Don't Even Think About Pirating That Movie
The FCC last month cleared cable operators to use selectable output controls (SOC) to provide copy-protection on their set-tops. The SOC ban was a major stumbling block for Hollywood to agree to earlier release windows for VOD (see FCC Grants Partial Waiver Of Selectable Output Controls Ban and Cable Wants Open Windows).
Essentially, SOC allows content owners to disable analog video outputs for certain content, allowing output via only HDMI, which includes copy-protection features (see Is the Movie Industry Crazy for Wanting to Lock Down Its Blockbusters?).
Now, just to have a belt-and-suspenders approach — and give movie studios another reason to do earlier VOD release windows — cable operators are looking to add watermarking, as well, according to Civolution CEO Alex Terpstra.
Watermarking inserts a “fingerprint” into a digital video signal that’s allegedly undetectable to the naked eye. Based on the watermark, a content owner or provider would be able to trace the exact source of, say, a copy of Toy Story 3 that had made its way to BitTorrent potentially down to the set-top box from which the pirated material originated.
According to Terpstra, the Civolution watermarking system withstands any kind of format conversion or editing — even carrying over in video filmed off a TV display, he claims.
Why would MSOs add another, vaguely sinister antipiracy measure here?
“The major motivator is that if you inform customers about this, it will prevent them from even trying to copy the material,” Terpstra says.
Terpstra says Civolution has signed up one of the largest U.S. MSOs to use the vendor’s set-top-based watermarking solution, but he wouldn’t identify it. Philips Electronics spun off its content-identification business in October 2008 as Civolution (see Philips Spins Off Content ID Unit). Since then the company, based in Eindhoven, The Netherlands, has since combined the Philips CI, Teletrax, and Thomson STS businesses.
Granted, there are other business reasons why Hollywood would still be reticent to part with its blockbusters sooner, including objections from theater-chain owners — read Multichannel News‘ Tom Umstead’s take: The Difficulty in Doing Windows.
And, as I’ve said before, it’s somewhat annoying to me as a consumer that movie studios and cable operators feel they must treat people who would plunk down $20 or whatever to see a flick that’s still in the theaters like they’re potential thieves.
But I understand the need for those digital deterrents. Not that I particularly care to see Shrek Forever After A.S.A.P. (or, really, ever) but if I’m DreamWorks, I am going to do everything I can to get paid by people who dig ugly green monsters.
Todd Spangler commented:
MovieLover -- great post, thanks for your comments.
MovieLover commented:
This is fiddling while Rome burns. The home video market is falling apart. People simply aren't buying highly profitable DVDs like they used to and Blu-ray simply isn't working to replace those sales. VOD, physical rental and streaming are replacing sales with much, much lower contribution to profit. Moreover, electronic sell-through will not replace the profits DVDs provided for over a decade. We can, and have spent endless hours arguing over copy protection systems (or attacking consumers through lawsuits and “three strikes” retribution) and putting those systems in networks and devices without any demonstrable difference in studio profits. It's a waste of time, money and effort, moreover it annoys legitimate consumers. It's worse than a placebo. It distracts from the real issue of how do we support a robust cinema production and distribution system in the digital age.
We didn't learn from the CD debacle. The record industry didn't learn from the railroads, they forgot what business they were in and declared war on their customers. They thought (or pretended to think) piracy was eroding album sales, when it was skyrocketing DVD sales and then exploding single downloads that appear to have sunk CD sales. Online infringement is wrong. But so what? If it is not responsible for significant revenue losses, then focusing on it instead on the future of digital video distribution will doom the studios to continuously falling revenue like the record industry.
Steve commented:
I'm not opposed to watermarking, as long as it is has absolutely no visible effect on image quality. But SOC is another matter. It prevents some potential paying customers (e.g. early adopters without HDMI inputs) from even being able to watch VOD. Talk about an industry cutting off its nose to spite its face.
Home Alone commented:
$20 is less than 2 tickets -- much less 2 tix plus dinner plus babysitting!!
j commented:
I just don't see a lot of people paying $20 or whatever the price will be to see a movie at home earlier when they could wait a few months and rent it on VOD for $4 or at Redbox for $1.
A huge part of why people pay the high theater prices is for the entire experience of going out to see a movie not just watching the movie itself.