Tonedeaf government dumbasses now make you watch 20 seconds of unskippable warnings in front of ever (1 Viewer)

[Derrick King]

Interesting topic, but how did I get subscribed to this thread? Never knew it existed until it showed up in my Inbox just now. That's weird. 

Government agents hacked into your account and subscribed to this thread for you.

 

[John L]

These obnoxious pieces of propaganda they call "anti-piracy" warnings are doing more to encourage piracy than to prevent it. These studios also have the audacity to equate copyright infringement with stealing which is blatantly false in many countries. The studios are probably hoping to scare as many people as possible by promoting piracy as an evil act yet at the same time they are pissing off numerous film/tv enthusiasts who just want to watch content without these obstructions.
It's lose-lose situation for the studios as piracy will never be wiped out - it can only be contained somewhat until a newer form of technology comes along.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Good grief, if they'd just refrain from making the warnings unskippable, there would be no issue.
Nitwits.

 

[cineMANIAC]

There really is nothing that can be done about piracy but what about expanding/improving existing anti-piracy methods like Macrovision? Lots of home videos were copy-protected quite effectively. I should know, I tried to copy lots of VHS tapes back in the early 90's and the ones with Macrovision were impossible to dupe. Plastering warnings all over the place won't do anything except anger the consumer. We already have to put up with forced trailers and even ads before the movie even begins. Come up with a solution that superimposes watermarks over most of the screen if you try to copy or download a copyrighted work.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by elDomenechHTF /t/320629/tonedeaf-government-dumbasses-now-make-you-watch-20-seconds-of-unskippable-warnings-in-front-of-every-dvd-and-bluray/30#post_3924886
There really is nothing that can be done about piracy but what about expanding/improving existing anti-piracy methods like Macrovision? Lots of home videos were copy-protected quite effectively. I should know, I tried to copy lots of VHS tapes back in the early 90's and the ones with Macrovision were impossible to dupe.

Except that it could be circumvented, and in my case with my ghetto patched together HT rig of the 90's, meant that VHS tapes I wasn't copying still suffered when viewed. So I had to buy a legally sold device to straighten it out. Which is my way of saying that if someone is going to get an illegal copy, they're going to get it one way or the other. No amount of badgering or tampering at the consumer level is going to stop that.

The studios should spend some of their money on an investigation service to roust out people selling bootlegs if the feds wont bother with it.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Every time I'm forced to watch one of these warnings, I just pretend I'm watching this instead:

 

[Douglas Monce]

The ironic thing is that the anti piracy warnings are the first thing copy software removes.
Doug

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I'd like to see someone create a thumb drive that I can plug into my Oppo that will break the Blu-ray code,
and enable me, not to get around copy protection, and certainly not to do anything improper with the IP
contained within the pits of those Blu-ray discs, but just to cut through forced promos and now "this."

I've had a Pioneer DVD player for a long time with hacked firmware that ignores ALL button lockouts and will skip past anything on a disc. I'm surprised this hasn't been done more.

The FBI does NOT investigate copyright crime.
They MAY. They certainly have the RIGHT to.
But in the majority of cases, there is little to no interest. Beyond that error, they really do have more important things to do.

Funny, since the FBI has been mentioned on most copyright warnings going back to the early days of home video. I have a bunch of Magnetic Video releases from the late 70s which show the FBI logo at the end- Fox used that warning screen for about 20 years before changing it.

 

[Douglas Monce]

One reason you don't see the FBI warning

on all videos ie Criterion, is because it is illegal for anyone but members of the Motion Picture Association of America (and a few others) to use it.

Since August 2006, the FBI has authorized use of the FBI Anti-Piracy seal and warning by members of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), subject to each member entering into a formal Uniform Authorization Agreement. Association members should contact the MPAA, RIAA, SIIA, BSA, or ESA for more information
We are evaluating the licensing arrangements we have with members of these associations with a view towards permitting the broadest possible public use of the seal by all individuals and businesses with a copyright interest.
In the meantime, it is perfectly fine for anyone, without FBI approval, to use the following generic language on material protected under U.S. copyright law: “Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.”
A last word to the wise: Unauthorized use of the FBI seal, name, and initials are subject to prosecution under Federal Criminal law, including Sections 701, 709, and 712 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Also read about “Fair Use Warnings” accompanied by the FBI seal that have been posted on various websites, giving the false appearance that the FBI has created or authorized these notices to advise the public about the fair use doctrine in U.S. copyright law

.
I find this interesting, because films created by the Federal Government, are by law automatically public domain. I would assume this would apply to any creative work, like a logo.
Doug

