DRM Flub Prevented 3D Showings of Avatar In Germany 386
Fraggy_the_undead writes "According to German IT news site heise.de, yesterday several 3D showings of Avatar couldn't take place (German; Google translation to English), because the movies were DRM protected such that there had to be a key per copy of the film, per film projector, and per movie server in the theater. The key supplier, by the name Deluxe, was apparently unable to provide a sufficient number of valid keys in time. Moviegoers were offered to get a refund or view an analogue 2D showing instead."
Defective by Design (Score:5, Insightful)
not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a good thing that they allow us to manage our rights like this.
Why do I think this will just add fuel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow, I believe the studio will twist this story to sound more like "See! Piracy is causing us to lose money!"
This despite them putting in the DRM, and despite them generating $10B revenue in 2009.
Give yourself 100% discount (Score:3, Insightful)
Do not see this movie.
Re:not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Infact it couldn't be more ON topic.
The biggest problem is that people don't understand what DRM actually means and how it can impact them.
Things like this shed light on the pitfalls of DRM.
I am not a proponent of piracy, however I have had more than my fair share of DRM related issues in my home theater and as a result I vehemently oppose DRM schemes.
Snafus like this really opens the eyes of the public and hopefully informs a few of them while we still have a chance to understand the problem and vote with our dollars(or euros).
And... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
An isolated failure with no particularly big consequences. The story tries to make DRM look bad, but really, is this the first time a critical demo went bad at an embarrassing moment?
Hate on DRM all you want for all the evils it might contain. I do. But this is a nothing story.
Re:Hah! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that applies everywhere, not just Germany.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just unclear on how that makes this a noteworthy "DRM is bad"
I think the main point is that their fall-back plan was a DRM-free acetate film strip.
Re:Why do I think this will just add fuel? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that kind of like "You make me do this to you! Why do you keep making me hit you!?"
Not denying that they did / would say that. I just thought it was funny noticing the parallels there.
Re:not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
The rank and file, for the most part, will be mad that the projector was broken.
Re:Wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
More like a "DRM is stupid" case. The point is not whose fault it was, but that DRM prevented a perfectly legal use of the material. The fact that the theater, having properly licensed the movie from the studio, still had to overcome this ridiculous DRM hurdle, shows that DRM is a pitiful joke.
Re:not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the main point is that their fall-back plan was a DRM-free acetate film strip
DRM has vanishing utility when the medium in question requires a $100,000 worth of equipment to play. Of course, then again, D5 decks aren't exactly cheap either...
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's hard to say why the key generator company was unable to produce enough valid licenses in time. According to the article, the movie theaters had licenses but they turned out to be "no longer valid" on opening day. I suspect that either "Deluxe" (the key distributor) had a major systems failure and couldn't regen the day's licenses, or forgot to tell their customers that they needed to have the keys renewed frequently, or something.
The movie distributor was certainly able to deliver the movies (which are delivered by courier on AES-encrypted hard drives) on time, so if the actual physical movies could be delivered you'd think the key generator company that the movie could keep up by issuing one key for each drive physically delivered, and if those keys have to be generated each time the movie is shown you'd think they'd have that worked out.
I get the impression that the theaters (multiple, independent theaters across Germany were affected, not just one) have all been planning and looking forward to this for some time. Th article indicates that they all received their copies of the movie they purchased in plenty of time, and copied them to their theater server well in advance, but that the keys turned out not to work when they hit PLAY. But maybe this is the German equivalent of a RIAA/ASCAP thing where you buy the movie from one source and you have to buy the licenses to play it from an entirely different source, and the theaters didn't realize that the keys they originally got only worked for testing or something.
Still, with all the advance planning, and all the various theaters that were affected, I find it hard to believe that so many theaters who had planned screenings so far in advance would somehow "forget" to buy licenses to play it. They had the physical movie, they had the glasses, they sold the tickets, and it sounds like they paid since the key distributor was able to get them the keys the next day.
Re:Good thing, too.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The drm in question is to prevent an insider at one of the theaters from posting the movie (which is the sort of piracy that is really hard to defend), not to obscure the analog whole.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
don't want to be the one modded to hell and back for saying it, but isn't this an issue with the company not purchasing the proper licenses in the appropriate amount of time rather than an issue with DRM?
