AfterDawn: News

MPAA Wants to Blind Movie Pirates

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has been working closely with developers from the Georgia Institute of Technology to produce a device aimed at blinding people who record movies illegally in theaters.

While not looking to physically harm any individuals, a team of engineers have developed a prototype device that is able to scan theaters and look for recording devices such as personal camcorders. With this prototype, connected to a computer, they can scan the theater looking for a digital recorder's charge-coupled device (CCD) image sensor. Each CCD inside all digital recorders are retroreflective, meaning they reflect light directly back at the point of origin. Once found, this prototype will flood the target with a blinding white light rendering the recording useless.



This prototype is still early in the developmental phase and the researchers still haven't figured out how to weed out false positives from shiny objects in the room. However, with the MPAA claiming a $1.2 billion loss due to recorded movies in Asia, they hope to have this technology up and running soon.

Source:
BBC

Written by: Dave Horvath @ 20 Jun 2006 5:23

• Previous article

• Louisiana prohibits violent video games from minors

• Next article

• Actual Letter Sent to Swedish Officials Prior to TPB Raid

• 67 comments

• Irish13

  Wow!, going a little too far. I don't condone this type of action by movie pirates but there are way too many scenarios for disaster. My wife wears an Insulin pump for her diabetes which has an IR port. I don't think it's possible but what if that laser fries her pump! I'm sure there is other medical equipment that could be affected. All this to stop the North American audience from copying a movie when most come from Asia where there is no way they could control this.

  20.6.2006 05:37 #1

• hot_ice

  It will only serve to curb piracy for few months, until a reverse engineer, or a team of it, find a solution to overcome this type of protection.

  20.6.2006 05:39 #2

• MightyOne

  So... there's a month or 2 delay now...
  They will just wait for a dvdRip !!!
  
  Cam sucks anywayz....what a waste of time and effort.

  20.6.2006 05:50 #3

• gogochar

  If this works, people who owned movie theatres (and I know some who do are the pirates themselves!) could just take the reel home and record it there! Unfortunately for the MPAA, there's always another way to get around the system!

  20.6.2006 06:03 #4

• larytet

  ...or put the recorder behind semitransparent (or just an opposite - highly reflective) lense. there is no lack of coated optics on the market.
  
  but the idea is interesting. such device can be found useful in hitech bank robberies.

  20.6.2006 06:48 #5

• munx

  LAWSUIT!!! IM excited. You know somehow its going to interfere with someones passmaker somehow and some guy is going to die. Good bye MPAA!

  20.6.2006 08:03 #6

• GrayArea

  No worries. Sony will make a camcorder that defeats this. They sell the cams, then they can sell the "protection" systems, then they sell the new cams that work around the "protection" so they can sell new "protection", then new cams again...

  20.6.2006 08:16 #7

• GrayArea

  Oh, and one question. If this system can locate an operational camcorder in the theatre, why don't they just have it alert the managment so they can kick the person out or arrest them? Not saying that's what I want to see happen, but why would they not use it that way?

  20.6.2006 08:21 #8

• cheezy_P

  @ GreyArea
  Excellent point!!! these companies are just trying to make so dang complicated. physically removing the person from the theater sounds a hell of a lot better than running the risk of interfering with medical devices
  
  also, is this "blinding white light" visible to everyone else in the theater or just the camcorder.. cuz that would be damn annoying. oh yeah, and did they think of people who wear glasses. they would reflect light back at the screen much like a camcorder lens.. if this thing sends white light their way then they really could be blinding people!

  20.6.2006 08:38 #9

• M1ckran

  And people wearing contact lenses are advised to wear welding goggles...

  20.6.2006 08:58 #10

• BIGTOXY69

  And now movies will not only be Spellbinding ! but blinding as well - This will last till the first lawsuit - Hollywood understands lawyers - they run it!

  20.6.2006 09:38 #11

• swarmpack

  i think the blinding white light there talking about is only visable by the camera so that all it sees is white and then all you have is 2 hours of a white screen.
  

