|
|
Author
|
Topic: DIGITAL CINEMA SNAG
|
Bevan Wright
Expert Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1884b.gif)
Posts: 176
From: Fountain Valley, CA, USA
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 01-01-2004 07:42 PM
DIGITAL CINEMA SNAG Sun Dec 21, 7:00 PM ET
CARL DiORIO
(Variety)
There's another piracy battle brewing.
This time, the standoff involves two exhib trade groups and the studio consortium on digital cinema. The National Assn. of Theater Owners, joined by the overseas Union Internationale de Cinemas, has charged the major studios' Digital Cinema Initiative with formulating security standards for d-cinema systems that are biased toward addressing the studios' piracy concerns at the expense of exhibs' operating needs.
NATO (news - web sites) prexy John Fithian said current DCI standards --- part of an entire system of d-cinema engineering protocol being devised by the consortium --- would keep exhibs from running their venues properly.
Practical concerns include the possibility the DCI-devised standards would prevent exhibs from moving pictures from screen to screen in multiplexes in the course of a pic's run.
"We are alarmed (at) the direction work has taken on the important issue of cinema security," NATO and UNIC wrote in their letter to DCI and its standards partners at the Society of Motion Pictures & Television Engineers.
Some in the exhib community claim that the studios are using the standards work to orchestrate a power grab from theater operators. NATO and UNIC state only that the practical result of the proposed standards would be a loss of control over movie materials circulating within exhibs' theaters.
"These suggested security provisions would ... completely alter the existing relationship between movie exhibitor and movie distributor, and dramatically change the normal operations within the cinema," the trade groups said.
The exhibition officials stressed they support DCI efforts to develop uniform engineering standards for d-cinema and studios' efforts to combat film piracy. But the standards --- and some related protocol involving screen management --- reflect a misplaced emphasis on security concerns at the expense of business and operating needs, they said.
The DCI standards have been proposed for final SMPTE adoption and publication by the end of March.
"On issues related to security, the DCI cart is miles ahead of the horse," the officials wrote.
Asked to comment on the letter, DCI chief exec Chuck Goldwater suggested exhibs are putting too much emphasis on the standards themselves, when the issues they raise can be sorted out during marketplace application of the specs.
"The open specifications that DCI is working on are intended to provide as much flexibility as possible to address a range of business options," Goldwater said. "(The) business rules will ultimately be addressed in the open market, which is where it should take place."
Goldwater --- himself a former exhib who ran Clearview and Mann circuits --- added that testing and refinement of the DCI standards will continue even after their publication.
A SMPTE exec declined comment on the letter, saying the group is sensitive to all relevant issues but primarily focuses on technology issues. "The business issues aren't in SMPTE's purview," said Peter Symes, engineering veep.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 01-05-2004 03:38 PM
Here's the letter, as published on NATO Online:
http://www.natoonline.org/DigitalCinemaSecurityLetterv.pdf
quote: 1 18 December 2003 Charles Goldwater, CEO Peter D. Symes Walt Ordway, Chief Technology Officer SMPTE Engineering Vice President Digital Cinema Initiatives LLC Thomson Broadcast and Media 6834 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 500 Solutions, Inc. Hollywood, California 90028 400 Providence Mine Road Nevada City, California 95959
Dear Digital Cinema Standardization Leaders:
On behalf of hundreds of cinema companies operating more than 50,000 movie screens in the two leading markets of North America and Europe, we write to object strongly to recent developments in the digital cinema standardization efforts of your two organizations. By copy of this letter, we also seek to inform the European Community’s Commissioner of Culture, and our colleagues at the European Digital Cinema Forum, of our concerns. Specifically, we are concerned that work undertaken, and draft specifications developed, in the area of cinema security suffer from three fundamental flaws. First, that work should be postponed until studios and cinema operators can answer fundamental business questions that must precede the adoption of any standards related to digital cinema security. Second, the work goes beyond the bounds needed to combat movie piracy. Finally, some suggested draft standards would interfere with normal business operations within cinema facilities. Cinema operators around the world demand the development of fair business models as a necessary antecedent to the large-scale transition from film to digital cinema. We have also consistently supported the cause of global, uniform, open technical standards for the implementation of digital cinema, all of which are essential to open competition. On 12 December 2001, cinema trade association executives from eighteen countries released a statement calling for the immediate development of global technical standards and setting forth a list of prerequisite technical standards demands. Then in February 2002, the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) published its Digital Cinema User Requirements in the United States. These two documents were complimentary and consistent. Both documents stressed the need for security provisions to combat movie piracy without interfering with normal business operations.1 1 The international letter of 12 December 2001 provided a list of cinema operator “needs”, including “Rules for digital rights expression and for electronic methods of exhibitor authorization that duplicate the 2 Representatives of NATO and the Union Internationale de Cinemas (UNIC) have both worked to support the efforts of Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) by meeting with DCI executives on a regular basis and by providing input, suggestions and commentary on the DCI draft specifications when requested. In turn, DCI has been very responsive to the input of our industry and most solicitous of our suggestions. We are grateful for the