Consider an alcoholic who beats his wife. Is the problem that he beats his wife (with a solution that he signs up for marriage counseling), or that he can't stop drinking?
Say he also doesn't pay his bills on time. When the gas or electric get shut off and the kids don't get fed, what's the problem? That the kids are hungry, that he doesn't have enough money, that he didn't find a sympathetic ear at the utility company, or that he can't stop drinking?
Microsoft routinely brushes off Windows activation "issues" with an implicit argument that it's an implementation snafu. Your argument is the same. Personally, I think it misses the point.
Actually, this is the movie industry's clever plan (Score:2, Insightful)
Just pay. We don't give a damn if you watch it.
Re:Given all the reviews I have seen .. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Defective by Design (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Noteworthy in that it exemplifies a very real problem with DRM. They did pay for the licenses but the supplier of the license basically withheld the license and therefore the customer got screwed. This has come up many times as a theoretical question: What do you do when the validator of the license no longer exists, changes their rules or is unwilling to validate your license (or in this case incapable of) ?
You're screwed. That's the answer.
What people have to understand is what "Digital Rights Management" actually means. When we hear the word "right" we always think about "our rights" not the other party's rights (unless they belong to the same peer group.) So for instance, if I talk about providing "right to free speech" you are happy because you assume it includes you as a recipent of that right. We are biased to assume that rights are universal. (inalienable, etc.) That we all share the same rights. That an increased number, strength or quality of rights is better.Basically we will tend to support any right because we are subconciously programmed to believe it benefits us.
The proponents of DRM are specifically using this psychology against us. They market their product with the term "rights" in order to make the intended audience/mark comfortable with their sales pitch/con game. Their "rights" yield to you NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. What it does do is guarantee specifics rights for them which you cannot circumvent or otherwise deny or share in. What they ARE selling to you is "Digital *Restriction* management". In otherwords, you are agreeing to allow them to restrict what you can do with the product that you buy. And there is nothing that you can do to improve your position in the future should they change their mind or cease to exist. This is true whether or not legal issues change as well. For instance, let's say that you were convicted and jail for alcohol sales during prohibition. The law changes and it is no longer a crime. However you don't get let out of jail because your key/license was crafted without that right. Basically if things change in your favor the license does not automatically change for you.
The United States has a Bill of Rights and the citizens generally hold this to be a significant factor in the quality and justice of the United States. Imagine how low we would think of a country who's government was based on a "Bill of Restrictions". A description of limited abilities that the government allows, arbitrarily or to the benefit of its politicians/dictators. Well that is *exactly* the relationship of DRM. It is truly Digital Restriction Management.
Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
By far, this is the most annoying thing about DVD's. So-called "acceptable user operations". The DVD decides what you get to do or not do, including watching a bunch of previews for movies you don't want to see. I could understand this happening once, the first time you watch it. But really, its an insult to avid movie fans with movie libraries. Forcing them to watch ads for movies that came out 10 fucking years ago is ridiculous.
Re:not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
typical (Score:3, Insightful)
As usual, license management screws up. Of the many things that can go wrong, it's licensing is necessarily the most likely. It's the only part of the system that assures failure at the slightest hint of an irregularity BY DESIGN. At it's best, it's more brittle than bad code that never checks for errors.
Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not impressed with stunts that aren't real.
I'm not impressed with special effects that are the point of the story instead of serving the story.
I'm an sf fan and a cameron fan but I only have mild interest in watching this film.
I feel like there is no genuine buzz and all the buzz is manufactured.
Re:not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, what they'll understand is that they suffered a minor to moderate inconvenience, to which a seemingly acceptable resolution was offered.
There may be no understanding beyond "technical problem."
And while I'm sure the studio isn't happy, they'll still probably get money from every single person that showed up to the movie. So they'll have something to talk about as they drive the big truck full of money to the bank.
Of course, there are some exceptions to that model, and this is coming from a guy whose last several moviegoing experiences have been so unpleasant that I have not set foot in a movie theater in almost four years.
Re:not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care what you think of it we are not shipping first run theatrical resolution films unencrypted. Get over it people at this level encryption is here to stay.
Funny thing is, someone ripped the screener a couple weeks ago... you see, the "first run theatrical film" is not where the pirates get their copies.
Re:Defective by Design (Score:5, Insightful)
We even have skateboarders calling their videos "films". At the same time some people actually still make films. Please, can we call things what they are?
