Anyone hear of something called 'Fingerprint Technology'?

[byoung210]

supposedly it's a proprietory disc that allows the maker to know that a DVD has been copied. i'm assuming they need the disc in their possession to confirm this. i was just wondering if anyone has heard about this before.

[Cobra]

I have heard many rumours of this before, but it's a load of crap. They can't tell the difference between playing and ripping in a PC. It's DVD-ROM for a good reason - it's read-only!

Cobra

[byoung210]

here's why i'm asking. i currently subscribe to a web site that edit films to PG ratings. i rent movies from them. it works like netflix. these movies come on DVD-R discs. i was thinking about making a copy of the movie if i can't watch it so that i can send it back to them. i would erase the movie from my DVD+RW disc before they received the original back so i figured i wouldn't be violating any copyright. well i looked on there web site and the member agreement says that you can't copy the DVD-Rs. so now i'm not going to do it because i don't want to violate the membership. anyway, it says that they use proprietory discs that use 'Fingerprint Technology' so that they know if the disc has been copied. is this possible?

[indolikaa]

here's why i'm asking. i currently subscribe to a web site that edit films to PG ratings. i rent movies from them. it works like netflix. these movies come on DVD-R discs. i was thinking about making a copy of the movie if i can't watch it so that i can send it back to them. i would erase the movie from my DVD+RW disc before they received the original back so i figured i wouldn't be violating any copyright. well i looked on there web site and the member agreement says that you can't copy the DVD-Rs. so now i'm not going to do it because i don't want to violate the membership. anyway, it says that they use proprietory discs that use 'Fingerprint Technology' so that they know if the disc has been copied. is this possible?

This sounds awfully familiar. If this is the website I'm thinking of, they are in gross violation of copyright and are being sued for their 'selective editing' without having gained permission of the copyright holder.

The only 'Fingerprint Technology' they are referring to is the FBI putting their prints into NCIC.

[mikel]

byoung210,
It is possible to put source information (serial #?) into the "sync" or interval portion of a video signal, where it would not be seen on a computer or normal tv screen.
I have seen this.
(This is where macrovision , Closed caption information...etc is stored.)
This info would also be recorded on any copy unless a timebase corrector was used (which strips & rebuilds the sync).
But they would have to have possession of the copy to find out from
where it came.
To do this on a large scale basis (normal DVD production) is probably infeasible, but, for cable, sattelite, or custom production definitely
possible.


mikel

[byoung210]

what's the web site you're thinking of?

[byoung210]

so you're saying they would need the copy for the 'Fingerprint Technology' to be found? the disc it was copied from wouldn't be affected? so how could they know if the disc was copied?

[gitreel]

they wouldn't unless you were stupid enough to tell them you copied it.

[indolikaa]

what's the web site you're thinking of?

I can't remember. I'm doing a Forum Search (AAUUGGHH!!) right now to backtrack it...

It takes some time. I've posted in a lot of threads before.

[indolikaa]

www.cleanfilms.com, or one of the many alias sites they use.

CleanFilms provides content-edited movies for private home viewing only. CleanFilms and its suppliers are responsible for all edits made to the DVD movies after the original sale. The motion picture studios, directors, and producers of the unedited version were not involved in the creation of the content-edited version contained on CleanFilms DVD’s. Accordingly, the content-edited version of the movies which CleanFilms carries may not reflect the intent of the motion picture studios, directors, and producers.

Blatant copyright violation. If they didn't get the permission of the copyright holders, they are in the wrong. And in this particular case, the MPAA can bend 'em over and drive 'em home and I won't shed a tear for them.

CleanFilms is a Co-operative rental club. All subscribers to our service become members of the Co-op. The Co-op collectively agrees to have CleanFilms purchase original, un-edited DVD movies in their behalf.

Since technically a DVD is a piece of software, copyright law allows for the owner of the software to make a backup copy of the software. This backup copy can be edited. The Co-op always maintains a 1 to 1 ratio of edited and non-edited originals.

As collective owners of the original, unedited movies, the Co-op has the right to have CleanFilms make family edited backup copies of the originals to edit out content that is objectionable to its members - similar to how you might press mute to avoid hearing objectionable language today. Accordingly, you must subscribe as a member of the rental club before you can rent edited movies.