  20.6.2006 10:32 #12

• ofolion

  There probably will be a camera that will get around this but not many and you will pay for the privilage...
  
  i can see this being very successful for the MPAA but i suppose not many Cinemas will buy these if they don't have to...

  20.6.2006 11:03 #13

• squidge37

  This is Plan B
  
  Plan A was to put out a bunch of movies that sucked enough that no one would want to bother stealing them. For some reason, people are still stealing them anyway

  20.6.2006 12:08 #14

• Y_Eater

  aren't most movies copied inside jobs? the workers will know where these so called devices are installed.

  20.6.2006 12:33 #15

• qazwiz

  @ Y_eater
  
  The best quality zero day(theater) releases are likely all "inside jobs" even the best cams are suspect inside jobs because you would expect even a meager quantity of other viewers to have one or two people who need to go for a second box of popcorn. An empty theater would not.
  
  @ EVERYBODY
  
  your fears are unjustified. User "swarmpack" had it right, the technology (which I saw a demo of) uses infrared light to detect and flood the offender. the false positives only use resources when they don't need to thus overloading the output "when" "Liberace" walks into the room.
  
  and I agree with the observation that once detected, the tech should do a simple alert so the managment can remove (and arrest where viable) the offender.
  
  @ Irish13 not to worry, IF the IR port was openly exposed and IF it was pointed at the screen and IF a simple IR reciever can be detected IF ALL THOSE WERE TRUE the only way it could affect the pump is IF the detector flooded it with the exact variable pulses needed for it to recognise the signal as instructions to change the drip. this is impossible since the scan is an emit/watch that would roughly repeat at a constant rate and be translated as a constant set of zeros (or ones) IF the pump acknoledged the signal at all.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  20.6.2006 13:41 #16

• neurokasm

  I heard about another new breakthrough technology that's coming soon...
  
  The RIAA are working on an anti-piracy prototype keyboard. The keyboard has 2 cables, one plugs into the computer and the other plugs into your brain. So if you even think about downloading illegal music, the keyboard will chop your fingers off!

  20.6.2006 14:37 #17

• hot_ice

  The real question here is whats next:
  
  Do we search people who go to the cinema, and then, just in case they passed something through the checkpoint, get electric fences to be erected around them, and someone who uses a camcorder, shoots a stun gun to take down the target.
  
  Give me a break.

  20.6.2006 16:00 #18

• actech

  After the full body cavity search by the pimply faced teenager at the door, you will handed your pocketless boxer shorts. Upon changing into the boxers and a second search, "Please enjoy the show" Management not responsible for missing belongs after the show!!!
  

  20.6.2006 16:22 #19

• novicebb

  Wouldnt it be interesting if you could order great duplicated copies of newly released movies from asia at incredible cheap price? Just a thought. I wish I could.

  20.6.2006 16:39 #20

• hot_ice

  The movies in China go for a dollar a piece from what I understand.

  20.6.2006 17:35 #21

• saadfozi

  whatever, i never watch the video i listen to the audio.

  20.6.2006 18:04 #22

• Ballpyhon

  Why waste theater personel on removing individuals who bring cameras into the theatres? Why not just retrofit machine guns on turrets which they could interface into the supercomputers that scan for the "pirate cams". when a rougue camera is located, the supercomputer that is scanning for the pirate cams could issue a warning shot into the theater via the turret mounted machine gun, warning the pirate cam operator to cease and desist the recording. If the operator of the camera does not stop the illegal recording of the movie, the turret mounted machine gun would simply open fire on the the pirate camera operator killing him on site before he would be able to upload the movie to the internet, thus eliminating movie pirating altogether. this will probaly be a very expensive anti piracy deturrent system to install in theatres, so please be understanding when theater ticket prices increase substantially. we all have to do our part to decrease movie piracy.

  20.6.2006 20:29 #23

• bobw2000

  There are not that many really good movies out there anyway. Most are done on a cheap scale to skim a few bucks off of unsuspecting viewers. The really good ones end up being bought by people that will appreciate what they have in a private collection. I would say if they were really making quality movies on a consistant basis they would have something to complain about but 90% of them really are junk.

