Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Transformers to premiere on cable pay-per-view, same day as box office?!

This is topic Transformers to premiere on cable pay-per-view, same day as box office?! in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=005145

Posted by Paul Goulet (Member # 297) on 06-22-2007, 03:52 PM:

Link

SCOOP] Transformers to premiere on cable pay-per-view, same day as box office
Story posted on: June 21, 2007

UberPulse has learned that, for the first time in Hollywood's history, a local studio, namely Paramount, will release next month's live-action Transformers movie, on cable pay-per-view, the same day it premiere's in US theatres, on July 3rd. But don't hold your breath... the price tag for that special night might deter more than one: $49!

At this price, it makes sense to watch a blockbuster at home instead of going to the theatres, only if you have a really nice home theatre system and invite lots of family and friends. And that's exactly how Hollywood is trying to convince the theatres: that those people, who owns such home theatre systems, are not going to the cinemas anyway.

We have also learned that movie theatres are very reluctant to release that content as they have the right on it for the first six months it is released a.k.a the first window of exclusivity... But the writing is on the wall. So expect more experiments like this one, more often... cheaper... until the death of theatres!

[ 06-22-2007, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-22-2007, 04:12 PM:

Highly-respected news source Comic Book News Web sez:

quote:
According to Nelson of MichaelBay.com this is completely false. A direct quote from Mr. Bay is below.
From Bay: “Total bullshit. Probally a scam putting old movie on.”

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 06-22-2007, 04:23 PM:

It actually makes sense that a studio would try the day-and-date thing with something big like the new Transformers.

Despite vocal opposition from the theatre owners as to day-and-date policies, the studios know that the theatre owners would not take an actual stand by refusing to run something as big as Transformers so it is great way to call the theatre owners bluff.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-22-2007, 04:31 PM:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the rumor is true, despite that supposed quote from Michael Bay.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-22-2007, 04:48 PM:

First off, if this were true I think it would be all over the real hollywood wires.

Second, the theatrical debut is July 2nd, not July 3rd and this date has been known for some time now.

Third, I would think that this would be advertised if it were true.

Fourth, with Spielberg involved (an "old school" guy) I don't think he would approve.

And finally........this would create BIG problems between paramount and theater chains.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 06-22-2007, 05:05 PM:

quote:
UberPulse has learned that, for the first time in Hollywood's history, a local studio namely Paramount, will release next months live-action Transformer movie, on cable pay-per-view, the same day it premieres in US theatres,

That would mark the third time a film was released in Hollywood's history to a television playdate along with it's theatrical release.
First time was "Richard III" in 1956 with an airing on NBC and then again on February 18th 1983 with Universal's "Pirates of Penzance". "Pirates" was shown on a Los Angeles cable movie station "SelecTV".

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-22-2007, 05:43 PM:

We got an email from NATO today saying this is a false rumor.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-23-2007, 12:05 AM:

like I am going to trust something called UberPulse.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-23-2007, 02:51 AM:

When I think "pay per view" I think shitty 4:3 SDTV picture and barely stereo sound. Even if you have the best home theater in the world like Andy Summers, it'll still look and sound like crap.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-23-2007, 04:22 AM:

So Joe, you are saying Denver now has a commercial theater capable of providing a better presentation than your home?

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 06-23-2007, 04:43 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
When I think "pay per view" I think shitty 4:3 SDTV picture and barely stereo sound. Even if you have the best home theater in the world like Andy Summers, it'll still look and sound like crap.

I used to think the same thing and most of it is. However, Comcast on Demand has HDTV movies also. I get 5.1 surround and an HD picture although to be honest, I am not sure of the resolution. My HD box is set for 1080i.

Even if this does not happen with transformers, I unfortunately think it will happen in the not to distant future.

If you think about it, $50 is a good price to charge for a day and date movie. It is about what you could spend at the theater.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-23-2007, 04:49 AM:

The whole idea is stupid though. For $50 a pirate can have a PERFECT FLAWLESS QUALITY bootleg to run off bazillions of copies on opening day without any real risk of getting caught.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-23-2007, 07:48 AM:

Even if it's not perfect or faultless...the fact in can be copied SO easily should be of great concern.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-23-2007, 08:45 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
So Joe, you are saying Denver now has a commercial theater capable of providing a better presentation than your home?

No, I'm saying cable TV sucks ass. HD is better, but over cable the bandwidth is severely limited and you'll see two to three times as many digital artifacts as you would watching HD over the air, which itself is bad enough.

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 06-23-2007, 09:16 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
For $50 a pirate can have a PERFECT FLAWLESS QUALITY bootleg to run off bazillions of copies on opening day without any real risk of getting caught.

It's only a matter of time before some pirate figures out how to copy/decrypt/convert to Divx a digital cinema file. I can see it now... The method gets perfected and released to the net, every 18 year old "projectionist" with a laptop will be a potential pirate. It will be like the race between hackers and directv a few years ago. The studios as going to have to be dilligent in keeping the files secure at least until the movie has been out a few months.

I do not like the day and date idea. I think it will be the end of theaters as we know them. I doubt it will eliminate them, but there will be another industry-wide correction like there was 6 years ago - even if digital cinema files are never hacked.

I agree with you Brad. It is very easy to pirate what comes across your TV set. My hope is day and date never happens.

Why pay $50 to a theater when I can watch it at home?
Why pay $50 to pay per view if I can download it on the net with close to the same quality?

