Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: WB and Fox are watching you!

This is topic WB and Fox are watching you! in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=000771

Posted by Nicholas Roznovsky (Member # 861) on 03-28-2003, 12:01 AM:

Something in IMDB's Studio Briefing section today:

quote:
In their latest effort to halt piracy, Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox have hired security personnel to monitor media screenings with night-vision binoculars to look for persons trying to use camcorders while the movie is being run, the Los Angeles Times reported today (Thursday). The newspaper said that at a May 18th press screening of Warner's Dreamcatcher, those entering the theater were also scanned with an electronic wand. In January, security personnel using night-vision lenses nabbed a person in the audience using a camcorder to record Fox's Daredevil, the Times said. "We have instituted a variety of measures at screenings, including checking the projection booths," Jeffrey Godsick, Fox's marketing chief, told the newspaper. (Several reports have indicated that many pirated films appear to have been shot with cameras mounted on tripods inside theater projection booths.)

You've gotta have some serious stones to set up a tripod rig in the booth at a company screening. And probably quite an involved sound setup to avoid having a tape with booth noise. I have my doubts about the feasibility of creating a half decent video from the booth. Of course, if there's money to be made, someone will find a way!

Of course, it doesn't hurt for studio execs to see the inside of a booth. For many of them, it's the first time! [Wink]

[ 03-28-2003, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Nicholas Roznovsky ]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-28-2003, 12:15 AM:

If this helps to cut down on piracy and it doesn't inconvenience employees or legitiamte customers or otherwise interfere with normal theatre operations, then shouldn't we be supportive of this effort? If it helps more people to learn about how a booth is run, then that is an added bonus.

I'm as opposed to extreme anti-piracy measures as anyone else when they hurt law-abiding customers, but trying to catch handycam-in-theatre pirates seems completely reasonable to me.

Posted by Nicholas Roznovsky (Member # 861) on 03-28-2003, 01:20 AM:

I fully support reasonable efforts to prevent piracy and the measures above seem perfectly reasonable. I don't remember making any non-supportive statements about them. Just bringing them to everyone's attention.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 03-28-2003, 07:46 AM:

We played around with camcorders a couple years age and found that most analog and especially VHS machines had a pretty crappy looking picture, but a Sony digital camcorder made a very good copy, it could be easily distinguished from a bondfide legal tape or DVD though.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 03-28-2003, 07:56 AM:

quote:
And probably quite an involved sound setup to avoid having a tape with booth noise.

Not necissarily. IIRC the "Phonic Ear" hearing impared system's transmitter gets its sound via Left and Right RCA inputs. Just pop those puppies out and plug them into your digital camcorder with variable frame rate, set it at 24fps, and you've got the latest release on home video with stereo sound.

The other method pirates use, especially overseas, is in auditoriums with handicapped seating which has a HEADPHONE JACK in the armrest! [Eek!]

Crystal clear sound at your fingertips.

IMHO, they should really be going after stuff like that. If there was no way to get even "acceptable" sound on a bootleg, many people wouldn't even bother with it.

=TMP=

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-28-2003, 08:32 AM:

I've heard that quite a few "piracy-prone" theatres have been identified by tracking the CAP code on the pirated videos and Internet copies that are decoded by the MPAA.

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 03-28-2003, 08:48 AM:

What is the CAP code? I got a notice from Dreamworks last night about some missing paperwork and it listed a CAP code after the film's name....

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-28-2003, 09:30 AM:

CAP Code is "Coded Anti-Piracy", a system Kodak developed for the MPAA that has been in use since 1982 to track the source of pirated videos. It embeds a variety of tracking data into the film image that can be decoded by the MPAA from pirated videos or illicit Internet copies, identifying the specific print that was copied illegally.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 03-28-2003, 11:42 AM:

John -- Most of these internet copies are of such horrible quality, could the CAP code even be detected/seen anymore?

=TMP=

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-28-2003, 01:17 PM:

Discussions on the CAP code are here a'plenty.

The CAP Code (Main discussion)

Has anyone seen this man? (What Jack Valenti will do to you if you bootleg a movie.)

CAP Code...enough already! (If you just don't have the time to read the first link, this is a sort-of summary.)

WARNING: Do not click on the thread "CAP code secrets revealed" if you want to be able to continue enjoying movies! It's far worse than noticing changeover cues for the first time.

CAP code secrets revealed

I still have my doubts that the CAP code can be distinguished on a really bad copy, but knowing the basics of how it works I can see how it could withstand generation loss, so you've got to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-28-2003, 03:44 PM:

If you really want to foil people who try to use camcorders to pirate movies why don't you put some flickering infra-red LEDs behind the screen in positions strategically designed to be the most annoying?