  20.6.2006 21:06 #24

• damo_red

  cams are poor, if its a good movie i would rarther go see it an the cinema..
  
  majority of the the time i dont buy into the hype of big movie blockbusters at the cinema, i just watch them a few months later on DVD.

  21.6.2006 01:55 #25

• kiwi1

  This technology will work for police survaillance and speed cameras too, will cause more probs than it fixes.

  21.6.2006 02:39 #26

• fiber1

  I dont believe the MPAA understands that people who are willing watch low quality video on a computer monitor, generally dont go the theaters to see movies. And the people who go to theaters weekly and shell out 30-40 dollars for two people, dont whatch low qaulity videos on computer monitors. So where are all the billions of dollars being lost???????

  21.6.2006 03:01 #27

• saadfozi

  when i download movies its after i watched them in theaters. if i like it, i donwload it to watch later

  21.6.2006 15:55 #28

• qazwiz

  @ saadfozi
  you are in the small percentage of abusers that are hurting the rest of us.
  
  If you like the Movie buy the DVD. If you didn't like the movie, Ast the Manager to give your money back.
  
  Those of us who need to watch what we spend cannot buy a DVD in hopes that we like it. but I did just order "The Pink Panther" DVD ($20). Two months ago I budgeted the money because I liked the movie so well after I DLed the CAM.
  
  The theater is a social thing you have to pay for (Going on dates and watercooler conversations like "Did you see the latest Bill SCHMECK movie?")
  
  You have to pay for DVDs which are sold so you can watch the movies you like, over and over again.
  
  if its a bad movie the theater manager should refund money to the walkouts
  
  but DVDs are never refunded if the shrink wrap is removed and seldom refunded even with the shrinkwrap still on the package.
  
  thus DL to try and buy DVD it you like it

  21.6.2006 16:52 #29

• hot_ice

  You know what would be great to see, a bunch of people dressed as pirates, going to the movies to make some sort of statement. LOL.

  21.6.2006 18:20 #30

• novicebb

  To Hot Ice: Yeah I know about the incredible piracy and cheap prices in china and even in Brazil but I would like to be able to purchase some "still in theatre" movies from those asian sources. I hear their quality is better than any cam videos online and that the dvd's are pressed not copied so it is very compatiable with most dvd players. Just wish there were a service available.

  21.6.2006 20:01 #31

• qazwiz

  @Hot_ice
  
  Arrg, me matey!
  

  qazwiz is qazwiz everywhere. If you see me say HI!

  22.6.2006 02:39 #32

• hot_ice

  @qazwiz
  
  Lol, imagine, 500 people dressed as pirates going to the movie, that would be amazing. The MPAA and other insignificant others, would get pissed off, with all the publicity.

  22.6.2006 07:42 #33

• qazwiz

  Don't forget to install a cam in your peg-leg! :)
  

  qazwiz is qazwiz everywhere. If you see me say HI!

  22.6.2006 08:22 #34

• m_towell

  And how many devices could they put in each theatre?
  
  All they need to do is have lots of people recording, they can't blind all the cameras at the same time....
  
  Also, the recorder could put some filter lens on to filter out the IR.
  
  So the MPAA spends millions of dollars out just to have the pirates buy a $10 (if that) lens filter.

  23.6.2006 13:05 #35

• qazwiz

  HOW IT WORKS
  it takes two scans and compares them for "HOT" spots. one without the infrared laser is the control and one with the laser. (In Cameras)the chip that records the pictures will reflect infrared light, so it should do something if it finds a brightspot on the second scan that isn't in the control.
  
  the current "something" is to flood the spot with laser light.
  
  THE PROBLEMS
  1) jewelry and other shiny objects also reflect infrared so they create false positives.
  2) there is only so much output a laser can do, so if everyone it the theater is trying to record (or giving false positives) there isn't enough power to prevent everyone from recording
  3) filtering reduces the hot-spot created(it may not eliminate it) thus tending to indicate that it isn't a camera, and thus software may ignore it when it shouldn't. the filters needed (infrared)to reduce detection may have some deterioration in quality for the recording but since when did quality become a first concern for pirates?