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-23-2007, 11:13 AM:

quote: Uberpulse
Transformers to premiere

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-23-2007, 12:29 PM:

quote: Mike Williams
It's only a matter of time before some pirate figures out how to copy/decrypt/convert to Divx a digital cinema file. I can see it now... The method gets perfected and released to the net, every 18 year old "projectionist" with a laptop will be a potential pirate.

There's a number of problems with that.

The security keys used are pretty difficult to break. It's not like reverse engineering the serial number from an old copy of Photoshop. I've seen the data in these "keys." It would be a bitch to have to manually type in all that gobbledygook.

The way the movie data is water-marked, it would be easy to identify which virtual print was used and tie it to the specific theater where the data was sourced.

It would take a pretty intensive inside job of sorts for any cracker to figure out how to break down the DCI security setup and remove the water marking from the movie data. And that would greatly increase the chances for the cracker to get caught.

Even if the cracker could figure out how to remove all the security measures, he's still going to be stuck with a HUGE file that is not playable on any kind of mainstream computer equipment.

No one is going to download a giant sized file that needs its own 300GB external hard disc to store. This was one of the reasons why there was hardly any data security measures applied at all to D-VHS "d-theater" releases. There's just too much data.

The huge playback bandwidth is another problem. You need a high end RAID setup and appropriately compatible computer software to play back the data at its required bit rates of up to 250 million bits per second. Good luck on that. Further, you need other unique software that can manipulate the data and down-sample it to file sizes that other users can actually play before it can be uploaded to the Internet.

Basically, a cracker would have a much greater chance of success if he broke into the post production studio and got hold of the original 2K files before they were converted over to the DCI format. But then he would be dealing with much larger HD-SDI bandwidth files requiring even more disc space.

And then you have to figure that people who watch pirated movies on the Internet don't really give a damn about quality. They'll stupidly waste 2 hours of their life watching some camcorder footage. Why these idiots even breathe oxygen doesn't make any sense. They must not have the brain cells to need it. Or they simply have assholes for eyes since they like looking at shit.

In the end, the thing the pirates want the most is one of those screener DVDs. Lots easier to duplicate and upload. And there's enough unethical morons in Hollywood willing to provide the things.

If there's one threat posed against d-cinema files, it's not from geeks who want to upload pirated movies from their bedrooms.

Industrial espionage and industrial scale pirating operations in places like China do pose a threat. They have the money and resources to acquire d-cinema playback equipment and then figure out ways how get the data onto bootleg HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs. Again, this would be a more complicated, cumbersome and risky process than duping DVDs. Chances are much greater the studios would find the "rats" in their operations and prosecute viciously. And pirated movies are only good while a movie is in theatrical release. With such shrinking release windows the extra effort required to cater to an even smaller market just wouldn't be worth it at this point.

[ 06-23-2007, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-23-2007, 01:13 PM:

plus where the final data is processed into viewable images is in the projector head. The processor in the projector is encased in a box that has tamper proof seals on it. You remove the screws and it will not work. You would have to call a tech out to reset the processor in the head. If you open the top door while the feature is running the picture will turn to snow. The only way to correct it is to restart the feature.

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 06-23-2007, 03:43 PM:

My point is nothing is unhackable.
I am sure that there will come a time that somebody will be able to decode the data stream or read the file with the use of the USB key. With enough motivation and patience, I am sure some *ssh*le will figure out a method of reading the file. Wait until digital cinema gets big in China.
When the hackers get by the security, all that is left is to covert the source file to a format like DivX so it would be smaller and easier to manage. I am sure that could be done on a laptop right at the theater.
To be honest, I hope this never happens as it can cripple the industry. One distinct advantage to film(among the 100's of others) is decent transfer to video is impractical and requires expensive hardware that is not readily available (like a telecin). That leaves the camcorder method which low quality.

I know I sound like a pessimist, but the point of my posts is that this, along with the day and date releases coming up can turn out to be huge problems for the theater industry.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-23-2007, 04:29 PM:

quote: Mike Williams
When the hackers get by the security, all that is left is to covert the source file to a format like DivX so it would be smaller and easier to manage. I am sure that could be done on a laptop right at the theater.

Mike, you seem to be missing the point regarding the nature of those d-cinema data files. It isn't something that can be handled by ordinary computers. You're sure not going to be able to mess around with it using a laptop. There isn't a single laptop on the planet that can sustain those hard disc I/O levels.

Convert to DiVX? Why bother?

Why reduce such a high bandwidth video format down to something so comparatively shitty as DiVX when the same, low quality end result can be achieved by simply using a screener DVD or dopey camcorder footage?

Sure, criminals in China and other nations will try to subvert data from d-cinema virtual prints and perhaps use the data as a master for bootleg HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs.

But Hollywood studios are going to constantly counter the threat with ever shifting versions of data encryption and force more real time software activation. There is a lot of concern about theaters having to upgrade digital projectors or replace them outright after only a few years of service. I think it's far more likely theaters will be upgrading or replacing their playback servers every couple of years or so.

Even companies like Microsoft and Adobe have cut down on a good amount of piracy against their mainstream software products by requiring them to "phone home" and validate themselves before they can be used or fixed with software updates. Those companies could deliberately stick some poison pill defect into the retail product that can only be fixed by their servers remotely. I've already had a couple of updates in my Adobe CS3 applications.

