Talk:Coded anti-piracy

Printer Steganograpy

A similar technique is used by printer makers, see eff.org for more info. I think this should be mensioned - Yosef. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.136.14 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 19 June 2006

Looks like this was

Done in Jan. 2007 in rev. 101850055. jhawkinson 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Link POV

I have removed this link from the article

Article on CAP codes from HardOCP.com

While I 100% agree with the assestment, and these dots piss me off to no end, I really don't feel that it's fair to provide that sort of link. It's a rant regarding how bad they are, and it's a point of view.--Robert Stone, Jr. 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"piracy" as a biased term?

In rev. 117756913 [1] (14:41, 25 March 2007 Guyjohnston (Talk | contribs) (Removed biased terms "piracy" and "pirated")) there's the implication that "piracy" and "pirated" are biased terms. What's the justification? Sure, they have a negative connotation, but so does "illegal." And indeed, there's a reason for that. I'm reverting the revision, because it's at least partially inaccurate. CAP does not "make it more difficult to make illegal copies of motion pictures," it enhances tracability of such copies. jhawkinson 17:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Opinion on this term runs the gamut from misleading propaganda by anti-piracy organizations to complete acceptance, as in the case of The Pirate Bay. I don't think using it is at all inappropriate for an encyclopedia, nor does it in any way compromise the article's NPOV. Furthermore, there is no alternative term. "Copyright infringement" is of broader scope and does not effectively transmit the implications of individual rather than systematic infringement, "illegal downloading" is misleading because it is not illegal in many countries, "sharing" is a pro-piracy euphemism... there is nothing that comes to mind. I prefer "piracy" because it is commonly used by both its proponents and detractors, and effectively communicates what we are discussing. No need to find alternative terms for something which is not in itself biased. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. If you look at his contribs he seems to have made 19 similar edits between 23:26 24 March and 15:35 25 March. I'm not sure what process should be applied here or if some of them might be appropriate... jhawkinson 04:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the term 'piracy' in this context is definitely a biased, point-of-view-pushing term, so it's not appropriate for an encylopedia. It's equating copying information (I mean just straight copying, not plagiarism), with attacking ships, stealing their cargo, and kidnapping and murdering their crew. Even if you think copyright infringement is immoral, I don't think many people think it has the same moral implications as that. From my understanding, that term was invented by some of the big media companies, to deliberately equate that act with the very immoral action of actual piracy, to discourage people from breaking copyright laws, though I don't know the exact history of the term. It's not an actual legal term to describe the act of copyright infringement. It's true that some people who are involved in copyright infringement use that term, such as the Pirate Bay and the Pirate Party, but I think they generally do that to turn the term back against the people who use it and to give it a different meaning, in a similar way to how some black people use the racist term "nigger" to turn it back on the people who use it against them.

I don't think the word 'illegal' has an overly negative connotation, as it's a fact. If an act is against the law in a certain country, saying so doesn't present a biased point of view. I think 'copyright infringement' is an appropriate term to use instead, as 'piracy' in this sense is generally used to refer to an action which breaks copyright law. I also don't think it's true that it "does not effectively transmit the implications of individual rather than systematic infringement", as neither of the terms 'piracy' or 'copyright infringement' tell you how many people are taking that action, and you really need to see the context to find out whether it refers to an individual action or a systematic action by more than one person.

Either way, if you still think 'piracy' is a neutral term which is appropriate for an encylopedia, and you want to change my edits back, I think you should ask a moderator or someone like that first, and see what they think, and whether that fits in with the policies of Wikipedia. Guyjohnston 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kodak CAP in frame as well????

According to the posts I've read at film-tech.com (which provided the bulk of the information for this article when I originally started it), Kodak's CAP has never been placed in the frames of the print, this was how it was designed from the get-go. This is according to a poster on film-tech.com who is an engineer with Kodak (IIRC), John Pytlak, who had a hand in developing Kodak's CAP. He mentioned in a post that it was compeltely different and not in-frame like the more intrusive Deluxe version. Therefore, I'll change the Kodak CAP section of this article accordingly.

Here's the thread if you don't believe me: ~~http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005347#000003~~ (apparently, film-tech.com's UBB.threads forum software doesn't like/allow links to forum threads (redirecting such links to its main page), just go to the forums directly, and search for the thread titled "MPAA, you suck!")

misternuvistor 06:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't think you should "deep link" to film-tech, most people can't follow the links because of Brad'd javascript~~. I'm well aware of that thread, you'll see I contributed to it back in 2003 several times. You seem to have misunderstood:

Look very closely at the Kodak CAP image on this page. You will SEE there are small black dots in the image. (If you're having trouble seeing them, let me know and I will circle them in red and give you a link to the image).
John was trying hard to be evasive about the exact nature of Kodak's CAP, and to indicate that it was not hugely prominent and distracting like Deluxe's CAP (He was in a difficult position of not being able to reveal most of what he knew, but wanting to be helpful). The post you cite doesn't include his statement in support of your claim, which makes it a bit tough to find his exact wording. There were a lot of post to F-T about this at the time, and it's hard to find all of them. On page 2, he notes "Face it, the original Kodak CAP code was pretty hard to find, both for the audience (good), and the FBI folks that had to pull the codes from the pirated videos (bad). I'm sure the new system offers some advantages."
On page 7, John writes, "The speculation about the details of the coding method was incorrect, but the photo is an accurate representation of the original code when it is printed with the optional edge numbers. The position in each frame is deliberately random, and the very small dots allowed it to be repeated hundreds of times in a movie. It took almost twenty years for people like "Carl Welles" to actually find the CAP Code, although the MPAA had been using it to track down sources of film piracy since 1982." I think this makes it pretty clear they were in-frame. I can't give you a good citation that most of Kodak's CAP did not have accompanying edge codes, but I am told it is the case (I can dig up a few so-so citations from F-T if you want). Do you have any good reason to believe otherwise, other than that one (Carl Welles) example to the contrary? jhawkinson 06:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my supreme idiocy and contrariness, now that you mentioned it, I just noticed that there are 4 very, very faint dots in the frame, and spread apart quite a bit (I failed to pay attention to the revised caption you wrote for that image), not all clustered together and boldly printed on the film like the Deluxe Labs version. I never noticed this from when I originally uploaded that image until now, I only noticed the edge numbers ("0126") printed in the sprocket area. I also must sheepishly admit that I didn't read that thread in F-T quite thoroughly, just skimmed what caught my eye. You are correct, and I was quite misunderstood about this (my memory possibly mangled what I remember of John's posts on F-T). Please forgive me while eat a piece of humble pie... :) misternuvistor 05:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference?

The patent application for CAP is available online at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20040109016.html

Is that a credible reference for this article? Wikipedia XP 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. though it would best to reference it via the actual Patent No. (7,206,409), rather than the application number. How did you come across this? jhawkinson 23:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this after some quick searching, using Google. Wikipedia XP 00:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons?

That thing about The Simpsons isnt true, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.236.166 (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section removed per WP:CITE. -Thatdog (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coded anti-piracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Coded anti-piracy (CAP) on a 35mm film print 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]