Originally Posted by MarkHotchkiss
I agree with everything you say, except maybe for the appropriateness of a technology like Cinavia.
I don't work in post-production, I work in principal photography. As such, I am very protective of the studio's right to a profit. I am dead set against illegal copying, and I pay for every movie I see or buy. After all, it is what pays my salary.
I go to the theater often. I must have heard / not heard Cinavia a few times, but I must admit that I don't know what it would sound / not sound like. But that really isn't the point.
It's true that the artistic and financial aspects of the business have always conflicted, but it seems to me that the artistic perspective has been especially diminished over the past 10 - 15 years. I suspect that you are working with people who accept Cinavia as appropriate. I can't say whether they are the majority or minority, but let me assure you there are many in this business who feel that it crosses a line. I feel that it crosses two
The first line, as I mentioned, is the artistic one. Simply put, it is the business people dictating what MUST be on the soundtrack. Some accept it, some won't. Most of the people I know on the artistic side chafe at the idea.
The second line is a legal one, and it affects me as a consumer. That is the doctrine of fair use. For the industry that I am a part of and have always supported to take away from me a right that has been granted to me by the US supreme court is just plain wrong. Are we being overzealous in fighting piracy? Or are we simply willing to ignore the law to increase profit. Either way, fighting piracy or profit, it should defer to the legal rights of the consumer.
My 2 cents (plus meal-penalty, overtime and hazard pay).
Mark.. you get paid meal penalty? In 20+ years, I've yet to. (hazard pay is another issue...)
I agree with all your points... and I'm not an advocate for the "appropriateness" of the technology.. I'm just saying the studios have a right to protect their investment.... if they do so in a way that isn't detrimental to the track, we have to live with it.
(And from a full disclosure point of view, we end up getting an extra day on the stage to do the watermarking process, so both me and my company profit from the technology.)
I can tell you that, in one studio's case, the use of the watermark didn't come from a post exec, etc, but the head of the studio... there is no choice for the film makers doing work for them (and this is one of the majors...)
So we have no choice...
My point is that, in it's current state, I haven't found it to compromise the integrity, either artistically, objectively or subjectively, of the sound track (the early version of the watermark were awful)... if we did, and the film makers felt it was, I'd be up in arms about it.
I'd been in front of the line with the pitch forks...
Im my opinion, and having mixed well over 140+ films, we do more "damage" to the track when we have to squeeze it into a compressed lossy codec like DD or DTS for film playback at lower bit rates..... that is much more audible than this process.
I think we are on the same page..
To the others who say a defeat of the system is coming, it will have to be on the playback side of things... there is no way to remove the watermark in a way that will not
damage the quality of the audio... to do that, you would have to have access to the non-watermarked master and re-encode/re-author the disc...
BD+, etc, were encryption solutions.... there hasn't been a system that I can think of where the watermark was embedded inside the content at a fundamental level (Marcrovision rode on top of the video, if I remember correctly, not "inside" of it...)