Meanwhile, the Hollywood screener DVDs are still widely available and used in a very casual manner, making it easy for the discs to fall into the hands of movie pirates. Those screener DVDs are often available well before the theatrical release and well ahead of distribution of those large capacity hard disc virtual prints. That makes the screener DVDs even more valuable to pirates than their far more unwieldy d-cinema counterparts.

In fact, when mass production piracy operations start doing things in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, they're going to be doing so by way of duping screener discs in HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. I'm pretty skeptical any highly proprietary d-cinema disc is ever going to be much of an inviting target to pirates at all. The alternatives are much easier to manipulate and acquire.

Posted by Christopher Meredith (Member # 3767) on 06-23-2007, 07:50 PM:

quote: "Bobby Henderson"
And then you have to figure that people who watch pirated movies on the Internet don't really give a damn about quality. They'll stupidly waste 2 hours of their life watching some camcorder footage. Why these idiots even breathe oxygen doesn't make any sense. They must not have the brain cells to need it. Or they simply have assholes for eyes since they like looking at shit.

This is the kind of nonsense that exemplifies the industry's view of so-called "pirates" in the first place. The people who download and watch cam recordings of films are not people who think its a comparable experience and are doing it to save a few bucks. They are, more often than not, the die-hard fans of the film and are the same folks who buy advance tickets and who go to the theater multiple times. This was certainly the case when I was in colelge and film franchises such as LOTR, the Matrix, and Star Wars prequels were active. My roommates, brotehr, and even myself were scouring the net for "bootlegs" so we could be the first to see the movie, then when it was released, we (well, my roommates anyway) were those guys you see camping out for tickets.

Anyway, the upshot is that I don't see "piracy" as anything otehr than a minor, secondary-at-best concern for the industry. Certainly nothing as blown out of proportion as it has become.

And I also agree that hacking the DCI keys is only a matter of time. And with more advanced video codecs appearaing (x.264 as an example), I have no trouble believeing that a 300+GB source file can be compressed into a 4.7 GB file that would look incredible on an HDTV. We're already seeing that with rips from BD and HD-DVD sources.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-23-2007, 09:11 PM:

quote: Christopher Meredith
This is the kind of nonsense that exemplifies the industry's view of so-called "pirates" in the first place.

Wrong.

The movie industry acts like it's losing a bunch of money to huge numbers of people watching bootleg recordings as if those bootlegs are an equal quality product. I don't think it's nearly as big a problem as Hollywood leads people to believe.

My stance is anyone watching a bootleg on the Internet is wasting his time in a pretty stupid manner. I also stand 100% with my comment that anyone going out of their way to watch those kinds of low quality recordings definitely must have assholes for eyes. The lack of taste definitely points in that direction.

quote: Christopher Meredith
My roommates, brotehr, and even myself were scouring the net for "bootlegs" so we could be the first to see the movie, then when it was released, we (well, my roommates anyway) were those guys you see camping out for tickets.

My response to someone gloating over seeing the movie first by way of an Internet bootleg: "Congratulations. You're an idiot." That comment goes double for any big epic movie that millions were itching to see.

I couldn't be made to give one rat's ass about seeing the movie before everyone else if I had to watch it in a Shit-O-Vision bootleg download from the Internet. Basically I would be ruining my first impression of the film by watching it in such a stupidly compromised manner.

Further, who gives a fuck who saw the movie first? If that sort of bullcrap matters at all, the people who made the movie are the real people who saw the movie first.

I would much rather wait a few days for the legitimate theatrical release where I can see the movie play on a great big screen with very good quality projection (film or digital) and very good quality digital surround sound. For certain event movies I have been willing to drive hundreds of miles to watch the film for the first time in better quality formats like 70mm.

If I am going to take 2 hours out of my life to sit still and watch a movie I want that experience to meet certain quality standards. Internet bootlegs don't meet that standard at all.

This kinds of gets down to one tactic I think Hollywood should be using to fight movie piracy. Ridicule the people stupid enough to waste their time downloading the movie and ruining their first impression of that show in by way of a low quality format.

To use another analogy, some new great steak house could be opening in my city. One person who is patient enough waits for the place to open and visits when he can get a good meal, good service and an overall good experience. Meanwhile, the other guy gets hold of some of the raw materials the restaurant serves and tries to cook it up himself in his kitchen at 3:00am and eats it alone on the couch dressed only in his underwear. He ate it before the restaurant opened up to the public. But can he actually be seen as being "cool" for doing that? More likely can the guy avoid being laughed at when attempting to brag about it?

Posted by Christopher Meredith (Member # 3767) on 06-23-2007, 10:21 PM:

Fine, you wouldn't do it. That's obvious. But just because you don't care to do it doesn't make everyone who would want to do it stupid.

Case in point: I'm 25 and am a movie theater manager. I can't count the number of times I've been asked, in one way or another, if I plan to get a real job. Imagine if that sentiment could be projected (no pun intended) on the entire industry? Just because I don't personally view this as a long-term career option doesn't mean anyone who does is stupid. People have different tastes and opinions. Get over it.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-24-2007, 02:00 AM:

Christopher, that's just a bunch of bullshit and you know it.

If you think you are a legit movie fan you would be doing everything you could to support commercial theaters -regardless of whether you wanted to make it a career or not.

Trying to justify downloading bullshit DiVX pirated content doesn't do anything to back that up.