CleanFilms is providing a service.

100% horseshit. They don't have a legal right to edit the copyright holder's content and then redistribute it for profit. The Co-Op argument is a smokescreen to cover the fact they are profiting from the copyright holder's materials without having a rental agreement in hand.

[haloblack]

web site that edit films to PG ratings... these movies come on DVD-R discs.

Ignoring the legality of their renting edited versions of films, can anyone explain why the DMCA police aren't jumping all over these folks for not only circumventing copy protection, but doing so for profit - and blatantly?!

it says that they use proprietory discs that use 'Fingerprint Technology' so that they know if the disc has been copied. is this possible?

For such a squeaky-clean bunch of folks, they sure are big liars. Go get DVDInfoPro and inspect one of their discs. I guarantee you it'll be an off-the-shelf brand of DVDR. If there was technology that would detect copying, every video store and studio in the country would be using it and NetFlix would be out of business in a fortnight.

[byoung210]

that's the company i'm using. you really think they are in violation? i guess i was fooled by their wording and how they made it sound legal. i heard the sight advertised on the Glen Beck radio program so i thought it would be legit. guess i'll continue to use their service until they put under. i like it. good point about every company would be using the technology if it was available.

[adam]

Cleanfilms is involved in litigation right now regarding the legality of their service. They really don't have a leg to stand on, but still it could be a number of years before the suit is finalized so they will probably continue business as usual for a while to come. And meanwhile, they have plans to offer a new service under a different name... CleanBooks.

I think they offer a valuable service personally, but its such a blatant violation of copyright that it really kinda makes me sick.

As for this fingerprint technology, its just a trick to deter people from copying. Its totally made up.

[Capmaster]

They count on people not knowing better. People will believe almost anything when presented in a semi-legal way, like this service does. It all sounds very convincing, and for Joe Average who doesn't know squat about DVDs, yeah ....sounds reasonable.

[byoung210]

thanks for the info everyone.

[bottle-necked]

i figure their fingerprint technology is a header or something on their disk so they would know if you sent them a copy back instead of their original copy.

Read or copy, it's the same thing. And, what if you used a DVD-ROM drive and copied the dvd to your hdd.... How did 'that' drive write this so called 'fingerprint' on their disk?

[AarontheRipper]

When they talk about fingerprinting technology, they are saying that if a movie that you rent from them shows up on Kazaa or some other p2p network, they can identify which disc from their inventory the copy came from. How they would ever be able to trace that back to one person when they have people renting the same disc every week is beyond me. It's basically a scare tactic and nothing more. That's why their description is so vague.

[Cobra]

Rather, why go to the expense of making each disc unique? As far as I'm aware, they produce one "master" stamp that literally crushed a gold film into the correct series of "pits and hills" expected on that DVD. They're literally clones of this master stamp. Please forgive the gross over-simplification of the production process...

And anyway, conversion to MPEG-4 would change the file completely and I dare say would be pretty unique depending on each user and the way they like to encode files.

Anyway, what have you got to fear? I made pretty much all my DVDs into DivX to take to uni with me on DVD-Rs - there's no way I'm risking losing all those original DVDs to some filthy thief, or paying the insurance to cover that eventuality! If you don't distribute the files produced, how will they know using this method?

I believe in fair use, even if they don't. It's honest, and they don't have a leg to stand on. That's the bottom line.

Cobra

[byoung210]

since we're talking copyright infringements, what do you think of the new dvd player that can edit content on the fly while you are watching any normal DVD? here's the web site for it: www.clearplay.com.

[adam]

I don't see anything wrong with that byoung210. They aren't editing the films, just giving you a hardware method of skipping certain parts during playback. Its really no different than you hitting the ff button on your remote.

With cleanfilms they are physically copying and modifying the original DVD. They are then distributing this copy to people for a fee. Now that's copyright infringment on many levels. Here, they are just selling a player and a service but the movies are bought or rented by the consumer.

This is a much better solution then Cleanfilms, in my opinion.

