Utilizing the power of a multiviewer, the master control now resembles a network operation center, displaying the screens of playout servers, traffic systems, Ethernet network traffic, streaming delivery and management servers.

Multiviewer technology evolved from its origins in signage as video walls and large Jumbotron-style screens that were used in stadiums, arenas and presentations. These early displays were CRT video cubes and a variety of CRT, fluorescent and LCD technologies for the large indoor and outdoor displays. With the introduction of flat-screen technology for video and the image quality meeting acceptable standards, the displays began to appear as monitors in program origination, master control and network operation control rooms. Flat-screens became larger, and multiview technology appeared to maximize the use of the large screens and found its way into production control rooms and remote production vehicles.

There are a number of obvious benefits in using multiviewers as well as a considerable number of other not so obvious benefits. The use of multiviewer technology reduces the number of physical monitors. Using fewer screens for the same number of images reduces the power and HVAC requirements in the control rooms.

Changing technology

Multiviewer technology continues to evolve. It is introducing new concepts in monitoring and consolidating many features and functionalities that previously required a lot of outboard gear. The integration of audio metering, under-monitor and clock displays allow each source to have an audio meter if needed, an under-monitor display instead of white tape and multiple clock displays, which are just appearances in the multiview controller. As broadcast and production technologies become more IP-centric, multiviewers take on the additional role of monitoring the network and servers.

During the introduction of multiviewers into broadcast and production monitoring, they were separate devices and added outputs to the router and required a separate controller. This added cost, engineering, cabling and infrastructure. Still, there are considerable benefits: They occupy less space, need less power and do not generate the heat of CRT monitors. Space savings, while expanding the monitoring capability in control rooms and remote trucks, are substantial.

Using a multiviewer in a production control room or remote production truck provides the ability to have multiple configurations that are easily changed using a management dashboard in the image processor. There can be multiple profiles for different productions in a truck serving different productions needs for multiple users without having to do major repatching or rerouting.

Multiviewers are powerful tools that are now being fully integrated into routers. They are now cards in the router frame and use the same input cross points. The immediate benefit is that all of the sources on the router are available to the multiviewer without needing additional router outputs. This is a considerable cost savings in equipment and infrastructure.

Remote monitoring

A recent addition to the feature set in multiviewer technology is the ability to monitor servers and computers. This is a powerful addition in the arsenal of tools needed in today’s monitoring environment. Previously, one had to add a large number of computer monitors or rely on a KVM, and both required an operator to remember to check on applications that were running various processes.

Now, a multiviewer using remote monitoring connection tools (i.e. VNC) can display the screen of a server or computer. No different from signal monitoring if the operator sees a problem, they will route the signal into the quality control monitor that has test and measurement tools in the same path to diagnose the problem.

In the file and streaming ecosystem, in addition to the signal, there are dashboards and status screens for each application. If the operator sees an issue, he or she can use the KVM to call up that server or computer and either diagnose or take some type of corrective action to resolve the issue.

This means that software applications or servers that have dashboards for management or that show the status of the processes they are running can be monitored in a display frame on the multiviewer similar to more standard video feeds. A single display screen can show the rundown on the traffic system, the playlist on the playout server and the program material video with audio metering, the under-monitor display showing the ID, and the rasterized screen of a test and measurement system. Some systems use Web browsers to access their status and management screens. This means that there are computers with browsers dedicated to these systems that need to be displayed.

Monitoring has become significantly more complex. In production, recording to a server requires the server to be monitored the same as the video. Playback means tracking the rundown on the playlist. These are all on server or computer screens.

The multiviewer allows edit and graphic rooms to display on a single screen a lot more things. The multiviewer display can monitor running processes, without requiring multiple computer screens or multiple windows open on a craft production machine. In an edit room, having the audio meters displayed with each source is helpful as well as the under-monitor displays.

In master control, distribution goes to multiple platforms in many formats other than SD/HD-SDI. The traditional master control room had a variety of test monitoring tools. If there were problems, different types of alarms and alerts went off. Now, as the majority of these systems have become software applications, alerts are only flashing colors on computer screens. There are new software tools required for quality control management of files and streams. While these may run in an automated mode, once there is a problem, unless there is a display screen showing the application, an operator will not realize something is not right. The management screen needs to be monitored in the event of an alert. How do you monitor the return feed from a website? How many computer screens are required to monitor this?

The master control room needs more extensive monitoring technology. Multiviewer technology responds to meet these new requirements enabling master control to monitor all the signals, streams, servers and computers. This includes all the computer-based test and measurement tools.

Utilizing the power of a multiviewer, the master control now resembles a network operation center, displaying the screens of playout servers, traffic systems, Ethernet network traffic, streaming delivery and management servers. The management of transmission systems are on servers or accessed via browsers.

The multiviewer is a multifaceted tool with a considerable amount power to meet current monitoring requirements.