  23.6.2006 13:49 #36

• qazwiz

  @ hot_ice
  
  check out talklikeapirate.com
  
  I'll see you September 19th

  23.6.2006 13:52 #37

• procode

  Wouldn't this be 'assuming' that the theatre manager hadn't turned if off .. ?? ;)

  23.6.2006 14:21 #38

• Irish13

  qazwiz - I wasn't really worried about the IR but thanks for the info anyway. I was trying to point out there might be some things that could be affected by this and haven't been checked out yet. I'm sick of these corporations dictating my life. I understand moreso with movies because they cost so much to make and the return isn't as good as before but that's mainly because of the product and pricing at theatres. Music on the other hand really ticks me off. If I buy a CD I should be able to do whatever I want with it. I should be able to put it on my computer at home for saf keeping and actually listen to it there as well. I should be able to stick it on a memory stick and put it on my work computer to listen to. I should be able to transfer it from my computer to any and all generic devices (MP3 players) that I want. This is where protection of property is lost on me. Sure the impoverished artist gets no more from me but hey, I already paid them with the purchase. I f I buy a paperback and pass it on to a friend after reading becuase I enjoyed it, it's the same thing. If I buy a painting, the artist is paid. If I sell it the next day for twice as much, too bad for the artist.

  23.6.2006 17:14 #39

• ChiefBrdy

  I can see it now. Little Johnny who has some kind of sensitive eye syndrome brings his brand new Toys R Us camcorder to the theater just so he can hold it. Like an old Star Trek episode. The Mutilator kicks off and zaps little Johnny, rendering him partialy blind.
  
  It's kind of a mixed blessing though. Little Johnny can see a little but not enough to drive. But it really doesn't matter. Because he just hired a new chauffer to drive him to his Paramount movie company that he was awarded after the billion dollar law suit.

  23.6.2006 17:39 #40

• hibern8

  Don't blame your loss on piracy, Hollywood. Your movies suck, no one goes to the theater anymore. It's too expensive to pay for that crap!

  23.6.2006 19:22 #41

• qazwiz

  @ Irish
  Better try a different analogy. your argument breaks down for the paperback analogy unless you photocopy the paperback before you hand it off to your friend.
  
  I understand the desire to use your purchase as you will. And I see that MPAA and RIAA both want to require you to buy a new copy for each method you use to enjoy your purchase. Somewhere in the middle there is "fair use".
  
  less than fifty years ago there was no chance that you could use your purchase in any manner that could be not be considered fair use, without an additional cash outlay that made selling the product a must. Thus the test in law that a profit had to be realized to be infringement.
  
  Even with the photocopier you still pay more per copy than it cost to buy the book.
  
  but as time procedes the cost of books rise and the cost to copy them falls. now you don't need a typesetter and a printing press but now all you need is a phone line and a computer with the printer that came free (via manufacture rebate limit one per household)
  
  The founding fathers played games in the neighborhood vacant lot, they learned to read from the King James Bible since it was the only book the entire family owned, they communicated by correspondence and if they got an answer within two weeks IT was because the other person was only a couple hundred miles away.
  
  If you had told any of them that a machine connected to a thread of copper would allow all three to be done from the desk in the study... INSTANTANIOUSLY, (and virtually simultaneously) you would have been condemned as a lunatic.
  
  Patents and copyrights do not exist to keep lawyers in business... they were designed to give incentive to inventors and writers to produce product to make this country (actually every country that has some form of them) great. The fact that they are now being used to stifle productivity in favor of mass sales would appall any of the founding fathers. (as would the evolution of our current "godless-government" but that is another discussion.)