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

I have a ridiculous number of DVDs and Blu-rays numbering in the many hundreds. I purchased them all with my hard-earned cash and I do not download movies or buy bootleg copies. And yet I am being asked to sit through 20 seconds of unskippable stupidity on top of the already irritating trailers, warnings, disclaimers, and other loud studio bullshit, many of which are already unskippable. Many Blu-rays are too stupid to resume where I left off (a damned failure I say), so every time I stick one of these disks in my player, I have to go take a dump?
Why do movies need disclaimers at all? It's not like it's a chainsaw that requires warnings and instruction on use so you don't accidentally lop off an arm. IT'S A FRICKEN MOVIE! And how long until the government asks the studios to revoke the Blu-ray DRM on discs that do not have these disclaimers on them?
Remember film reels? You threaded a projector, turned it on, hit play and whaddya know? A movie! I would like to return to the simplicity of that era. These studio discs have been pissing me off for a while now. Crap stickers all over the box, crap disc artwork consisting of giant heads, crap movies that did crap box office being put front and center on the store shelves, crap come-ons inside the box instead of a booklet (or nothing at all except a disc), crap Digital Copies are that already expired when you break the seal, crap trailers and other junk in front of the movie... STOP THE INSANITY!
I guess I'll just buy out the entire Criterion catalog from here on out, then. These guys give you top-notch entertainment and jump you straight to the menu. They even resume the movie where you left off and give you a nice booklet to read. I'd rather sit down to The Red Shoes or Belle de Jour than Green Lantern anyway.
In short, if I find out a Blu-ray has this garbage in front of it (and there will be plenty of Web sites that will track this, I'm sure), I will not buy the disc. Your move, studios.

 

[Mark Oates]

I had a copy of Granada's Jeeves and Wooster series on DVD that came with the most appalling locked-out "Piracy Is Theft" promo. Grainy Tony Scott style video with a pulsing beat and "You Wouldn't Steal A Handbag.... You Wouldn't Steal A Television... You Wouldn't Steal A Video" as flashcards in between shots of miscreants doing exactly that. It ended with a girl cancelling a download of a movie and flouncing out of the room. If you weren't watching all the episodes in one sitting (and I'm not convinced it didn't play before every episode), you had to sit through it every time the eight discs loaded and at about a minute's duration it bordered on Chinese Water Torture. It meant I rarely watched what was one of my favourite tv series. The new edition doesn't have the promo, but I've had to needlessly double-dip because Granada insists on lecturing me about the evils of piracy.
At one time as a DVD reviewer for a site I can't mention, I used to occasionally get a screener through the post rather than a proper check disc for the DVD release. The screeners would have a caption "Property Of Universal Pictures Home Entertainment" or the equivalent which would either fade in or out dead centre on the screen, or run like a news ticker at the top or bottom of the screen. I gave up on reviewing when the office started getting discs that had to be couriered back to the PR company once viewed, and which had to be signed for and the like before they could be viewed. All because The Studio regarded us reviewers as untrustworthy scumbags in cahoots with the pirates.
I think it's only a matter of time before "Property of Paramount Home Entertainment" or "Property of Walt Disney Pictures" becomes a fixture of the empty black real estate on 2.35:1 movies, or the overscan area on 1.85:1 pictures.

 

[David Deeb]

....
Why do movies need disclaimers at all? It's not like it's a chainsaw that requires warnings and instruction on use so you don't accidentally lop off an arm. IT'S A FRICKEN MOVIE!.....

"Why do movies need disclaimers at all?" They don't.
And neither do CDs. And neither do books. And neither do magazines. And neither do TV shows. And neither do newspapers. And neither do short stories. And neither do apps. And neither do video games. And neither do digital downloads. And neither do digital music files. And neither do medical journals. And neither do radio broadcasts. And neither do movies on streaming services like Hulu, Amazon or Netflix. And neither do movies on broadcast television. And neither do movies on cable TV. And neither do........
But some distributors and studios are in some sort of idiotic sheep mentality that they think they must slap the very consumer of their product (Blu-ray and DVD only), in the face, every time they successfully make a sale. In what world are they living in that they think their media is some how more important or more slap worthy than every other one?

 

[David Weicker]

At one time as a DVD reviewer for a site I can't mention, I used to occasionally get a screener through the post rather than a proper check disc for the DVD release. The screeners would have a caption "Property Of Universal Pictures Home Entertainment" or the equivalent which would either fade in or out dead centre on the screen, or run like a news ticker at the top or bottom of the screen. I gave up on reviewing when the office started getting discs that had to be couriered back to the PR company once viewed, and which had to be signed for and the like before they could be viewed. All because The Studio regarded us reviewers as untrustworthy scumbags in cahoots with the pirates.
I think it's only a matter of time before "Property of Paramount Home Entertainment" or "Property of Walt Disney Pictures" becomes a fixture of the empty black real estate on 2.35:1 movies, or the overscan area on 1.85:1 pictures.

I think this particular type of warning came about after it was discovered that certain actors were distributing their Oscar nominee screeners.

 

[Mark Oates]

Well exactly. Piracy within the industry is what Hollywood should be cleaning up first and foremost. We've all heard about working prints escaping into the wild thanks to disgruntled employees and the like. Instead of pointing the finger at consumers, maybe Hollywood should be giving its supply chain a hard look.