[housepig]

When they talk about fingerprinting technology, they are saying that if a movie that you rent from them shows up on Kazaa or some other p2p network, they can identify which disc from their inventory the copy came from.

and I was thinking about this - why would they care? they don't own the copyright, they aren't the ones whose rights are being infringed!

the only people who would have any legal standing for this to matter would be the studios or distributors - not a rental joint.

[Nilfennasion]

Am I the only one who is outraged at the idea of sanitised versions of films being peddled to the consumer? What if the director or writer have a different audience in mind?

[byoung210]

it's not peddled. if you want it you want it. like i do.

[housepig]

Am I the only one who is outraged at the idea of sanitised versions of films being peddled to the consumer? What if the director or writer have a different audience in mind?

no, you're not the only one, and if you look at some of the other recent threads on that topic, you'll find that people are incredibly vocal on both sides.

although if a director has other audiences in mind, he de facto didn't create the work for the audience that is viewing the "clean" version, so why should he care if they see a bastardized version - they never would have seen the original.

Great quote from Stephen King, talking about the movies made from his books - "People come up to me and say 'they ruined your work', and I point to the shelf of my books and say 'no, my work is right there.'"

[Nilfennasion]

I would argue that for some, maybe not a significant amount, these bastardised versions get in the way of the audience getting to know the real writing/film. I had this argument with a fellow writer a few months back, when we were discussing the idea of our manuscripts being adapted by Hollywood.

I am pretty vocal in my disgust at Peter Jackson, so I told this other writer that were Jackson to adapt my writing (something that would never happen because I'd sooner not have it adapted at all), it would be about two hours long, with a hundred minutes of battle sequences, ten minutes of the Dwarrow doing a Disney act, and ten minutes of credits. My point being that while there's no less than five battle scenes in my novel, they are meant to punctuate (and are secondary to) the personal growth of the primary character.

When Paul Verhoeven made RoboCop, he had the fight of a lifetime with the MPAA, who wanted him to cut numerous pieces of violence out of the film. Those he did cut for the MPAA's sake were unfortunate, as they help the sequences make more sense, but thankfully his main point was preserved. However, the studio also tried to foist a more heavily-censored cut on Australia, which drew major protests. I'm always thankful that I saw the uncensored version of the film eventually, as even the MPAA cut is good at teaching that violence has consequences (a lesson that seems lacking in society these days).

Were these people to offer me a censored, PG-rated RoboCop, my first act would be to tell them their mother mates out of season, and my second would be to report them to the MPAA. Not because the distributor is offering people a sanitised version of Verhoeven's work, but because they might fool people into thinking that the garbage they're offering is Verhoeven's work. I'd probably also contact Verhoeven and recommend he sue these people for defamation, in fact.

[indolikaa]

Am I the only one who is outraged at the idea of sanitised versions of films being peddled to the consumer? What if the director or writer have a different audience in mind?

I am more outraged that it's being done under the guise that 'Good Christian Deeds justify the circumvention of Copyright Law' than anything else. www.cleanfilms.com screams hypocrasy in one of the worst ways I've ever seen.

[byoung210]

well after starting this thread, it's ironic that i now tell you i just cancelled my account with cleanfilms.com. why? because i checked out those ClearPlay enabled DVD players and decided to purchase one of those. they use the orignial DVD so the quality will be much better than what clean films supplied. it edits on the fly from what i understand. it will be interesting to see how well a job it does. plus there are different levels of editing you can use. you're not subjected to a final form that is edited the way the company decided.

[Matteo693]

Why are most people in this pathetic world so uptight???

[byoung210]

are you calling me uptight? 1) i don't care to hear vulgarity or see sexually or violently explicit material and 2) i have a son, so it's nice to know that i don't have to worry about him seeing something he shouldn't either. just because i view things differently than you doesn't make me uptight. it just means i have different standards than you might have. personally, i like that these options are being open to people like me. it's a nice alternative.

[Matteo693]

To answer your points -

1) Cool. Don't watch it, don't look for it, stay away from it.

2) Don't try & paint your "rainbow" across the rest of the world, brother, coz some of us are adult enough to appreciate R-rated (even X-rated) art. Protect your children in YOUR home, but don't go & try controlling what I watch in MY home.

Unfortunately, your sort of "morality" affects what I can watch on my TV set. That PISSES me off.