  23.6.2006 20:07 #42

• 6Ripper9

  Here's a good example of a cheaply made movie, with untalented actors: When A Stranger Calls. I decided not to see this movie, either in theatres, or DVD, based on the previews they showed on TV. The acting was extremely lame, from what I could see. Camilla Belle may be cute, but can't act. People that I know that saw it, said the same thing. This is why movie and music piracy happens.
  
  When I see a preview on TV, I know if I'll like the movie. If I do, I go see it. If I really liked it, I buy the DVD. Same thing with music. The last crap CD I bought was St. Anger by Metallica (yes, I realize I probably pissed a few people off slamming them, but they deserve it, they're the ones that started the whole piracy thing). Since then, I DL a few songs, and if I like the majority of the songs, I buy the album, if not, I keep the songs I like, and delete the ones I don't.

  23.6.2006 21:23 #43

• saadfozi

  ok qazwiz i dont think im part of any small percentage. a lot of people download movies to watch later after they watched them in theatres. example: x3, i watched it in theatres and then i downloaded it cause i liked it and dont wanna pay to go to the theatres again.

  24.6.2006 10:09 #44

• qazwiz

  then wait until it comes out on DVD... do you need an invite to Columbiahouse DVD club?
  
  it is the standard buy one get 5 or 6 free with membership things. they also have a "Fun Cash" program that gives virtual dolars for each DVD bought. (applies to dvd cost only, cost real $ for shipping and handling ($2.99)) and there is a cheaper price for second+ dvds (pay full price for most expensive, about half of full for each of the rest. first one applies to your commitment others don't))
  
  The bottom line is that total cost for about twelve dvd's is about $120 and you have two years to fullfill the contract.
  then on top of that you have enough fun cash to buy at least one more dvd for the standard S&H on each (either $2.99 or $3.99)
  
  I thing you can see that the price break comes out at about $10 per DVD. the more of the extra DVD's that you buy (reduced price as low as $4.95 if not first[most expensive] purchase in the order)
  
  So, I suggest you follow my pattern, DL the Zero-Day CAM, then if you like it buy the DVD and tell the MIAA what they can do with their $50 visits to the movie theater (tickets+popcorn+drinks+AHotItem {dog, burger or other) for two people can easily come to $50 or $60)
  
  I am too "high profile" to pirate them myself, (and I hate the check in process for my backpack which I take wherever I go) also, the last theater I went to refused to offer me a place that I could sit (I am handicapped and cannot use chairs with fixed arms) so I had to walk out even before it started. that place probably should be reported for violation of handicap laws since there isn't a space for wheelchairs either)
  
  sorry for the digression... it is just that the movie industry has given me a lot of lemons over the years and P2P has become my lemonade

  24.6.2006 15:57 #45

• saadfozi

  lol i dont think i need an invite to the Columbiahouse DVD but i do get what u r saying about buying dvd's. they dont cost much, but what i am trying to say is why go to the theaters again after u watched a movie u liked... wait for a good release and watch it at home until the dvd comes out. dont forget to share though ;)
  btw i am sorry about your experience at the theaters. there are just some stupid rules sometimes

  24.6.2006 18:00 #46

• qazwiz

  The why is simple, the theater experience is a service that you pay for via the ticket price (up to 90% goes to the movie distributor although standard is 50%)
  
  The ticket price pays for that experience. it is not like your hand gets stamped so you may reentery whenever you want. You are paying for a 1-1/2 or 2 or 3 (or some seem like 12) hour experience. If you want that experience again you need to pay again, I take it you think once is enough but have you heard of "Rocky Horror Picture Show"? It has been fifty times since I was a virgin at the Punch & Judy Theatre just north of Detroit Michigan. I do not desire the DVD because DVD's are a different experience.
  
  When you buy a ticket it is usually for just one showing, thought some have an extended run available, for this conversation it is best to think of it as a one-shot deal. The video/DVD release is the experience that allows a single, or small group, to privately watch a movie as often and whenever they wany.
  
  Again there is a price that is associated with this decision. that price is non-refundable so you must need to know that you wish to view the movie "forever" if you go this route. But conversely, if you know you want this route, ability to view repeatably, then you need to pay that price... it isn't included with the price of Admission (yet!)
  