Again, I'll say it to you and anyone else who wants to do it, you are an idiot if you think it is some kind of great coup by downloading pirated content and watching it at 3:00am in your underwear in your college dorm. I absolutely will laugh in the face of any dumbass thinking he has scored some cool points by doing such fucking idiot nonsense. Maybe I'll fracture several of his teeth by throwing a flying coffee cup at him. Basically, there is no respect at all for anyone supporting bullshit pirate operations. None. Ever.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-24-2007, 02:31 AM:

quote: Christopher Meredith
300+GB source file can be compressed into a 4.7 GB

I highly doubt it....

If you have never seen what it looks like when these files are downloaded off the hard drives onto the server then you will never understand why it will be probably impossible for someone to try to decrypt the files and make an illegal copy of the source. The keys also require the serial number of the server that is being usesd in order for it to decrypt the files.

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 06-24-2007, 05:06 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
My stance is anyone watching a bootleg on the Internet is wasting his time in a pretty stupid manner. I also stand 100% with my comment that anyone going out of their way to watch those kinds of low quality recordings definitely must have assholes for eyes. The lack of taste definitely points in that direction.

But it is still happening. I have talked to business owners here in town that have stated "I don't need to watch Ocean's 13 at your theater, I bought it on DVD". It's time for all of us to stop passing judgement on the lowered expectations of others, and to start realizing that those lower expectations are winning the war. I agree, a bootleg version of this weeks new thing is not that great to watch. I also think that scratches and sound drop-outs on day one are inexcusable. But the other theater in my town (my competition) keeps drawing more people and winning local awards while offering that.

It's time for the industry to re-evaluate and decide what people are really looking for.

And let us not forget that anything done BY software can be UNDONE by software. Also, if a camcorded movie off the screen when projected by film is okay, then surely one projected by a digital projector will still be, at least, okay...

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 06-24-2007, 07:52 AM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
If you have never seen what it looks like when these files are downloaded off the hard drives onto the server then you will never understand why it will be probably impossible for someone to try to decrypt the files and make an illegal copy of the source. The keys also require the serial number of the server that is being usesd in order for it to decrypt the files.

Remember, the resulting file does not have the be 2K (2048x1080) resolution. Resize it to something more manageable like 1280x720 when you compress it.

The point is it will be done at one point. The fact that it is more than 300GB is means nothing. Take a look at what it would cost for a 500GB drive. What do you think that will cost in 3-4 years around the same time somebody figures out how to get by the encryption.

Bobby does have a valid point. Until copying the digital print becomes more practical (and I believe it will in a short time), DVDs leaked from the studio will be the real source for pirates.

I think my major disagreement is the impact piracy will have on the industry.

I know that if I can watch it on TV with good quality, I am not going to drag the kids out to the theater or get a baby sitter to go watch it. I also feel like I am not the only one with this sentiment. The 60-90 day wait before it shows up on video legitimately already has effected when I go

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-24-2007, 11:18 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The security keys used are pretty difficult to break. It's not like reverse engineering the serial number from an old copy of Photoshop. I've seen the data in these "keys." It would be a bitch to have to manually type in all that gobbledygook.

It's not so much typing them in as much as it is calculating the other member of the key pair - which is practically impossible. I'm guessing that the key used to decrypt the movie is a symmetrical key, which itself is encrypted to the projector's personal public key. Then, only the projector can decrypt that gobbledygook you're seeing into the REAL gobbledygook that actually decrypts the movie files. Incidentally, I've also looked at these key files, and if I'm not mistaken, there appears to be seven keys for a standard movie. One for the video, and one for each of the six tracks of audio. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that. But either way, good luck breaking in, Mike!

quote: Bobby Henderson
The way the movie data is water-marked, it would be easy to identify which virtual print was used and tie it to the specific theater where the data was sourced.

What does the watermarking? It seems to me it almost has to be generated by some component of the projector or the server. Is that done on the fly?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-24-2007, 11:37 AM:

problem is that by the time you figured out how to get the files to work together because there are several different files on the drive that serve various purposes and did all the compression that would be required. The final outcome would most likely be unplayable or so choppy and full of artifacts that the resulting conclusion would be that you just waisted a lot of your life trying to pirate a movie. You might find that the security on the Digital Cinema is as tight as Fort Knox. The one output where you possibly could get the information is at the projector and it is rendered useless with any tampering of the processor compartment on the projector. The information coming from the server processor (Doremi in our case) and most likely others is split into two signal cables going to the projector head. There are a lot of other factors to get that resulting picture on the screen. But who knows, if pirates in China want it bad enough, I guess they will find a way. But, pirates in America are not going to waste there time trying to figure that one out.

As far as someone downloading the pirated copy off the Internet. It is no different than someone going out to some guy on the street in a panel truck and buying a stolen T.V. set off of him. It is still classified as receiving stolen goods. The people who download are just as guilty as the pirates who copied it.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
What does the watermarking? It seems to me it almost has to be generated by some component of the projector or the server. Is that done on the fly?

It is generated by the Server playing the files. In the information about our server it talks some about it's ability to do water marking of the content.

quote:
One for the video, and one for each of the six tracks of audio. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that. But either way, good luck breaking in, Mike!

I believe you are correct since there are several various files within the content download for any given title.

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 06-24-2007, 12:02 PM:

All I am saying is give it a few years. Where there is a will, there is a way. When a hack is out there and laptop hardware catches up to meet the requirements - and it will, the studios will really have to be diligent. Of course, by this time, the movies will probably all be playing day and date so maybe it really won't be worth trying to hack at that point.
Don't get me wrong. I like the industry the way it is and has been. I just see some huge changes taking place soon because of all this... mainly films being released day and date.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-24-2007, 12:33 PM:

I hope you're wrong about the day-and-date thing. The studios all say, now, that they support the video window.

