(Page 2 of 2)
Additionally, the researchers want to take advantage of interference patterns that can be created by overlaying film frames with grids of tiny features that are too small to be resolved by human eyes. Overlaying two of these grids at a certain angle creates a moiré pattern that a camcorder picks up, but people miss.
An anti-piracy system that included some or all of these techniques could make it prohibitively expensive for bootleggers to keep pace.
By altering the movie itself, says Zhao, their system avoids some of the potential drawbacks of other anti-piracy prototypes. Some systems, for example, position cameras in front of an audience, where they actively hunt for the distinctive reflections given off by CCDs, the light-sensitive chips that capture images in a camcorder, and send beams of light that temporarily disable the chips (see "Lights, Camera -- Jamming"). Thomson's system would be less intrusive, says Zhao. "I would not feel comfortable with a camcorder constantly monitoring the audience," he offers.
Even with the progress in such technologies, however, it could still be years before an anti-piracy system becomes commercially viable, says Zhao. "A lot of people in the studios have some doubt if we can ever have an effective solution," he says. In March, Thomson opened the Burbank Innovation Center to keep Hollywood organizations up to date on its progress and to garner feedback, according to Zhao.
Ultimately, acceptance of such a system will depend on several factors, says Ethan Bush, senior project director at National TeleConsultants, an engineering and design consultancy for the media industry. For one, on-film artifacts must be completely hidden from audiences. For another, the rapid play of words, light, or patterns across a screen cannot have harmful side effects. "We don't want anyone going into epileptic seizures," says Bush. Yet, he adds, piracy is "a huge issue" and an effective solution could be worth billions.
Guest (smellygirl)
who cares about camcorder bootlegs?
Why does the studio care about camcorder bootlegs? And why do people really want these things? The quality of the picture and sound has to suck.
If you are too cheap to buy the real DVD or go to the theatre, why not just rent it at the video store for a couple bucks?
Are people really so impatient that they can't wait for the DVD? But they are willing to watch a crappy bootleg shot in the theatre? I don't get it.
If we were talking about bootlegs digitally copied from the commercial DVD, I could see the conern.
This is like worrying about kids with cassette decks holding a mic up to a transistor radio and "bootlegging" songs off the radio.
Guest (Paul V)
Losses impossible to calculate
I agree with 'smelly girl.' The number of people who will buy these low quality bootlegs more than once can't be more than .001% of potential movie goers.
Guest (helpless)
the reason that the movie industry really pursues these type of piracy issues is that they can then use the piracy to defend their loss of revenue when an even more simple solution is to stop making bad movies and charge high prices
Guest (Blake)
If they go through the trouble to get a low quality movie why would it matter if there is text on the screen they apparently don't care about the quality.
Guest (john mccormick)
The copies i get are DVD quality with digital sound.. The hand held copies are a thing of the past.. I also NEVER sell or or buy them.. Amy I doing something wrong? I think not
Guest (Siren)
Although it costs people in the US about 10$ to see a movie in a theatre, not all places are the same. I did research on this for a business report and most sources showed Japan to be the biggest consumers for these movies. It can cost up to 20$ person (equivalently) in Japan where they can get a bootleg copy for only a few dollars, that are actually of pretty good quality. And waiting the several months to see a movie... well if that was really what people wanted, then theatres would be out of business, and the movie makers would put everything straight onto DVD.
Guest (VSO)
Guest (Alex)
Sub-conscious perception being ruined?
Ever heard of that study where a film puts an extra hidden frame with a guy drinking Coke Cola, like written in this story, can influence the viewer subconsciously and increase their thirst for that Coke Cola?
Unsure how this will turns out, but isn't it a possibility for the viewers of these "Illegal Movie" framed films to ... maybe ... subconsciously perceive that this is also a pirated film. Hence, ruining the inexplanable feeling of the film shown?
Guest (mark)
there is actually a huge market for these movies, whether it be the lower class who only wants to spend 5 bucks to watch a movie, the college student who can't afford anything, the kid who just downloads stuff all day off the internet. If you knewenough kids, you would know people who atleast download movies. The .001% probably represents the super fan that wants the movie early, so they download it.
Guest (alexis)
If those extra frames could be used as subliminal messages, why don't they add the message "I will pay to watch this movie" in that frame?
Guest (Tim)
Subliminal advertising is not hypnotism. It's merely a way to advertise without your audience know you advertised.
I think a better way to do this would be to put those annoying FBI and Interpol warnings in subliminal frames. That way, they could get the message to us, but we wouldn't feel angry for having to wait for the movie to start. In fact, they could put it throughout the movie rather than just a few seconds before it.
Hmm...I might tell Thomson about that. ;)
Guest (thedoc)
I see three problems with this scheme, here's the first:
1) Some people can perceive higher frame rates than others. Personally I can tell when a single film frame is different from the others. This article seems to imply that, at least for digital projection systems, they'll be able to flicker the frames faster than that. What they're missing is that the human eye is rarely stationary. If your eye is traveling across the screen at the moment of the flicker, the frames will not correctly "average out" and it will probably become noticeable, if not annoying. (I've found it distracting that some cars now have LED tail lights that flash off and on, probably at around 60Hz. I only notice it because my eye moves while I'm driving.) The upshot is that they're going to make seeing a movie in a theater a more annoying experience, even if it's on a subconscious level ... not exactly what they want.
thedoc
Guest (SparcMan)
I agree with that. If anything I see this technology having a greater potential for driving customers away from the theatre more than driving away potential movie pirates. It's fun to watch the RIAA and MPAA drive themselves out of business.
