ISDCF KDM Working Group Distribution.

To: ISDCF KDM Working Group Distribution.

From: Peter Walford

Date: 12 July 2007

Subject: KDM Considerations in French and German National Film Agency Digital Cinema Proposals

Government and industry have a tradition of closer cooperation in Europe than is common in the United States. In France and Germany, a special tax on cinema receipts is used to fund their national film agencies, which in turn provide some financial support and guidance for their cinema industries. These agencies currently have a strong focus on the transition to digital cinema. In addition to assisting the different industry segments, their goal is to ensure maintenance of the creative diversity of the European film offering and to ensure the viability and diversity of the many small theaters in their countries.

This note summarizes the KDM related aspects of current proposals from these agencies and of studies commissioned by them. Its purpose is to foster information exchange and assist ISDCF in considering European issues and business organization in their deliberations and recommendations. It is based on the following documents published on the film agencies' websites:

Germany:

"System Specification for Digital Cinema in Germany", Dr. Siegfried Fößel et al., Fraunhofer Institute, commissioned by German Federal Film Board,30 March 2007. [In German].

http://www.ffa.de/start/download.php?file=/digitaleskino/FFA_Systemspezifikationen_V1.01.pdf

France:

" Digital projection in cinema. Provisionnal document of the CNC (national centre of cinematography)", June 2007. [in English]

http://www.cnc.fr/CNC_GALLERY_CONTENT/DOCUMENTS/UK/publications/digital_projection.pdf

"FAREWELL TO FILM? What Is at Stake in Digital Projection?", Daniel Goudineau, August 2006, commission by CNC.

http://www.cnc.fr/CNC_GALLERY_CONTENT/DOCUMENTS/rapports/rapportGoudineau.pdf [In French].

http://www.cnc.fr/CNC_GALLERY_CONTENT/DOCUMENTS/rapports/Goudineau_Version_abregee_anglais.pdf [abridged version in English].

Some of the recommendations in these documents (such as the establishment of a national database of server public certificates) would be controversial in the US. These things will not necessarily happen - they are part of an ongoing dialogue, and their applicability may be limited to local or European productions. The arrangements made by Hollywood studios and other US entities may be quite different, and each company should definitely rely on the information provided by their local people in Europe.

However, it will be beneficial to the entire industry if ISDCF considers these European business and technical issues in preparing their recommendations. The ISDCF reports and recommendations should be applicable and and adoptable internationally as well as domestically in the US. This will lead to the fastest rollout of digital cinema by reducing uncoordinated and incompatible development and business practices in different countries. It will also reduce cost by avoiding burdening exhibitors and other parties with multiple solutions to the same problem. The work of ISDCF is very much appreciated in Europe, as indicated by the following quote from the June 2007 document of the French CNC:

" ..two crucial questions concerning the interoperability of equipment and film recording supports have only been very partially addressed by the SMPTE's work...

However, given the very tight schedule, the best solution is probably to take action by defining the good practices to be maintained between professionals in liaison with the American association ISDCF"

Proposals common to both French and German recommendations

A. National certificate database. This would contain the public certificates of all equipment installed in cinemas required to generate KDMs. Note that the French and German databases are independent of each other. Particular characteristics:

1. Each database managed by trusted independent organization, either the national film agency itself or service provider contracted by national film agency.
2. Certificates supplied by installer company or exhibitor.
3. Real-time secure update mechanism required.
4. Database accessible to all entities requiring access to certificates - exhibitors, distributors, installers, KDM service providers,...
5. Indexed by theater.
6. Redundant system with 24/7 operations support.
7. Certificates can be cached by entities generating KDMs.
8. Internet-accessible index of cinemas with Digital projection capability [French proposal only].

B. Government-managed certification of entities. Companies that produce and transport DCPs and companies that generate KDMs should be certified to ensure interoperability and trust:

1. French proposal favors creation of national test platform open to industry with publication of results.
2. German proposal. National film agency certifies post houses and DCP producers for color correction, DCDM construction, DCP generation. Agency can then match certified companies to the particular requirements of companies seeking providers.

C. KDMs should be provided to allow DCP playout in all auditoriums of the theater. Logs can be used by distributor to verify screenings correspond with distribution agreement.

Selected proposals from German recommendation.

A. KDM Service Providers. The Fraunhofer specification envisions that exhibition KDMs would be created and managed by a [limited] number of specialized companies known as KDM Service Providers: "Central, independent entities equally recognized by all parties should be entrusted with KDM generation. The gatekeeper function from one party is to be avoided." Particular characteristics:

1. KDM Service Provider commissioned by distributor, who specifies KDM validity.periods.
2. Content keys sent to KDM Service Provider in "studio" KDM encrypted with KDM Service Provider public-key. Specification includes some security requirements for systems that extract content keys from "studio" KDMs, such as system not accessible from open network, etc.
3. KDM Service Provider generates KDMs for theaters, using "content authenticator" field to refer to certificate of production house that generated DCP.
4. KDM Service Provider uses equipment certificates retrieved from national certificate database to generate KDMs.
5. Logs are uploaded to KDM Service Provider which processes them and distribute results to distributor, content provider and/or other rights owners.

B. KDM distribution technologies:

1. Internet.
2. Push through analogue or ISDN connection.
3. Good old USB sticks.

C. KDMs should be sent 48 hours before schedule screening and KDM window should open 24 hours before screening.

Selected proposals from French recommendation.

The 2006 Goudineau report commissioned by the CNC was a thorough analysis of requirements for the transition to digital cinema in the French cinema business environment. Daniel Goudineau, Director of France Televisions, was given extensive resources for the report and interviewed a large number of experts from all sectors of the French cinema industry as well as experts from elsewhere in Europe and the USA. The report very much helped focus the French industry on the coming transition. However, some of its recommendations are being revisited as the industry learns more and considers other alternatives. In comparison, the June 2007 interim report prepared by CNC staff is considerably more modest in scope.

The Goudineau report recommended that the CNC issue an RFP and select a single central service provider to generate all exhibitor KDMs for France. However, the June 2007 interim CNC report notes that there is no “minimum consensus” for this approach and that legislation would probably be required to make it possible. The interim report includes some specific requirements for companies that generate KDMs but does not go so far as the German specification in recommending that only specialized KDM Service Providers perform this function.

A. The interim report slightly favors a model where the exhibitor has more responsibility for ordering and financing required services and equipment, with government regulation ensuring the quality of the supplier companies.

B. Exhibitors should be responsible for providing log files to distributors. Exhibitors could delegate this to service providers.