  Personally, I believe they should have a P2P service that allows
  (a) free preview of at least 50% of a movie (the approxamate time for walkouts in the theater)
  (b) very minimal fee to view the rest of the movie if they allow less than 100% free review (no more than a penny a minute for the rest of the film thus at most half a penny per minute of the movie) this is the one shot option comparable to going to the movies but not ever seeing the movie again.
  (c) have an immediate option to buy the movie download instead of option B making it a whole DVD on your computer
  (d) variable pricing for the quality recieved (this goes for CD downloads also) on DVDs the quality is "Excelent" but KVCD , though less than one sixth the size has a quality that I cannot difer from DVDs. this smaller version could be sold less than a DVD(which I believe should be less than $5) or say in the $1-$3 range (or even less)
  
  the technolegy for this is currently available... they just need to run the business model and since distribution expenses it the highest cost, next to other middlemen, then they should use P2P to distribute.
  
  Using P2P to distribute would greatly reduce the cost of distribution.... making it next to nothing so like 99% of the real money charged would goto the film makers, not middlemen
  
  the MPAA and RIAA would not like this just because THEY are included in the middlemen that would be eliminated

  24.6.2006 21:01 #47

• hot_ice

  I haven't been to the movies in ages, too expensive for something I can rent for 1.15$ when it comes out on dvd, rather than paying 10$, for a dirty seat, loud mouth teens, people talking about pointless things on their cells during the movie, etc.
  
  You watch it on your tv, bring your own popcorn, soft drinks, friends, and have a better night.

  24.6.2006 21:17 #48

• oposium

  This is some great stuff here to read. You guys are hilarious, this blog has had me laughing for the last half hour. Especially the one about the gun turret, priceless.

  3.7.2006 10:28 #49

• ThePastor

  At some point the movie and music industry is going to have to realize that the world is different now and it's not going to bend to their will.
  
  Continuing down the "prevention" path is only going alienate more and more customers and pretty soon they won't have any customers.
  
  I don't know exactly what business model they need to switch to. There are a few experiments out there that might take off, but in order for any of it to work the MPAA and the RIAA is going to have to loosen their grip and start accepting new ideas.
  
  Otherwise, in 10 years we will have to type in 20 digit codes and give retinal scans every time we wish to watch Star Wars 22... which will only mean that watching it from an alterniative source will be more preferable.

  3.7.2006 14:04 #50

• hot_ice

  This is the new strategy they will implement to curb piracy.
  
  1-Customer buys ticket
  2-Customer passes through a metal detector
  3-Customer is searched for a videocamera
  4-Customer is beaten with a nightstick
  5-Security guard offers customer first aid kit to help treat customers wounds
  6-Customer is forced to get a retinal scan
  7-Customer is classified in a huge database for "cinema pirates"
  8-Customer pays a fine, if the customer cannot pay the fine, the ninth clause applies.
  9-Customer gets forced to wear a sign "I'm a movie pirate" as a means of deterrence, by stigmatizing him or her.
  10-Customer gets his or her videocamera seized and regrets going to the movies.
  
  What a bright future the theater holds for its customers indeed!

  3.7.2006 18:23 #51

• qazwiz

  what do you mean WILL? one, two, three, eight, and ten are already in place.
  
  when I get bored enough to put myself through the rig-a-ma-role They usually search or temporarily confiscate my backpack (need to take reciept to office after movie to retrieve pack)
  
  but they aren't really looking for pirate parafanailia.... though they legally have to prevent you from using such if they catch you, No, what they are doing is taking the 12 oz can of sodapop from you so you need to pay $3.50 for ten ounces of their watered down crap, (usually) locking you into a single distributers product line. When was the last time you saw my favorite soda being sold at the movies? (its Vernors, a slightly sweeter ginger ale(than Canada Dry) but it always has a much stronger "bite" (no mater what ginger ale you compare it with) due to the flavoring being aged in oak barrels for 4 years. (actually a blend of three aged 4, 8, and 12 years)
  