But I remember, not too many years ago, when the head of Disney said they would NEVER cheapen their classic animated films by releaseing them on video. Their plan was to bring them back every seven to ten years "for a whole new generation to enjoy" in the theatres.

I think that plan lasted for one "classic" reissue (Pinocchio) and when it flopped, it was full-speed ahead to get all the oldies onto tape.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-24-2007, 12:49 PM:

quote: Mike Williams
All I am saying is give it a few years. Where there is a will, there is a way. When a hack is out there and laptop hardware catches up to meet the requirements - and it will, the studios will really have to be diligent.

The current security standard with digital cinema will not stay stuck in its current condition.

And given the concerns of the notebook computer market, it will be a very long time before you have anything like enterprise level RAID performance coming out of the hard drives in a notebook. Factors like battery life are major considerations.

quote: Mike Williams
I like the industry the way it is and has been. I just see some huge changes taking place soon because of all this... mainly films being released day and date.

If movies get released in theaters and on home video at the same time it will kill the movie theater business. And once the movie theater business is killed that will in turn kill off much of the movie business itself.

As an all straight-to-video industry the movie studios would be no better than any pay cable operation like HBO. Their production budgets would shrink dramatically since they would just be making everything for TV. Sales of movies would go to shit.

If Hollywood really wants to cut its own throat financially, releasing movies in theaters and on video at the same time would be a good way to do it.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-24-2007, 02:07 PM:

Fact: Studios don't care about piracy, even though they'd like you to think they did.

Evidence: They still send out bunches of screener DVDs, don't they?

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-24-2007, 06:07 PM:

You don't have to worry about piracy if day and date happens. No camera needed; just buy one on your way out & copy it. Louis

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 06-25-2007, 12:16 PM:

I'm not sure if the quality of the copies floating around on the Internet is necessarily all that bad.

I've heard that one of the copies of Sicko floating around on bittorrent is a bit more than 4GB. That might make it higher quality than some movies that have been released on single layer DVDs that might have longer runtimes and/or special features. Also, I didn't hear what compression scheme was used for that copy; the compression scheme used on DVDs is certainly optomized for cheap consumer players with tiny processors and not for making the most use of the available bandwidth.

DVDish quality is obviously not as good as theaters, but on the other hand, it seems to be good enough for an awful lot of consumers.

When DVDs first came out, I think the perception was that the encyrption on DVDs was going to be just as effective as people are now claiming D-cinema's encryption is. Unless someone can point to careful reviews of D-cinema's encryption by well-known cryptographers who were told the details, I think it's best to assume it's a big unknown.

Downsizing the huge files may not need to be something that needs to happen in real time. There may be viable schemes for defeating the watermarking that may turn out to not be especially difficult. Without being told the details of how these algorithms work, we don't really know.

The ``gssapi'' authentication method in the ssh protocol had some significant flaws that went unnoticed for about two years, and that's a publicly documented protocol (which has since been replaced with a different authentication method that's a little more thorough). The D-cinema encryption/watermarking spec has likely not been reviewed as carefully.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-25-2007, 02:04 PM:

quote: Joel N. Weber II
I've heard that one of the copies of Sicko floating around on bittorrent is a bit more than 4GB. That might make it higher quality than some movies that have been released on single layer DVDs that might have longer runtimes and/or special features.

Doubtful.

A lot more work goes into the video authoring of a retail DVD than any pre-release screener disc regardless of whether it is single or dual layered and whether it has a lot of features on it or not. Pre-release screener DVDs typically have at best mediocre audio and video quality.

quote: Joel N. Weber II
DVDish quality is obviously not as good as theaters, but on the other hand, it seems to be good enough for an awful lot of consumers.

And that underscores my point of why it is retarded for anyone to even bother with trying to hijack and crack any d-cinema hard disc virtual print. Why fart with something as complicated and risky to handle such as a d-cinema virtual print when a screener DVD is so much easier, faster and safer to duplicate?

quote: Joel N. Weber II
When DVDs first came out, I think the perception was that the encyrption on DVDs was going to be just as effective as people are now claiming D-cinema's encryption is. Unless someone can point to careful reviews of D-cinema's encryption by well-known cryptographers who were told the details, I think it's best to assume it's a big unknown.

It sounds like you're making some broad assumptions based on what is unknown to you.

There's a lot of details stated (and other details left unstated) in the DCI white papers. The encryption and activation systems are quite advanced and a lot more complicated than anything casual computer users find in any mainstream software, including any of the new HD-disc video formats. The keys work uniquely with each virtual print and projection system. The only likely way I see the system being "broken" is by someone doing it from inside the movie industry.

quote: Joel N. Weber II
Downsizing the huge files may not need to be something that needs to happen in real time. There may be viable schemes for defeating the watermarking that may turn out to not be especially difficult. Without being told the details of how these algorithms work, we don't really know.

Again, that sounds like another guess. And then there's the repeated guess that the video content can merely be duplicated and resized using standard computer hardware when the truth is that content is too impractical, complicated and just plain incompatible with any mainstream hardware. Given the modest goals in file sizes and quality for uploading, it doesn't make any sense to go after anything other than those screener DVDs.