Good luck with that. In the English (and possibly others') language, increase in a popular term's usage tends to lower the syllable count; highly popular terms tend to be reduced to a single syllable. "Automobile" is correct. "Car" is the popular reduction. As long as it's indicative and unambiguous in popular understanding, the word with the fewest syllables wins.
Thus "Film". One syllable. "Video" - three. The term's origin is interesting, but non-essential if its identification is understood.
Re:parent != troll (Score:1, Insightful)
because it's actually an americans vs. the world thing - everyone outside america says "films" not "movies", yes, films are called films because they were once on celluloid film, but that's not why people call them films *now* anymore than why people call gays it's because film /means/ movie to non-americans.
Re:Defective by Design (Score:1, Insightful)
I didn't know 3D rips were available.
Huh? Not me... (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw in in full 3D and THX glory yesterday.
But instead, kumbaya-singing treehugger overkill in smurf land prevented me from enjoying what was otherwise an extremely impressive piece of film.
Q: How do you know that there is waayyyy too much of something in a movie?
A: If even the main character in the freakin movie complains about it about a quarter in, but it doesn’t stop anyway, until the end.
One definitely sees that it’s the late realization of the dream of a 13 year old Cameron (which it is, according to Sigourney Weaver). In a way it’s like Star Wars Episode I. With parts of the most bombastic Star Wars in-between.
But I’d say the FX/VR is a whole new league. (Maybe because of the 3D and actors acting an an augmented reality suit.)
Re:Defective by Design (Score:3, Insightful)
A film shot on 65mm with really good cameras and lenses picked to work well together, projected from a brand new 70mm print, will look better than a digital film projected from a 2k projector (and arguably better than 4k).
A film shot on 35mm with grab-the-cheapest-you-can-find cameras and lenses, projected from a 35mm print that has done the rounds between several film festivals, will look far far worse than a digital film projected from a 2k projector
It's a lot more complicated than "X is better than Y".
Re:No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not impressed with special effects that are the point of the story instead of serving the story.
I respect your opinion, but wish to point out that it's not universally held, and that there is room in the world of art for the opposite case.
In Japan, Kabuki theatre is an old form with only a few set plots. All attendees of this classical form of drama know the plots, and happily dismiss them as they watch the actors practice their art.
I enjoyed all the Star Wars films for their kinetic appeal; the plot was only a vehicle, there to carry the drama. The appeal to me was imagining that people could create and use such stupendous engines of flight and fancy (if at the expense of dialogue, perhaps). It allowed me to skip all my accumulated wisdom and strip my cares all the way back to when I was a wide-eyed twelve-year old boy. It was fun.
Someone said Avatar has smoking hot 10 foot tall alien women? I am SO there for that...
Re:not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care what you think of it we are not shipping first run theatrical resolution films unencrypted. Get over it people at this level encryption is here to stay.
What's interesting is that, once again, DRM is only affecting legitimately paying customers.
In this case somebody ripped a screener copy of the movie a couple weeks ago, so this first run theatrical resolution film isn't terribly interesting to the pirates anymore. Anybody who wants to grab a pirated copy of the movie has been able to do so for a little while now. They don't need this DRM-laden film.
The folks who do need this DRM-laden film are the theater owners who are trying to show the movie to their patrons. And they have, presumably, acquired their copy of the movie through legitimate means. Which is why the lack of a key to the DRM matters to them. If they were using a pirated copy they wouldn't be having any trouble showing it.
Wait. 2-D is an option? (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems all my local theaters only offer 3-D viewings at the jacked-up price (for glasses).
While I know that 3-D adds to the experience, for some movies, I'm getting tired of having to pay an extra $4 for the glasses *each time* - then being asked to "recycle" them afterward. Let me pay a slightly higher price - once - for, possibly nicer, glasses and reuse them. In addition, if the movie is only offered in 3-D, the glasses should be free. </rant>
And vinyl has an oaky, warm sound (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no need to fetishize archaic technology.
No pay, no play is anti-social. (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds overbroad and anti-social to me. Let me explain by way of a few hypothetical scenarios:
All of these scenarios keep communities thriving and involve interaction among fellows. All of these scenarios are fair and just, after all you got paid for your work. But DRM tries to stop all of these scenarios from occurring. This notion of stopping people from experiencing the work because they didn't pay is abhorrent to civil society.