top of their heads and are over 6 Ft. tall.

The anti-piracy ads are generally pretty lame.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-05-2005, 02:52 PM:

Yet again the MPAA is trying to pretend that the majority of these early leaked copies are camcorder jobs and don't in reality leak from the studios.

Is there anyone out there that isn't completely fed up with this nonsense yet?

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 10-05-2005, 03:05 PM:

A while back the MPAA had their silly campaign with posters, slides and trailers trying to fill the public with regret from knowing that when you watch a pirated film, set painters and costume seamstresses can't get paid (slightly O/T I'm reminded of these ads every day when I see the current California grown commercials they show here, where Ahnold goes on screen and says that when you buy California grown produce, "you keep the fahmahs fahming and the teachahs teaching." wtf?)

Why can't studios and theaters just say it like what it is:

"Your picture will be smaller and you're breaking copyright law."

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-05-2005, 03:39 PM:

quote: Stephen Furley
Do people in cinema audiences only get up to use the toilet...

quote: Brad Miller
...leaked copies...

Freudian slip! [evil]

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 10-05-2005, 06:20 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Yet again the MPAA is trying to pretend that the majority of these early leaked copies are camcorder jobs and don't in reality leak from the studios.

This was my opinion for years, until I took some time off and spent a year in Ireland. About 95% of pirated material I saw was filmed from a camcorder. Actually I should say 'came across' as I wouldn't watch that shit. It did make me wonder if CAP codes actually work, since technically every camcorder copy (of a print with CAP codes) can be traced to source. I only came across one screener DVD pirate.

Although I did just notice that Brad said 'early leaked copies', I was just reffering to piracy DVD's in general.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 10-06-2005, 05:55 AM:

It is tempting to add C(r)AP code to the advert so people can see the true cinematic experience.

Posted by Alexander Smith (Member # 1769) on 10-06-2005, 08:04 PM:

Heard this today, via a co-worker who has been to a
BKSTS lecture about film projection in general (not
a piracy lecture).

If a cinema is suspected of leaking illegal copies,
via C(r)AP code, the cinema will be given a "special"
print of a film.

This "special" print may have a sound mix which is
slightly different to the standard release, and, or a
slightly different edit. If this appears on bootleg it
is sufficient to demonstrate "beyond all reasonable
doubt" the copy came from that cinema.

Therefore, water-marking is (by its self) not enough
to prove copyright theft, it's a tool (clumsy or no)
to identify sources of bootlegs.

Alex.