You’ve seen the Terminator…now presenting ‘The Ear-o-Nator?

The Ear-o-Nator

File under “unexpected:” the human ear is apparently as good an identifier as the face or the fingerprint, if not better. British researchers determined that by using technology that measures the ear’s structures, they can use the ear to determine who a person with accuracy up to 99 percent. As a consequence, some speculate that airport security, in the future, will be using this technology to identify travelers as an alternative to the tedious and often unpleasant screening technologies used now, such as multiple time-consuming ID and tickets checks.
A functional scanning system could simply and efficiently reveal whether or not that person is supposed to be traveling where they’re traveling and if they’re considered to be “dangerous” or on a do-not-fly list (though those are their own can of worms and one I can’t get into here for concerns of space).
It poses two major advantages to the facial scan system: it’s faster and it has the potential to be considerably more accurate. Whereas a facial scan would require someone to stand in front of a camera and be surveyed, an ear scan could be performed from one (or both) sides as someone passes through a terminal’s security system, making it considerably more efficient. Second, ears age much less drastically than faces do, making them much more consistent over years or decades than faces have the potential to be, as they don’t become wrinkled or deformed over time (except, perhaps, if you’re Evander Holyfield and have yours bitten by Mike Tyson mid-fight, ruining this entire system until new ear scans are taken, making it just that much easier to be identified as Evander Holyfield).
Ear scans could thus serve as an easy way to ensure that everyone is who they say they are as they travel, sidestepping at least some of the tedium of the present American security system with its constant (and often unpleasant) identification checks. But this still seems far away. Neither of the technologies that this is supposed to succeed – facial scans or fingerprint scans – have been rolled out yet for mass use by transportation security, though an ear scan would be more logical; it sidesteps the issue of germs acquired by a device that everyone would have to touch, like a fingerprint reader and can, as mentioned above, be performed far more passively (for the surveyed) than the facial or retina scan.
However, for obvious reasons, this could be a distressing, concerning thing. Many people don’t want the government – or any organization – to know any more about them than they absolutely need to, and the measurements of one’s ears, captured alongside a photograph, are the kinds of details that could easily compromise one’s anonymity, making it much easier to be sought out in a world that emphasizes surveillance. Unlike the face, the ear seems far more permanent an initially insignificant, making it all the more alarming that it may serve as the focal point for new trends in travel security technology.
Andrew Hall is a guest blogger.
Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

The Day the Studios and Theaters Stood Still

Sometime in the near future there will be an explosion heard only in the entertainment trades and whispered and talked about between studios, marketing executives,  theater owners and DVD retailers. The FCC gave everyone permission to enter this pissing match and what a pissing match it will be.

If you ever go to the movies (and many of us do) with more than 1 person – so two people attend a film and you have a child where you needed to hire a sitter, you might not be going to the theater so quickly anymore. Well, maybe you still will. Time will tell this one. Soon, a mere 6 weeks AFTER any movie starts playing in a theater, you will be able to watch it at home in the comfort of your ‘Aunt Fay’s couch’ (nod to Steely Dan) on your nice large LCD flat panel TV.  To help you To help you visualize what this means in numbers, there are about 115 million television households in the US. Approximately 100 million of them are currently cable, satellite or IPTV subscribers. Through these cable boxes (although not every one of them, only the ‘digital’ households that have a set-top box) you will be able to purchase the very same film that was JUST in the theaters 6 weeks ago on cable for $24.99 – called premium V.O.D. – video-on-demand.  BUT, the movie studios will be able to activate a technology to prevent films sold through video-on-demand cable systems from being copied.  This is the ruling that the FCC just allowed in May 2010 after a two year battle with the studios.

Right now, theaters get an exclusive period — 120 days (4 months vs. 6 weeks), on average — to serve up new movies. Then the releases appear on television video-on-demand services at a price of about $4.99. Now the studios want to offer us new movies on video-on-demand services about 45 days after they arrive in theaters.  But, you can’t keep a copy or make a copy (your DVR, VHS or whatever won’t work). Just like a theater, once its over, its over.