Guest (thedoc)
The second and third problems with this scheme:
2) If it really does discourage video-capture piracy, it will only INCREASE the value of the pirated content. Since pirated copies will be harder to come by, there will be MORE incentive for people to pay money to pirates to get the content faster.
3) Much of the Movie piracy comes from leaks elsewhere in the chain, either from leaked review copies or from somewhere in the editing or production process. If the value of a pirated copy INCREASES, it will be easier to convince people with early access to the content to leak it.
I have some suggested solutions, but due to this website's message size limits (I got a Microsoft.net crash message :-), I'll post them separately.
thedoc
Guest (thedoc)
I've had to break this message into little pieces so that Microsoft.Net won't puke on it. Here's are my suggestions for the MPAA:
IMHO - The only way the studios can realistically stop piracy, is to "cut off its air supply", not by making it harder, but by making it less necessary. That could be done by things like:
1) making DVD's available at the same time as the movie sold exclusively via theaters (i.e. as you leave the movie you could buy the DVD and go home and watch it with the commentary...), or loan it to a friend to encourage them to see/own it.
Guest (thedoc)
(Sorry about the repetition.)
2) Releasing a low-quality encoding of the movie (e.g. low resolution, mono, and/or pan-and-scan) for free on the internet about the same time as the movie. If the movie is any good, it'll help build word of mouth and help sell tickets and DVD's. Free advertising is never a bad thing. If it is "good enough" it will also reduce the incentive for people to pirate better versions. It could still be low enough quality that if someone pressed it onto a real pirate DVD, their customers would complain about the crummy quality. They should also make it easy for the viewer to "click here to purchase a high-quality DVD" or "click here to buy theater tickets".
3) Release movies in all "regions" simultaneously.
Guest (thedoc)
4) Make better movies. In particular to make more movies that you would want to experience in the theater. This could mean big spectacles, but it might also mean comedies or horror flicks that are more fun if you see them with a large audience.
Guest (thedoc)
The REAL threat that the Internet poses to Movie companies (and really ALL manufacturers) is that they can no longer produce a shoddy product that people can be tricked into purchasing simply because of good advertising. If a movie is not worth seeing in a theater, than it doesn't deserve a theatrical release in the first place. Even perfect anti-piracy tools will not prevent bad word-of-mouth from getting out -- globally via the Internet.
The studios (and music recording companies) need to learn that their added-values are: purity, convenience, and extra features. They need to learn that people will PAY for those things, and that "Internet piracy" should be considered free advertising -- the way "radio play" has always been considered free advertising for musical recordings.
Anyway. Sorry for the posting storm. (This website's comment system sucks!)
thedoc
Guest (thedoc)
Oh yea, I forgot to mention that the proof that people a willing to pay for: purity, convenience and extra features; even on content they can get for free, is in the fact the DVD's of previously aired Television series are currently one of the hottest money makers in the industry. The network airing was the free advertising. Getting the shows without commercials/promos is the purity. Getting the episodes pre-labelled and packaged in a small size is the convenience. And the extra features are obvious. And yet people pay a lot of money for something that was already available to them for free!
MPAA: Go figure it out for yourself.
Guest (Tom)
I'd say dvd piracy is a bigger concern than theatre piracy, so if they were to release the dvds at the same time, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. They'd lose a lot of revenue, especially from people who go to the movie then lend the dvd out to their friends. Unless it's a very good movie, people aren't going to pay to see it again.
Guest (thedoc)
> I'd say dvd piracy is a bigger concern...
Only in the current market scheme. DVD piracy is only a big deal because they only way to get current movies for home viewing conveniently and cheaply is via pirates.
> They'd lose a lot of revenue ...
Compare the profit margins for theaters of $6 popcorn (~$5.50), a $10 ticket (<$4) w/a limited number of seats, and a $30 DVD (~$20). If "instant DVDs" were only available from theaters, which do you think theaters would rather sell? "Instant DVDs" might even command a premium price, especially if released as limited editions or bundled with popcorn to take home. Theaters could even sell them to people whom they had to turn away due to sold out showings, turning lost revenue into profit!
Guest (thedoc)
> Unless it's a very good movie, people aren't going to pay to see it again.
Then selling DVDs on the way out isn't going to cut into ticket sales much. :-)
Making better movies and making theatrical viewing more special and enjoyable are other parts of my "solutions". Theater-going is an inherently social experience, they should capitalize on that. Would selling "Rocky Horror" DVDs cut into ticket sales? Not likely. I even doubt that "Lord of the Rings" sales were significantly impacted by home viewing. Personally, I watched the first two movies on cable just before going to see the third in a theater. I didn't want to wait months or years between episodes. If I could have watched parts 1, 2 and 3 on successive nights in theaters, I probably would have done that instead.
