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. |









Comments
Does anybody know if i am right about it?
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
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.
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/08/2006
Posts:1
07/09/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
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?
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
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. ;)
07/07/2006
Posts:1
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
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/28/2006
Posts:1
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
07/05/2006
Posts:1
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.
07/05/2006
Posts:1
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.
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
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
07/05/2006
Posts:1
MPAA: Go figure it out for yourself.
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/06/2006
Posts:1
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!
07/07/2006
Posts:1
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.
07/07/2006
Posts:1
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.
07/05/2006
Posts:1
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
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/06/2006
Posts:1
07/06/2006
Posts:1
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?
07/07/2006
Posts:1
07/11/2006
Posts:1
07/09/2006
Posts:1
Nisi falor.
Monsterboy
08/21/2006
Posts:89
Oh yeah, I'm above the fray here.
07/09/2006
Posts:1
07/18/2006
Posts:1
Piracyhater
01/19/2007
Posts:2