If the positions of the LEDs could be manipulated in such a way as to make a specific pattern for every screen you can even tell which auditorium the copy was made in.

[evil]

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 03-28-2003, 06:13 PM:

Isn't half the problem the screener DVD's that studios send out?
Most of the bootlegs I've seen has the disclaimer along the bottom of the screen.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-28-2003, 06:46 PM:

quote:
The other method pirates use, especially overseas, is in auditoriums with handicapped seating which has a HEADPHONE JACK in the armrest! Crystal clear sound at your fingertips.

Some cinema processors, like the wonderful DFP-D3000, even have HEADPHONE JACKS! [Eek!]

I don`t doubt that some of the pirates who have access to a booth which does not have such a processor simply bring audio mixing equipment and downmix directly from the processor`s main output.
The hearing impaired system usually is fed a center-weighted mono sum of L+C+R.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-28-2003, 08:17 PM:

Here is something I have never seen before. Warner Bros. has sent a 30 sec or so warning to be attached to the sneaks of what a girl wants. Basically it is telling people not to use camcorders in the theater and if you see someone doing it to tell the theater management.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-28-2003, 08:40 PM:

NATO was supposedly working on a trailer like that. Could this be it?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-28-2003, 08:55 PM:

Isn't it sad that the general public is so stupid/ignorant/has no morals that we have to run a trailer explaining that this is not acceptable to the other people in the auditoriums? Doesn't that strike anyone as odd?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-28-2003, 09:34 PM:

How's that 'pirates will be shot on site' policy trailer coming along Brad? [Wink]

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-28-2003, 11:19 PM:

How about the ones who never really thought about using a camcorder to tape a movie off the screen. Now they will be like hey let's get a comcorder and sneak it in and tape the movie.

The way the letter was worded it sounds to me like they only want it played on the sneak. Next thing you know you will be seeing the big FBI logo and the copyright act playing before the movie.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-31-2003, 10:05 AM:

I always thought that putting a security camera in the front of the theater pointed back at the audience was a good idea.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-31-2003, 10:54 AM:

As I understand it, the FBI Warning that appears on videotapes, DVDs, film cans, etc. has absolutely no legal weight associated with it. It's intended to scare people and nothing more. Copyrighted works are protected by US copyright law regardless of whether they bear FBI Warnings or not.

(Insert "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer here. Although I have heard this from several sources, at least one of which _is_ a lawyer.)

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 04-24-2003, 11:13 AM:

Today on the IMDB site had a story about "Feds Bust Man for Taking Videos at Screening".

http://us.imdb.com/StudioBrief/2003/20030423.html

Jesse
He's making $1000-$4500 a week for his activities.
Yes, those types of tapes look like crap. But people
are buying them.

[ 04-24-2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Bill Gabel ]

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 04-24-2003, 12:52 PM:

Camcorder bootlegs look and sound like crap- why would anyone bother?

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-24-2003, 02:25 PM:

Jesse, that's the some question I have always asked myself. It does not make sense.

Just something to think about:

Quality is like buying oats. If you want good quality oats, you have to pay a fair price. However, if you are satisfied with oats that have already been through the horse...Well, they are just a little cheaper.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 04-24-2003, 02:54 PM:

Paul

That's a Good One, well put. [thumbsup]

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 04-25-2003, 12:19 AM:

Mmmmmmmmmm. Horse oats! [Big Grin]

=TMP=

Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 04-26-2003, 08:29 AM:

Randy...

quote:
If you really want to foil people who try to use camcorders to pirate movies why don't you put some flickering infra-red LEDs behind the screen in positions strategically designed to be the most annoying?

If the positions of the LEDs could be manipulated in such a way as to make a specific pattern for every screen you can even tell which auditorium the copy was made in.

HEY!!
That sounds like a DAMNED FINE idea. Do you know if this would really work in practice?
I mean, you might need a whole heap of LEDS aimed back from the around or through the perfs of the screen for it to be effective.

The studio's could use it for the world-premier/opening-night/red-carpet/director-room screenings, thus removing the need to search people or survey for video cameras.

I'd whack a copyright on that idea if I was you,then pitch it to Fox (who are the real parnoid ones) and WB. Sure sounds like a good idea.

Bill!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-28-2003, 08:49 AM:

Even if the video camera were sensitive to infrared, it would be possible to use an infrared-blocking filter. IMHO, encouraging others to report those using a video camera in a theatre is still a good way to discourage piracy. So is vigilance by theatre personnel:

http://www.infocusmag.com/02December/builtby.htm

Posted by Nicholas Roznovsky (Member # 861) on 04-28-2003, 10:45 AM:

I can understand the legal reasoning in the article John linked to above, but just kicking out people with camcorders won't solve the problem. They'll just drive down the street to the next theater that isn't as vigilant in looking for piracy.