 

[cineMANIAC]

Code Red isn't a member of the MPAA or any other Hollywood organization but they use the FBI seal and warnings and so do many other independent labels. What the studios (and small labels) should do is put together a brief featurette, playable like an extra (i.e., voulntarily), on piracy and how it may impact the way the studios make movies, telling the consumer something like: if you loved TOY STRORY 3, don't download the movie, buy it at Walmart so that there may be a TOY STORY 4. Include video of neatly organized personal collections (many of us are proud of our movie libraries and love to show it off ) versus photos of random bootleg discs stuffed into a plastic container under someone's bed. Perhaps if they made this something people can voluntarily look at, there wouldn't be so much fuss and rightful anger.
Also, how long will it be until studios begin to superimpose unremovable logos at the bottom of screens like they do on television? Or, like someone mentioned above, a ticker across the empty space of the black bars on scope films??

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

If all discs began to feature unremovable "bugs" or tickers overlaid onto the motion picture, that would be the end of this particular hobby as far as I'm concerned.
As for the current problem, if we can't skip the content then we'll just skip the disc. The Home Theater Forum was pretty instrumental in letting the Richard Donner cut of Superman II see the light of day, so I'm betting we can get the studios to listen to us again and back off this silliness.

 

[Mark Oates]

If all discs began to feature unremovable "bugs" or tickers overlaid onto the motion picture, that would be the end of this particular hobby as far as I'm concerned.

I honestly think that might be part of the Studios' strategy. The feeding frenzy of DVD is over. The Studios don't seem to view Blu-ray with the same enthusiasm as they did DVD. We're seeing more and more MOD titles, and streaming/ download seems to be what's getting everybody excited. I think the era of physical media is over whatever collectors like us think.
Streaming/ download gives the Studios back what they felt they were losing with physical media - control. I don't think any of the Studios - least of all Disney - have ever come to terms with the plebs possessing their own copies of their precious product. Whether it be on 16mm, VHS, LD, DVD or Blu-ray. They want to be able to go back to the days of the moratoria that ensured a fresh generation was always pumped for the hundredth re-release of Snow White as the first. Streaming/ download will give them the ability to withdraw movies as it suits them, to control who sees them and when, and presumably to pay a rental fee for the privilege. I suspect ultimately "download" will prove to be a misnomer - "extended rental" will undoubtedly be closer to the mark as there will always be controls to limit or govern the access of the download.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

as the first. Streaming/ download will give them the ability to withdraw movies as it suits them, to control who sees them and when, and presumably to pay a rental fee for the privilege. I suspect ultimately "download" will prove to be a misnomer - "extended rental" will undoubtedly be closer to the mark as there will always be controls to limit or govern the access of the download.

I completely, and I do mean C-O-M-P-L-E-T-E-L-Y, agree with your take on the entire market and what the future holds, Mark. Well said.


Gary "I wish things weren't moving in this direction, but it seems painfully obvious to me streaming only is on the horizon" O.

 

[TravisR]

Streaming/ download will give them the ability to withdraw movies as it suits them, to control who sees them and when, and presumably to pay a rental fee for the privilege. I suspect ultimately "download" will prove to be a misnomer - "extended rental" will undoubtedly be closer to the mark as there will always be controls to limit or govern the access of the download.

Fortunately, there's a difference between what the studios will be able to do and what they want to do. No doubt they'd love to charge a fee every time you watched a movie and an extra charge just in case anyone in the house walks by the TV while the movie is on but just because they want to do that doesn't mean that the public will accept it. After 3 decades of owning copies of movies, virtually no one will pay for a movie if the product can just be taken whenever the studio decides the time is right (especially since nearly everyone under the age of 50 already knows how to steal or could quickly figure out how to steal movies from the internet). Honestly, I'd like to see them try because it would be such a spectacular disaster that a) it would be funny and b.) it would never be attempted again.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Code Red isn't a member of the MPAA or any other Hollywood organization but they use the FBI seal and warnings and so do many other independent labels. What the studios (and small labels) should do is put together a brief featurette, playable like an extra (i.e., voulntarily), on piracy and how it may impact the way the studios make movies, telling the consumer something like: if you loved TOY STRORY 3, don't download the movie, buy it at Walmart so that there may be a TOY STORY 4. Include video of neatly organized personal collections (many of us are proud of our movie libraries and love to show it off ) versus photos of random bootleg discs stuffed into a plastic container under someone's bed. Perhaps if they made this something people can voluntarily look at, there wouldn't be so much fuss and rightful anger.
Also, how long will it be until studios begin to superimpose unremovable logos at the bottom of screens like they do on television? Or, like someone mentioned above, a ticker across the empty space of the black bars on scope films??

If that is the case, then they are using it in violation of the law according to the FBI.
A few years ago I was producing a project, and the client wanted to put the FBI anti piracy logo and warning at the front. When we contacted the FBI about how to get a copy of the logo, we were told that we could only use it if we were a member of the MPAA.
You CAN use the verbiage, but you can't use the FBI logo.
Doug