I'd like to make another point. This is fundamentally a pro movie theaters forum. Anyone advocating movie piracy and regarding the criminals who upload movies on the Internet as heroes of sorts is working directly against the interests of many who participate here. Lots of movie theater employees and other people employed in the movie industry participate in this forum. Anyone wanting to promote piracy should not be surprised by all the flames he may get in response.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-25-2007, 03:42 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Pre-release screener DVDs typically have at best mediocre audio and video quality.

And how do you know this?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-25-2007, 04:13 PM:

I've seen a few of them. Bootleg DVDs from screener discs are popular with soldiers over in Iraq. They're widely available there. Some troops will bring some of those discs back stateside when they finish a tour of duty.

The quality with those discs is not all that great. One of my close friends had a bootleg copy of The Last Samurai and ended up replacing it with a legit retail version with much better video quality.

Posted by Christopher Meredith (Member # 3767) on 06-25-2007, 05:02 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
This is fundamentally a pro movie theaters forum. Anyone advocating movie piracy and regarding the criminals who upload movies on the Internet as heroes of sorts is working directly against the interests of many who participate here. Lots of movie theater employees and other people employed in the movie industry participate in this forum. Anyone wanting to promote piracy should not be surprised by all the flames he may get in response.

Could you explain how someone saying that they think it will be possible to "pirate" a movie from a D-cinema source one day is in any way, shape or form, the same as suppoting or promoting piracy?

Maybe you could explain how departing from the party line (Ahhh! The sky is falling! Pirates are costing us billions of dollars!) is advocating piracy?

The simple fact is that (and this is all I've been trying to say all along) so-called piracy happens, is common, usually produces a very good quality (by an average person's standards) copy, and is really not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of the motion picture industry. Do not worry. The studios will be around for a very long time, pumping billions and billions of dollars into 3rd and 4th rate sequels for years to come. True film fans need not panic...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-25-2007, 05:11 PM:

quote: Christopher Meredith
Could you explain how someone saying that they think it will be possible to "pirate" a movie from a D-cinema source one day is in any way, shape or form, the same as suppoting or promoting piracy?

Because the tone I am getting in some of those claims of how fast the pirates are going to break d-cinema encryption sounds a little hopeful or even boastful in nature. There is no shortage of ninnies out there who believe black hat crackers are cool.

It also reminds me of the small group of people who believe no copy protection should be put on anything at all and that any copyrighted work should be free to copy anywhere all the time. They often use the slant of how fast copy protection schemes are broken as an argument of not bothering with such systems at all. Of course, I doubt any of the people who believe that nonsense are getting through their lives without collecting a paycheck from their day jobs. But they expect the content creators to work for free.

Posted by Christopher Meredith (Member # 3767) on 06-25-2007, 05:17 PM:

I don't interpret the comments that way, though I am an open-source advocate and did personally rejoice when encryption schemes (such as DVD-CSS) have been broken and protocols (iTunes) reverse engineered. Of course, in these contexts, the issue is fair use, not ease of copyright violation.

I beleive the tone of the previous comments on the encryption schemes is simply that they do not last all that long (which is wny there are new ones always around the corner) and that those used on D-cinema data is no different.

And it would be good of you to recognize that in many cases, those who undertake to crack such standards are not always mean, evil people who think no one should make money off their work. If a safe-maker unveils a new vault which he claims is impenetrable, there would be many people who would like to take him up on the challenege, and not because they don't think the owner has a right to what's inside.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-25-2007, 05:41 PM:

quote: Christopher Meredith
If a safe-maker unveils a new vault which he claims is impenetrable, there would be many people who would like to take him up on the challenege, and not because they don't think the owner has a right to what's inside.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Cracking open a vault is one thing. Taking the money from it is something completely different.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-25-2007, 05:59 PM:

quote: Christopher Meredith
Of course, in these contexts, the issue is fair use, not ease of copyright violation.

Of course! Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more! [Wink]

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 06-25-2007, 08:52 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
And that underscores my point of why it is retarded for anyone to even bother with trying to hijack and crack any d-cinema hard disc virtual print. Why fart with something as complicated and risky to handle such as a d-cinema virtual print when a screener DVD is so much easier, faster and safer to duplicate?

Are screener DVDs always available by the opening date of a movie, for every single movie?

Another question that might be worth asking is ``if screeners go away, will illegal movie distribution stop?'' It's possible that the disappearance of screeners might simply motivate those who distribute illegal copies to do some extra work to find some alternate source.

quote: Bobby Henderson
There's a lot of details stated (and other details left unstated) in the DCI white papers. The encryption and activation systems are quite advanced and a lot more complicated than anything casual computer users find in any mainstream software, including any of the new HD-disc video formats. The keys work uniquely with each virtual print and projection system. The only likely way I see the system being "broken" is by someone doing it from inside the movie industry.

Complicated encryption systems can still have subtle flaws, and typically all a cracker has to do is find one such flaw and the rest of the system falls apart.

And the well-respected cryptographers generally say that when you keep the details of your encryption system secret, you have a system that's less secure than something where the details are public. The only secrets should be the keys themselves.

In a well-designed system, if one D-cinema decoder manages to fall into the wrong hands, it may be possible to simply never provide movies to that individual decoder box in the future. If there's something wrong with the design of the crypto system, that stolen box might be used to discover a flaw that would allow playing back a movie without being given a key.

quote: Bobby Henderson

I'd like to make another point. This is fundamentally a pro movie theaters forum. Anyone advocating movie piracy and regarding the criminals who upload movies on the Internet as heroes of sorts is working directly against the interests of many who participate here. Lots of movie theater employees and other people employed in the movie industry participate in this forum. Anyone wanting to promote piracy should not be surprised by all the flames he may get in response.