Guest (thedoc)
I've had to break this message into little pieces so that Microsoft.Net won't puke on it. Here's are my suggestions for the MPAA:
IMHO - The only way the studios can realistically stop piracy, is to "cut off its air supply", not by making it harder, but by making it less necessary. That could be done by things like:
1) making DVD's available at the same time as the movie sold exclusively via theaters (i.e. as you leave the movie you could buy the DVD and go home and watch it with the commentary...), or loan it to a friend to encourage them to see/own it.
Guest (alex)
people will do what they please
there is a subculture that will download anything regardless of cost/quality/legality. they can not be reasoned with because there is no collective to appeal to. personal vice makes public virtue
there will be a modified camera within a month of this technology's release. not all theatres are run like the MPAA would like them, particularly foreign ones. gives someone with enough to time to overcome these measures and in the meantime the bootleg audience will tolerate the nuisance
Guest (michael t)
How do we see the inserted images on the bootleg?
if the images inserted into the original are too brief for our visual systems to pick up on, when someone makes a video recording of this, how is it that we are able to see the images on the bootleg?
Guest (alex)
your eyes dont function like a cameras. read the article
Guest (Tim)
There's no need to be rude. It's a valid question. And you're reply really doesn't answer the question.
You're right, our eyes don't function like a camera. That much we understand. However, because of this difference, how is it possible that we will see what the camera saw when it's played back? We didn't see it the first time; why would we see it the second time?
Guest (christyb)
The camera picks up all of the frames and then displays that additional content at the speed the eye can register. So, technically, the frames the eye glosses over on the movie screen are 'inserted' into the recorded product and the whole shebang is then played at frame rate the eye can register. So, you see the marked frames as well.
Guest (bob)
Just remove the inserted frames?
Couldn’t you just run a script that would analyze each frame and compare it to a copy of the inserted corrupt frame and remove it, you would lose some image quality but because of the frequency mismatch of the camcorder and the projector you would always record some uncorrupted frames
Because on the final product it's not just specific frames that are affected; if that were the case, you wouldn't be able to see it at home, either. Thing is, the camera and the film are not synch (though some bright tech boy coupld probably ork out a sensor to synch them, so the additional, "anti-piracy" frame is probably going to be exposed over multiple camera frames. Even if you could analyze and cut them out, it would degrade the video quality to take out frames.
Nisi falor.
Guest (Myndnumbed)
I must read Tech Review....I must read Tech Review....I must not post silly comments...., huh? Where wuz I?
Oh yeah, I'm above the fray here.
Guest (Daniel)
The article does not state an important piece of info: are bootleg movies small operations with street copies coming from many sources, or are there very few sources with many copies of the same bootleg being sold? If the latter is the case as I imagine than all of these schemes are easy enough to bypass that this will not make a difference. For example, it would possible for a bootlegger to get a copy of the actual projected version of the film and cut out these frames or use some AI program to delete them from the recording.
Is anything being done about Peekvid.com? Two friends of mine are telling me that they're watching all these movies online for FREE--even movies still in the theater. I'm not a movie producer but I should would be upset if I was one, and I seriously think that this website should be shut down. Someone PLEASE get rid of it...before you know it, we won't even HAVE new movies, b/c know one is going to want to pay to make a movie and then not make enough profit cuz people are all watching the movies online for free.
hi every one every one had written valuable suggestion
i had an techinque for stoping piracy but i need some help from u rs
is there any material can't saw by our eyes & exenon light but show by cam recored rays
pls give me u r suggestions
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (Barto)
Was't this technique used before?
I guess this technique was used in the past for subliminar publicity, so , how this could affect human subconscient?. It's ok if the content of the images hasn't a meaning by the human mind (such as color bars), but if there is a message. . . well i wouldn't like my mind twisted by this thing.
Does anybody know if i am right about it?
Reply
Guest (sam)
nah
Subliminal messages in the form of text don't work. If they did, they'd still be using them quite a bit don't ya think?
Reply
Guest (Me)
Subliminal messages
Subliminal messages were banned in the US, UK, and Australia around 1957.
Reply
Guest (Anonymous)
Re: subliminal messages
There will be superstitious people in this world long after you and I are dead.
Reply
Guest (Daniel Velázquez)
Yeah
If the image says something like Illegal Copy and if your subconcious capts it maybe the person would not enjoy the movie because will be thinking of watching something illegal. I believe it could happen
Reply
Guest (mamicas@gmail.com)
Better solution
I totally agree with Barto Images and words should not be allowed to be displayed in any form, as we have learned in the past subliminal messages have a great impact on us and the impact of negative words like illegal may have terrible impact on our life. I think I have 2 solutions that would work flawlessly without altering the film at all, however I don't want to divulge them until I find somewhere to patent them.
Reply
Guest (Elijah)
Brilliantly moronic
Honestly, have you ever spent the time to read about subliminal messages? The original 'experiement' was a lie, as confessed by it's creater. No experiements have ever been able to acheive results.
Reply
Guest (MXL)
CAP Codes
Aren't cap codes supposed to be "imperceptible" and I can see those all the time...
Reply