important work performed to date by DCI and the spirit of partnership that has existed throughout the life of that venture. Indeed, in most substantive areas other than security, DCI’s technical specification work has progressed appropriately and has provided important leadership for the eventual transition to digital technologies. Technical specifications regarding cinema security, however, simply cannot be developed without guidance on important business decisions. While DCI has made tremendous progress on technical specifications in many areas, DCI has not provided any guidance whatsoever on any important business issues. Nor are these issues being addressed in any other appropriate forum. Related specifically to the subject of this letter, no significant work has been undertaken to answer the important business questions that must precede and inform the development of digital cinema specifications related to security. Some of the important questions include the following. Where do the trust relationships lie? When should we rely on machines and when should we rely on people? Who should control the security equipment contained within a cinema complex? When, if ever, should the digital distribution and exhibition of a movie be prevented and the movie screen left to go dark? What content (e.g., movies, trailers, shorts, etc.) should be included in an inviolate set of digital files that cannot be separated? Who should control the audit data and security logs produced by the system? For what universe of distribution (cinema circuit, cinema complex, or cinema auditorium) should a set of digital movie files be targeted? For what universe should a set of digital keys be targeted? How long should it take to replace dysfunctional equipment? Where can replacement equipment come from and go to? Who should maintain logs of equipment? What factors, if any, will hinder the movement of digital “prints” between auditoriums within a complex? When and how can content other than motion pictures be exhibited on the equipment? What relative role and emphasis should be placed on preventative technologies (e.g., encryption) versus forensic technologies (e.g., watermarking)? On these and related questions, our respective members have strong beliefs regarding the appropriate answers. As partners with the studios in the digital cinema planning process, we believe we should answer these questions with DCI now. The answers to these questions and many others dramatically affect the technical specification work being undertaken by DCI. The answers also have critical impact on current rights and facilities existing in 35 mm technology.” Similarly, the NATO User Requirements of February 2002 stated that “The mechanisms and processes that support content protection shall not interfere with normal business operation within the facility.” 3 theatres as the issues are determinative of whether theatre operators continue to have control of their own operations. Yet DCI continues to move forward on those technical specifications with no answers, or insufficient answers to the questions. On issues related to security, the DCI “cart” is miles ahead of the “horse.” Exhibitor representatives also continue to participate in the essential work of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE). We are pleased that SMPTE’s DC28 Technology Committee has made tremendous progress developing digital cinema standards, and we are committed to seeing the process to completion. We are alarmed, however, at the direction work has taken on the important issue of cinema security. Specifically, some participants in SMPTE’s DC28 Technology Committee are pursuing draft security standards that exceed what is necessary to combat piracy. These suggested security provisions would also completely alter the existing relationship between movie exhibitor and movie distributor, and dramatically change the normal operations within the cinema. Piracy constitutes a fundamental threat to the entire motion picture industry. Over the past few years, NATO and UNIC have raised the fight against piracy to a new level of priority within our organiza tions. Exhibitors seek a continuing and strong partnership with movie studios on this important battle. Piracy occurs at every juncture in the movie production, distribution and exhibition process. Exhibitors have no say, and do not seek to control, the manner in which piracy is fought in the production and distribution segments of this industry. The SMPTE work does not address those segments. The SMPTE work, however, would dramatically affect the exhibition segment of the industry. In many cases, the draft work on security suggested by some DC28 participants presumes answers to the many business questions listed above, and would significantly change the competitive balance between distributors and exhibitors. Yet DC28 is not the proper forum for the resolution of those business issues. In sum, we will not support the continuing efforts of DCI or SMPTE to design specifications and standards related to security unless and until several actions take place. First, studios and exhibitors must find a way, through DCI or elsewhere, to answer the fundamental business issues that will control the manner in which security systems are deployed in cinemas. Second, all participants in your two organizations must agree to focus all security work on that which is necessary to combat piracy. Third, those participants must agree to design any security standards in a manner that will not interfere with normal business operations within a cinema complex or change the competitive balance between exhibitor and distributor. Thank you for your consideration of these views. Sincerely, 4 _________________________ ________________________ Jan van Dommelen, President John Fithian, President UNIC NATO On behalf of its member associations On behalf of its members 15, rue de Berri 4605 Lankershim Blvd, Suite 340 F-75008 Paris North Hollywood, California 91602 France U.S.A. Cc: Vivian Reding, Commissioner of Culture European Commission Ase Kleveland, Chairman European Digital Cinema Forum Tom Scott SMPTE Engineering Director of Motion Picture Technology Curt Behlmer, Chairman SMPTE DC28 Technology Committee
Here's a link to the Variety article (subscription required):
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_article&articleID=VR1117897463&categoryID=18&cs=1
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|