I believe all I have been doing is expressing skepticism that the security technology is necessarily as good as the marketing hype says it is.

I had thought that this is also a forum that tries to promote an accurate understanding of the technology. Are you going to be arguing that people shouldn't post questions about which brand of platter works best and why, and that we should switch to only posting scans of trade show handouts from the platter manufacturers that talk about how flawless the platters are? Or that people who think a movie sucked shouldn't post to the film handler's movie reviews forum? Or that people who go to a presentation that sucked shouldn't name the multiplex they attended when they describe the problems?

quote: Christopher Meredith

I beleive the tone of the previous comments on the encryption schemes is simply that they do not last all that long (which is wny there are new ones always around the corner) and that those used on D-cinema data is no different.

Good encryption schemes last quite a long time. Wikipedia says that SSL version 3 came out in 1996. There's probably been a bit of evolution since then, especially in the implications of the US export laws allowing strong encryption, but the evolution of SSL/TLS (the encryption behind https URLs, among other things) has probably been pretty slow in the last several years. AES support was probably added many years ago. I'm not sure what hash algorithms are being used with TLS these days; people have expressed concerns about the md5 and sha1 algorithms that were used for a while. On the other hand, the number of certificate authorities trusted by browsers (dozens) and the authentication procedures of those certificate authorities (an attacker just has to exploit the weakest one) probably makes certificate verification the weakest part of the system.

Though actually, the user interface and clueless users, as well as the general insecurity of a typical PC, probably render that somewhat moot anyway.

quote:
If a safe-maker unveils a new vault which he claims is impenetrable,

I don't think there's really any such thing. Safes tend to be built with estimates of how long it will take someone to destructively break into them.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-25-2007, 11:25 PM:

quote: Joel N. Weber II
Are screener DVDs always available by the opening date of a movie, for every single movie?

They are often available weeks ahead of the theatrical release. This especially goes for major event releases. This is yet another reason why they are actually a much more highly prized item than some overkill protected d-cinema virtual print.

quote: Joel N. Weber II
Another question that might be worth asking is ``if screeners go away, will illegal movie distribution stop?''

It will sure make a lot of mass production piracy outfits in communist China unhappy.

quote: Joel N. Weber II
Complicated encryption systems can still have subtle flaws, and typically all a cracker has to do is find one such flaw and the rest of the system falls apart.

And, again, that is a broadly worded assumption the encryption system with DCI compliant d-cinema is deeply flawed.

I would much rather hear some arguments about the DCI system based on some actual technical facts from real working knowledge rather than simple pedestrian conjecture that anyone can pontificate.

If there are some deep rooted flaws in the system then let's hear some damned specifics about it. The broad "what if" crap is just a bunch of bullshit. Joel, if you actually know something that is specifically flawed about the DCI system then let's hear it already.

quote: Joel N. Weber II
I believe all I have been doing is expressing skepticism that the security technology is necessarily as good as the marketing hype says it is.

Care to provide any specific knowledge to back up that broad assumption? Exactly how do you know the DCI system is not as good as the so-called marketing hype says it is? What's your specific proof? If you're going to attack something, try attacking it from a specific known problem about the system. If you can't manage to do that then it just sounds like you're spit-balling. You're just attacking copy protection schemes in general just because it's copy protection and coming off like you're in favor of broad piracy against copyrighted content.

quote: Joel N. Weber II
I had thought that this is also a forum that tries to promote an accurate understanding of the technology.

This is a forum about technical matters concerning commercial movie theaters. That is this forum's main mission. The advocacy of Internet movie piracy is an attack against Film Done Right. It is an attack against commercial movie theaters and an attack against the people who make their living working in commercial movie theaters.

So, basically yes, if anyone wants to try to claim that piracy is great, he will get his ass flamed here. Poster beware.

quote: Joel N. Weber II
I don't think there's really any such thing. Safes tend to be built with estimates of how long it will take someone to destructively break into them.

So Joel, by that argument can we suffice it to say that if some burglar kicks in your front door, beats the dogshit out of you and then steals all your belongings, you would say that you had it coming since things like door locks are merely made to be broken?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-25-2007, 11:34 PM:

Heenan? HEEEEEEENAAAAN! [Wink]

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 06-26-2007, 01:22 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'd like to make another point. This is fundamentally a pro movie theaters forum. Anyone advocating movie piracy and regarding the criminals who upload movies on the Internet as heroes of sorts is working directly against the interests of many who participate here. Lots of movie theater employees and other people employed in the movie industry participate in this forum. Anyone wanting to promote piracy should not be surprised by all the flames he may get in response.

Bobby, I feel some of this comment is directed at me based on our discussion earlier in this thread. Let me be clear, I in no way advocate or idolize movie pirates. However, I am on the fence about D-Cinema as I am worried that there will be a hack at one point. I know this is something you and I disagree on.
I also know that if/when this happens the studios will change methods and most likely have a plan should that happen.

I see 2 forces that jeopardize the theater industry as we know it: Day and Date releases and digital cinema if somebody comes up with a way to copy/decrypt the files. These are things that I believe can directly effect the business.

I like the theater industry. Working for theater companies got me the career I have today. I want the industry to succeed but I am willing admit that the business might not be the same in 10 years.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-26-2007, 10:37 AM:

quote: Joel N. Weber II
Complicated encryption systems can still have subtle flaws, and typically all a cracker has to do is find one such flaw and the rest of the system falls apart.