From the In Focus article linked to above:

quote:
As the laws stand now in most states, the best solution is to simply remove the patron from the premises.

Piracy is a theft of product. Imagine if retail stores could only tell shoplifters to leave instead of being able to prosecute them. "Well, we caught you. You have to leave. Don't do that again please." Not a very effective system.

At least with the CAP code, we can tell where people should be kicked out of and theaters can get in trouble. It's somewhat frustrating that theater operators can be held accountable for something they don't have the tools to deal with effectively.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-28-2003, 11:14 AM:

The people who want to sneak their Handycams into theatres badly enough will always be able to do so. Short of strip-searching patrons at the door, there's not much that the typical theatre can do to prevent the die-hard film pirates from getting in. The problem seems to primarily affect "big" movies, as fans of art-house and repertory programming tend to be educated enough to prefer the big-screen experience to blocky, jerky, flickering bootleg copies.

Personally, I think that the best weapon that theatre owners can use against film piracy is to make sure that the theatrical experience is so far superior to the lame DIVX-encoded crap that shows up online that no one with half a brain would want to watch the pirated version when the theatrical presentation offers so much more. This is why we need to bring back 70mm, large screens, and killer sound systems for first-run theatrical engagements. The theatres which only offer "film done wrong" (and/or "showmanship done wrong") just give people another reason to stay home.

Posted by Andrew Lee (Member # 1330) on 04-28-2003, 12:08 PM:

Piracy occurs not only in the theatre but in the labs as well. Combating piracy in the labs is an internal issue and steps are being taken. The future will tell if they are successful.

As for piracy in the theatres, there are a number of groups and a few inventors working on some solutions. The LED idea is not new and has a few drawbacks relating to cost and implementation. I have been lucky enough to witness one new idea and have also been part of another, both of which I am legally not allowed to talk about in detail. I will tell you that one of these ideas will in fact stop the use of any camcorder if it can be implemented effectively in a theatre setting.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-28-2003, 01:34 PM:

There is a way to foil piracy on DPL presentations. I posted that somewhere in these forums, but I annot recall where made the post. The article I was referring to will work...but the source admitted that technology will come along to compromise it.

I located the article: It was in another thread, but I don't know how to "point" to it. So, I'll attach it to this post.
............................................................
Here's something from the Local Seattle Rag that might prove interesting.

Hollywood comes up with a high-tech way to foil movie pirates

By GARY GENTILE
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

LOS ANGELES -- Hollywood sends enforcers with night-vision goggles into movie theaters and puts metal detectors outside advance screening rooms, but still the industry can't stop pirates from recording films and selling illegal copies before their theatrical debuts.

The problem is that the pirates are adopting ever more sophisticated technology, using tiny camcorders in purses and digital recorders about the size of a fountain pen.

Some hand-held computers "have an attachment that can record up to 122 minutes," said Jeffrey Godsick, executive vice president of marketing at 20th Century Fox. "Well, that's a whole movie in many cases. You can take the attachment and run it through a small hole in a tie or a shirt."

This is big business. The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that studios lose more than $3 billion a year from piracy in various forms. So the movie industry is trying to fight back with a high-tech solution of its own.

Cinea LLC, which created an encryption system for DVDs, and Sarnoff, a technology research firm, are developing a system to modulate the light cast on a movie screen to create a flicker or other patterns that would be picked up by recording devices, making the resulting images unwatchable. The disruptive flickers would be unseen by the human eye in the movie theater.

The "forensic watermark" system is designed to be used with digital projectors, which show movies stored on computer discs rather than traditional 35mm film. Only a few theaters have digital projectors, although most are expected to go digital by the end of the decade.

The research is funded by a $2 million grant from the Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency.

The technology takes advantage of the fact that the human eye and camcorders see the world differently. For example, a computer screen constantly refreshes an image, creating bars that travel across the screen. A camcorder picks up those bars, but not the naked eye.

Researchers are mindful that creating too rapid a flicker could trigger seizures in some people. They also discovered that using the flicker to write words across the image, such as "Copy," is not disruptive enough.

"It turns out that text isn't that annoying," said Robert Schumann, Cinea's chief executive. "Also, if it's just a static image, it's easier for the pirates to take out."

This technology would be a major improvement over the industry's current measures of trying to block pirate recorders, including night-vision goggles and metal detectors. Some of the piracy is an inside job: A pirate bribes a projectionist to set up a tripod in the projection booth.

"It is a system that will not stop camcording," said Ken Jacobsen, director of worldwide anti-piracy operations for the Motion Picture Association of America. "The best we can do is try to keep it out of the marketplace before a full domestic release."

