Hollywood alters movies to foil camcorder pirates
Posted on 22/04/03 15:47 by Jan Willem                             
Hollywood alters movies to foil camcorder pirates
According to CNN.com, the Hollywood studios are currently investigating methods to prevent people from recording movies in movie theathers. Many movies have been appearing on the internet that were recorderd in movie theathers and according to the movie industry this piracy method is responsable for a loss of 3 billion dollar. Strangely enough the industry only invests 2 million dollar in finding a solution.

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.


They are currently using some sort of watermarking technology that should prevent the recorderd movie to be viewed, but they do not seem to have succeeded in finding a way to watermark it in such a way that it really helps. Read the entire article here.

Source: CNN.com

Reactions
Discuss this article with your fellow community members! We appreciate your valuable input, but please keep the reaction policy in mind and make sure your reaction is constructive.
By Seán, Tue 22 Apr 2003 17:09
  • reply
SeánI don't see how a metal detector has anything related with pircay. supergrin IF the night-vision googles have built in recording capabilities, then I doubt anyone would like to see a black & white (or green) recording. Watermarking will have no effect on current camcorders and playback equipment, so this will not prove effective until some years to come when every piece of video equipment supports watermark detection. If they really want to stop people camcording in the Cinema, they would need to put something in the picture that inteferes with the camcorder. An article on Afterdawn mentioned a technique that varies the frame rate, but the varying flicker will be annoying to the viewers as well. My idea would be to shine infra-red spotlights randomly over the screen. While we cannot see infra-red light, Camcorders can pick this up. For example, try zapping a TV/VCR remote at a Camcorder or webcam and the remote's infra-red LED will look like a flickering bulb in the recording. Anyway, how many male people would take their wife/girl friend to a computer screen and to watch a low quality picture movie with mono sound? Stick Out Tongue
By raiderj, Tue 22 Apr 2003 17:56
  • reply
They could put that 2 billion dollars into making a new, really good movie. The money that movie would make would cover any losses from camcorders.
By Jim Kiler, Tue 22 Apr 2003 18:05
  • reply
Sean, the nightvision goggles would be for movie theaters to see if someone has a camcorder. lIkewise a metal detector for patrons prevents them from bringing camcorders into movie theaters, but since most pirates have theater connections those methods are patehtic at best.
By onlinetracker, Tue 22 Apr 2003 19:31
  • reply
onlinetrackerHmm... read the article to answer the question about watching 'low quality picture movie with mono sound'... 3 Billion dollars worth of piracy takes place. [according to the stats they have] so I think a LOT of people watch it on a computer. Regardless of 'wife/girl friend' status. You have hit on the best idea I've heard to solve campiracy, but I think there are medical indications regarding Infrared affecting vision. Cascading infrared across the audience to make sure everything is bathed in it could have side effects [people with susceptibility to seizures, vision impairment, etc] and may lead to law suits. Of course... a couple hundred out of court settlements may be less than 3 billion sector wide. Hmmm.
By G00SEISL00SE, Tue 22 Apr 2003 23:08
  • reply
All the 3 Billion means is that there been that many ppl that have downloaded the reals and watched it. I sure they see it as $10 as if everytime you watch it. Metal Detectors wouldnt work. Alot of the ppl that get the movies work there take the real home and feed it stright to the computer with the home made hook up.
By Farad, Wed 23 Apr 2003 01:13
  • reply
FaradMetal detectors and night vision, that's pure hilarity. I imagined that this article would be about some kind of frame rate manipulation, like seanbyrne said. This is a worldwide problem, and theaters that get the most business would be the only ones who would install this crap. Nobody's going to try to cam a movie in the most crowded theater. Many cams come out before a movie's release, too. Most of these people have ties with the staff at the theater (or are staff), so security measures like those would be easily circumvented.
By Farad, Wed 23 Apr 2003 01:31
  • reply
FaradFrom the original article:
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," are 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.
So this article is actually about this ineffective frame rate stuff, and the goggles and detectors are the "old" method... Sort of misleading the way the newspost flows. Sorry to post twice btw, but I couldn't edit my old article.
By LesterVegh, Wed 23 Apr 2003 02:58
  • reply
supergrinI think a full cavity search for an illicit camccorder may be in order...Haven't these idiots heard of " probable cause " ? (USA anyway ). Oh well, kiss the Constatution goodbypuke

Name: Email:



Your comment:

Receive notification on new comments?