If I remember correctly, CSS failed because some manufacturer forgot to encrypt or otherwise protect its content decryption key, and someone found it. The encryption used on HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray DVDs is starting to fall apart because again, someone managed to find a decryption key.

These aren't examples of flaws in the encryption algorithm being exploited. These are examples of someone finding the key to the front door, and letting themselves in. Too often people make the mistake of thinking that just because something is encrypted, it's safe, but then they fail to protect the key that unlocks it.

I don't know what algorithm D-Cinema uses, but if it's an asymmetrical key algorithm, and the projector's private key is buried deep in the hardware where no one, including the manufacturer can get to it (which is what I would have done), then the encryption itself won't be broken any time soon.

Your best bet at cracking a movie from a D-Cinema projector with a laptop is to hook a web cam up to it and record it off the screen while it's playing. But then you're stuck with the watermarking pointing right back at you, so that's really no good either.

I don't see a D-Cinema hack happening any time soon if at all. It's way too impractical. I'm sure that won't stop folks from trying though.

Posted by Christopher Meredith (Member # 3767) on 06-26-2007, 01:51 PM:

quote: David Stambaugh

quote: Christopher Meredith
Of course, in these contexts, the issue is fair use, not ease of copyright violation.
Of course! Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more!

That's right, because everyone is a criminal, right? If I buy a DVD, I should only be allowed to watch it on a hardware player or in Windows or MacOS, right? And if I buy a song from iTunes, it's only logical that I would have no reason to want to listen to it on something other than iTunes? If the music/movie industries had their way, everything would be pay-per-use. We aren't consumers anymore, we're an ocean of renters.

Don't get me wrong, I wish "piracy" would have an adverse effect on the industry. Maybe in that case, studios would be ab it more selective on what they threw their money behind.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-26-2007, 03:42 PM:

I don't see the correlation between piracy and what the studios spend their money on.

They are catering to what people want to see. $300 million for Spider-Man = more Spider-man movies. If everyone stayed away from the sequels and remakes, and instead bought tickets to the original fare, there would be more original fare.

Posted by Christopher Meredith (Member # 3767) on 06-26-2007, 05:29 PM:

What I mean is that if some event or series of events atually did cause the Hollywood studios to start losing money, or at the very least, stop making so much money so fast, they would necessarily have to be more selective. This of course does not mean fewer remakes, but I would think it would encourage the studio execs to be more intested in "quality control" since their dollar has to go further.

In the same vein, if film-making became less of a money-making enterprise, the in-it-for-the-money types would become more scarce and those doing it for the artistry would continue to do it. The same is true of musicians. The real "artists" will continue to make and produce music whether or not they get paid millions to do it.

All this being said, I think it's a moot point because "piracy" does not, and will not have this effect. The movie theater industry is, in effect, a value added reseller. Customers can get movies in a range of formats and the home theater is becoming increasingly hi-tech. The theater industry should take even half the zeal it pours into anti-piracy measures and instead work on ways to make the theater-going experience something worth getting off the couch for.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-27-2007, 06:02 PM:

quote: Jonathan M. Crist
Despite vocal opposition from the theatre owners as to day-and-date policies, the studios know that the theatre owners would not take an actual stand by refusing to run something as big as Transformers so it is great way to call the theatre owners bluff.

You'd be mistaken to think that, at least across the board. Anyone who controls even as little as a dozen screens would have no problem saying [sex]

you Paramount, we're not running Transformers or, especially, any of the other crap you've got coming out this year. I see this every Monday over the pettiest things. There's more than one studio out there to buy product from and Paramount is certainly not oblivious to that.

The line that "the studios make us do stuff and we really don't have much control over anything" may be fun to tell to the customers and an easy way to dodge complaints, but you shouldn't believe it entirely yourself.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-27-2007, 06:30 PM:

Historically, the only studio that really has "that" much power has been Disney...after all, nobody ever says, "When's the next Universal movie coming out?"

But these days, there's so much product that I'm sure the exhibition industry would give a near-unanimous [fu]

to any studio doing a day-and-date release of a major movie.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-28-2007, 04:00 AM:

And they know that. That's more likely the reason they've never tried it than anything else.

Not that they're not thinking about it though and trying to come up with a way to do it...

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 06-28-2007, 01:01 PM:

Hey Mike, sorry I'm out in CA at the moment but here you go

[sleep]

and for Uncle Phil

[sleep]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-06-2007, 11:21 AM:

From www.showbizdata.com

BAY WATCH
Days before the opening of the latest Transformers movie, director Michael Bay posted an angry message on his blog, deriding producers Don Murphy and Tom DeSanto for allegedly attempting to take undeserved creative credit for the film. Although his message was later removed, it was apparently cached by Google and found its way to L.A. Weekly columnist Nikki Finke, who posted it on her website today (Thursday). In it, Bay writes that he had only one creative meeting with DeSanto a year ago, during which, he wrote, "I realized he was worlds apart in my vision. I said, 'Thank you very much,' and then showed him my office door. I never really spoke to him again other than to mutter, 'Hello.'" Bay says that although he never had conversations with Murphy, he did read notes from him "kind of trashing the script and making me and the writers feel like a big s*** pile." Bay also accused DeSanto of attempting to get a writer's credit on the film and discussing the film with interviewers at an awards dinner as if he had seen the completed film. "Give me a break," Bay wrote. "The guy was lying through his teeth. He had seen nada, nothing, until the press screening."