So, if you are more than 2 people (+ a baby sitter), and unless you are dying to see the film on a BIG screen, I guess you might wait a few weeks.

So, what’s the big deal? For starters, the theater owners, have made it clear that releasing a movie early on video-on-demand services — thus cutting into their window — would be the equivalent of declaring war. They feel people will be more reluctant to buy movie tickets, at an average cost of almost $8, if they know they can catch the same film just a few weeks later in their living rooms, and for less money than it costs to haul the whole family to the theater. The average moviegoer spends more than $3 on popcorn and soda and the like, the cost of Friday night at the movies for a family of four can easily reach $45 – $60 — or much more in cities like New York and California.   And theater owners say this doesn’t take into account second-run and discount theaters, and that there are big exceptions: “Inception,” for instance, was still raking in millions in theaters 10 weeks after its release.

Next up, DVD retailers are fuming – Best Buy and Wal-Mart have told the studios they will retaliate against anyone who tries early-release V.O.D. because of the threat it poses to DVD sales. Huh, what DVD sales? The DVD is going the way of the CD in case anyone hasn’t noticed. Blockbuster just filed for bankruptcy. DVD sales for the year are expected to total about $9.9 billion, down 30 percent from their peak in 2004  (about $13 billion), according to Adams Media Research.

Who is the big winner here? The Studios (or so they think) because as much as 80 percent of that early V.O.D. revenue goes to them, therefore movie executives see a new way to compensate for their dwindling DVD business. And the studios are aware that consumers are growing impatient about being unable to access all movies whenever and wherever they want. An early video-on-demand option might prevent some of those frustrated customers from turning to pirated copies.

So where’s the flaw in this plan? I have a couple of thoughts. First of all, the pay-per-view business has been an anemic business since its inception on cable in 1984 when Request TV, Viewers Choice and The People’s Choice (yes, this was my company back then). Part of the problems was with the windows given to PPV movies, part was the terrible job the cable operators did to market these films to us, part was the billing mechanism (it was archaic) and part was the fact that the VHS back then and soon the DVD was simply an easier option. Not to mention you could rent the same film on VHS/DVD so much earlier than on PPV and then buy a copy to own, to watch again and again.  Second problem is that you can’t keep a copy of what you fork out $24.99 for. This just begs for pirates to hack the system (and it will happen and supposedly already has). So forget the studios argument that an early video-on-demand option might prevent some of those frustrated customers from turning to pirated copies.  Maybe at first, but I have no doubt pirated copies will turn up on the streets all the same – now just earlier and better quality DVD copies.

The fact you can’t keep a copy is just self-defeating. Instead, what the studios SHOULD be doing is giving everyone a ‘cloud’ storage locker for say, $ 10.00-20.00 a year. Once you pay $24.99, the film goes straight to your locker. Then, its kept there to be watched as many times as you want for as long as you keep the locker subscription current each year. Sure, pirated copies will still happen but there is a much better chance that people will be more willing to pay the $24.99 IF they can watch it over again, anytime, and on any ‘authorized’ device you own (i.e. mobile phone, Galaxy ‘Tab’, iPad, etc).  Apple does great job with ‘authorized’ devices and computers.

I’m sure a studio would say ‘well, then your friends can come over and see the same film without paying for it because its in your locker’. Well, its in YOUR locker, not theirs and they can come over anyway under the present scenario. And this is the same ridiculous argument studio exec’s made in the early years of the PPV business.  It didn’t stop anyone back then and only help stifle the PPV business – a misjudgment they appear are doomed to repeat once again.  Will they ever learn from past mistakes?

So, will you pay $24.99 to watch a film at home you can only see one time?  You might if it’s a title you don’t really care to much to see in the theaters. Would you have seen Avatar that way?  NOT ME!

Enhanced by Zemanta