  my second third and fourth choices are never in theaters either. they are all Faygo products. They are Rock-n-Rye (a cream cola, sort of like Vanilla Coke but not as sweet and a smoother "burn" the Pepsi version is way way too sweet and has no burn whatsoever) Cream Soda (not many cream sodas take my fancy but Faygo's will do if no Rock-n-Rye is around... one ugly tasting version I saw even put coconut flavoring in the recipe UGGGH!) and even their redpop, which stands out as better than the compititions also, although the flavors are closer on the clones for redpop.... I still can tell the difference
  
  and don't get me started on the candy counter... (or the ground up meat by-products they claim are hampurgers and hot dogs...) even if the movie industry put their standards above the gutter, I would need a lot of prodding to go to a first run movie.
  
  
  

  qazwiz is qazwiz everywhere. If you see me say HI!

  4.7.2006 01:50 #52

• hot_ice

  @qazwiz
  
  Legally, they aren't allowed searching your backpack, it's the same thing at Costco, they aren't allowed to double check your cart when you come out of the store, like a forced search.
  
  Let's face it, this isn't the airport, I would refuse a backpack search on grounds that it violates my rights.

  4.7.2006 07:19 #53

• qazwiz

  "My friend? oh him!, no ne doesn't need a ticket... he's just my lawyer, making sure that you don't search my backpack without a warrent."
  
  I usually go to multiplexes... maybe while the fools are looking through the things I bring where ever I go, they will need my first aid kit for their bruised egos... for letting someone else go to a different movie with a cam hidden in a belly pack
  
  what fool would smuggle in a camera in something so obvious as a backpack or camera bag?.... gimme a break. sheesh.

  4.7.2006 18:52 #54

• hot_ice

  @gazwiz
  
  That joke was priceless!

  4.7.2006 22:10 #55

• Sliztzan

  Boo hoo hoo they lost a whole 1.2 billion. I don't believe it. They have no way of proving this. Probably lost more money do to lousy remakes. So how much they gonna waste for this technology developement? Maybe they should stop spending so damn much on making movies. It's ridiculous.

  8.7.2006 18:01 #56

• Sliztzan

  There is no way they would do searches. A large amount of people would turn around and get their money back.

  8.7.2006 18:07 #57

• qazwiz

  sorry to say, your no way is yes way!

  8.7.2006 20:12 #58

• Sliztzan

  don't be sorry. I don't care...I would be one of the ones to hit customer service. I never have had a cam in a movie. It pisses me off to get searched at a concert, which I ablige cause I want to get in. But a movie, blah.

  8.7.2006 20:26 #59

• qazwiz

  since the following is about to go to bitbuchet void I wanted to give it new life... no need to tell me not to repeat, i won't but encourage others to recycle if when it gets back to almost delete again
  
  A joke and relivent info:
  
  hot_ice (Senior Member) 22 June 2006 11:42
  Lol, imagine, 500 people dressed as pirates going to the movie, that would be amazing. The MPAA and other insignificant others, would get pissed off, with all the publicity.
  
  qazwiz (Junior Member) 22 June 2006 12:22
  Don't forget to install a cam in your peg-leg! :)
  
  m_towell (Junior Member) 23 June 2006 17:05
  And how many devices could they put in each theatre?
  All they need to do is have lots of people recording, they can't blind all the cameras at the same time....
  Also, the recorder could put some filter lens on to filter out the IR.
  So the MPAA spends millions of dollars out just to have the pirates buy a $10 (if that) lens filter.
  
  qazwiz (Junior Member) 23 June 2006 17:49
  HOW IT WORKS
  it takes two scans and compares them for "HOT" spots. one without the infrared laser is the control and one with the laser. (In Cameras)the chip that records the pictures will reflect infrared light, so it should do something if it finds a brightspot on the second scan that isn't in the control.
  the current "something" is to flood the spot with laser light.
  THE PROBLEMS
  1) jewelry and other shiny objects also reflect infrared so they create false positives.
  2) there is only so much output a laser can do, so if everyone it the theater is trying to record (or giving false positives) there isn't enough power to prevent everyone from recording
  3) filtering reduces the hot-spot created(it may not eliminate it) thus tending to indicate that it isn't a camera, and thus software may ignore it when it shouldn't. the filters needed (infrared)to reduce detection may have some deterioration in quality for the recording but since when did quality become a first concern for pirates?