Still, the industry knows that whatever technological gains are made over pirates will eventually be thwarted, requiring even more sophisticated countermeasures.

"There is a lot of money in piracy," Jacobsen said, "so it is worth people's efforts to try and defeat security."

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-28-2003, 03:01 PM:

quote:
The research is funded by a $2 million grant from the Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency.

AFAIK, any Kodak work on movie encryption/watermarking/camcorder-foiling is not being paid for by the government. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 05-08-2003, 06:18 PM:

Related story from AP via The Hollywood Reporter (today):

quote:
A Hollywood man was indicted on federal charges for allegedly using camcorders to tape prerelease screenings of major motion pictures to create pirate films for sale. Johnny Ray Gasca, 33, is believed to be the first person indicted on federal charges in such circumstances, Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Johnson said Wednesday. The indictment issued Tuesday alleges criminal copyright infringement, interstate communication of a threat, possession of false identification and witness retaliation. If convicted on all charges, Gasca could face up to 28 years in prison. Prosecutors said Gasca used sophisticated equipment, including a camera attached to a belt, to tape movies ranging from "The Core" to "8 Mile." He allegedly gained entry to test screenings and previews held for the media. Gasca has an extensive criminal history that includes 89 arrests and a conviction for attempted murder, prosecutors said. He has been held without bail since his arrest last month. FBI agents who searched Gasca's home found nearly a dozen VHS recorders, video editing equipment and other devices they believe he used to create pirate films. Prosecutors said Gasca wrote in a diary that he was earning between $1,000 and $4,500 a week from his activities. Prosecutors allege that Gasca threatened to shoot his mail carrier because the search warrant showed that she gave information to the FBI. In one instance, he told a movie studio employee that he worked for the Motion Picture Association of America after being caught illegally taping a film, prosecutors said.

Posted by Nicholas Roznovsky (Member # 861) on 05-08-2003, 11:31 PM:

We have received a memo from Warner Brothers reminding us that an anti-piracy statement must be left intact on our sneak preview prints of "The In-Laws" this weekend. Of all the summer films, I'm sure "In-Laws" is at the top of the most-likely-to-be-pirated list. [Razz]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-09-2003, 10:33 AM:

Gee, the industry looses only 3 BILLION dollars a year? Last time I heard Jack Vallenti tell it, they were loosing over 5 billion. I think the 3 billion figure was the one he was throwing out when the MPAA was trying to stop Sony and Toshiba from manufacturing VCRs because they were being used to make illegal copies of movies from TV, which cost the industry....yup, you guessed it .... 3 billion dollars a year. Seems like the real cost of bootleg copies is a number about as accurate and easily come by as the real loss numbers at Enron. It is difficult to know the exact loss figure, but it is hard to imagine that the barely watchable, camera-pointed-at-the-screen bootleg copies that are sold curb-side for $3, are a threat to blockbusters that cost x million to make and then earn x to the tenth power million in the first weekend. No really popular multi-million dollar hit is brought to the brink of bankrupcy because of bootleg activity, Mr. Vallenti's inflated loss figures notwithstanding.

And let's face it, no one is bootlegging films that are not big money making hits. Besides, the copies that look really good and which could actually be considered a real rather than an imagined economic threat,typically come from Academy Members' audition tapes that are give out before the Oscars. Curiously, you don't hear Mr. Valenti railing against the Academy members as potential bootleggers the way the MPAA implies all projectionists are, painting images of every projectionist setting up tripods in their booths. The FBI isn't using night-vision technology to peer into the actors' and directors' Beverly Hills screening rooms to find out who copying their audition tapes or selling them on ebay. Fox wants the right to go into any projection booth to see what's going on, but they don't seem to want an acounting of what the Academy members do with their audition tapes and DVDs.

And personally, I think it is pretty obscene that our government, with its seriously increasing national debt and with cutbacks of all manner of services, is willing to hand out grants of millions of dollars to protect a huge, wealthy industry -- an industry that clearly has the resources to finance its own anti-piracy Research and Develpment. I thought welfare was a bad thing?! Evidently not when it is corporate welfare. But you can be sure there are no million dollar government grants being given out to you or me to help us find high-tech ways to make a better security system to foil car thieves so our cars won't get stolen. Perhaps that million dollar grant money would have been better spent if the FBI used it for better surveillance of its own double agents to prevent them from selling classified information to the Chinese government for the last 12 years.

But I must say, as cynical as I am about this, it's still nice to know that Kodak is above pilfering handouts from the government.

Frank

PS I still want to know: How old is Jack (it's a cancer in the belly of the industry) Vallenti?