  8.7.2006 20:26 #60

• Sliztzan

  just another thought qazwiz, I don't believe you.

  8.7.2006 20:28 #61

• qazwiz

  you should explain yourself if you wish any credibility... do you believe the facts I am giving are made up (thus claiming I am lying) or are you of the mind that the re-post I placed before your comment was an unbelievable move (thus you cannot understand the passion for the subject that drives me to answer) or are you just trying to make any comment you can think of just to get the last word?(in which case we all will want a way to prevent your comments from cluttering our screens)
  
  ???

  8.7.2006 22:51 #62

• qazwiz

  edit button is gone for the re-post three back. consider this an addendum
  
  @ (a person who wanted to pass around movies(using p2p probably) like they read and pass along a paperback book)
  Better try a different analogy. your argument breaks down for the paperback analogy unless you photocopy the paperback before you hand it off to your friend.
  
  I understand the desire to use your purchase as you will. And I see that MPAA and RIAA both want to require you to buy a new copy for each method you use to enjoy your purchase. Somewhere in the middle there is "fair use".
  
  less than fifty years ago there was no chance that you could use your purchase in any manner that could be not be considered fair use, without an additional cash outlay that made selling the product a must. Thus the test in law that a profit had to be realized to be infringement.
  
  Even with the photocopier you still pay more per copy than it cost to buy the book.
  
  but as time procedes the cost of books rise and the cost to copy them falls. now you don't need a typesetter and a printing press but now all you need is a phone line and a computer with the printer that came free (via manufacture rebate limit one per household)
  
  The founding fathers played games in the neighborhood vacant lot, they learned to read from the King James Bible since it was the only book the entire family owned, they communicated by correspondence and if they got an answer within two weeks IT was because the other person was only a couple hundred miles away.
  
  If you had told any of them that a machine connected to a thread of copper would allow all three to be done from the desk in the study... INSTANTANIOUSLY, (and virtually simultaneously) you would have been condemned as a lunatic.
  
  Patents and copyrights do not exist to keep lawyers in business... they were designed to give incentive to inventors and writers to produce product to make this country (actually every country that has some form of them) great. The fact that they are now being used to stifle productivity in favor of mass sales would appall any of the founding fathers. (as would the evolution of our current "godless-government" but that is another discussion.)

  8.7.2006 22:57 #63

• Sliztzan

  qazwiz, your reply to my statement was "sorry to say, your no way is yes way!" Which indicates to me that you are saying I am wrong, people are going to be searched.
  I go to movies on a average once every 1-2 months. I have yet to be searched or seen anyone searched I would understand someone being searched that had a backpack or some other unusual item going into a theater. It's hard to tell by chat whether you are lying...as I said I don't believe you. Is that so hard to understand? The issue is people being searched, and I stated my belief is that people would not be searched. I will not believe it till I see it and then I would walk away and get a refund. This issue would surely make the 11 PM news, to which there have been no reports in this area.

  9.7.2006 09:01 #64

• qazwiz

  come here to Chicago. be sure to bring a bag with sunglasses and pens and a notebook. then tell me what happened at the movies

  10.7.2006 05:04 #65

• lecsiy

  @Chiefbrdy
  
  Must have been one of the funniest things ive read in a week!!
  
  lol soo funny!

  26.7.2006 05:36 #66

• dufas

  Now all the MPAA needs is someone setting in the movie audience that has an occular implant and their little laser trick causes them to go blind. But since the MPAA is always the victim, they will probably say that it is the now blind person's own fault for looking towards the movie screen.......

  29.7.2006 19:12 #67