—Gary Olson is managing director, GHO Group.

In order to get a more accurate look at this industry perceives 3D and 4K, SCRI Broadcast Pro Video Research, in conjunction with Broadcast Engineering magazine, conducted a February survey among the magazine’s subscribers. While the survey covered a range of topics and key technologies, survey respondents were specifically asked about their plans to implement 3D and 4K technologies.

4K: here or tomorrow?

The results indicate that engineers and managers remain unconvinced about the need to immediately begin 4K production. In fact, the largest proportion of respondents didn’t even know when 4K production might need to start: 40.9% of TV stations, 57.9% of cable stations and 42.4% of production/post facilities.

Of those that reported either already producing content in 4K or planning to do so within two years, production/post facilities’ were the most optimistic about the technology: 37.5%, compared to 10.5% of cable stations and 10% of TV stations.

More TV stations, 24.4%,  believe that they will be producing 4K in 2015 or beyond, compared to 18.4% of cable stations and 15.3% of production/post facilities.  Only 4.9% of production/post facilities believe that they will “never” produce content in 4k, compared to 16% of TV stations and 13.2% of cable stations.

Overall, production/post facilities are the most bullish regarding producing 4K content compared to both TV and cable facilities. Perhaps that to be expected because production/post houses may be more focused on content life, rather than transmission. Television and cable facilities may be more focused on getting content to viewers and right now those pipes will not accommodate 4K bandwidths.

3D

Regarding 3D content production, there were fewer “don’t knows” than for 4K – 40.9% of TV stations, 27.5% of cable and 42.7% of production/post.   With respect to 3D, there were significantly more facilities that believe that they will “never” produce 3D content, 31.5% for TV stations (vs. 16% for 4K); 30% for cable stations (vs. 13.2% for 4K); and 23.1% for production/post (vs. 15.3% for 4K).

Of those that reported either already producing content in 3D or planning to do so within two years, production/post facilities were again the most optimistic – 28%. In the 3D arena, cable stations were also somewhat optimistic with 22.5% either already producing 3D content or planning to do so in 2013/14. TV stations lag behind in 3D content production – only 10.2% already do so or plan to this or next year.

TV and cable facilities are more likely to be putting 3D content production off until 2015 or beyond – 17.3% for TV and 20% for cable stations versus only 6.3% for production/post facilities.

Bottom line, production and post facilities are more supportive of 3D content production than either TV or cable stations.

4K vs. 3D

When combining the responses from survey respondents, it is apparent that:

•             There is still more uncertainty about 4K than 3D – 43.9% “don’t know” vs. 37.5% for 3D

•             Slightly more facilities are already producing content for 3D –13.6% vs. 8.5% for 4K

•             This reverses for those planning to produce content in 3D/4K in 2013/14 – 6.4% for 3D vs. 12.6% for 4K

•             Similarly, slightly more stations and cable facilities expect to produce 4K content in 2015 or beyond (19%) versus 3D (11%).

•             About twice as many stations and cable plants expect to “never” produce content for 3D (31.5%) as opposed to 4K (15.9%)

By When             3D           4K

Already doing     13.6%      8.5%

2013                     3.0%      5.1%

2014                     3.4%      7.5%

2015 or beyond  11.0%     19.0%

Never                   31.5%    15.9%

Don’t Know           37.5%    43.9%

* Measured over all survey responses:

4K technology comments:

In late January, SCRI ran a poll and asked for comments regarding the future of 4K. Many of the responses show skepticism in rapid adoption of 4K. Here are some of the responses. The entire comments section is available here.

• Paul Scott: Over and above the technical viability of deploying 4K, which I think can be sorted. This is very similar to the 3D question. It comes down to, “When will the consumer market demand higher resolution?” There has to be some value add hook. I see value in the “Multiview” application perhaps. That possibly would enable a single network to stream multiple HD feeds to a given user on multiple displays. But again with the consumer market moving to smaller more mobile devices does this make sense? We have all been working to create the “Bigger Better” viewing experience but I see the market moving towards a more mobile viewing experience. So in my opinion, we’ll have to create the hooks to make the market want to move to 4K. Bottom line!

• Patrick Sullivan: It’s just a little too early to scrap the 720P & 1080I systems. It’s barely paid for, yet, and there are some stations are not even HD yet…This is a set for a market that does not rely on current infrastructure. Theaters, etc.. Considering how long it took plain ole HD to launch, I think with 4K, and it’s big brother, 8K, it’s going to be years in just changing the infrastructure, much less Joe Average spending $10K + for a 55″ OLED 4K Flat screen!

• Ned Soseman: It’s a great production format but I don’t see it coming to living rooms anytime soon.

• Joel Appelbaum: I think the biggest impediment (in addition to major infrastructure costs) will be getting 4K content over existing cable and satellite distribution. It’s a lot more bandwidth and these providers are already maxed out.

Bottom line

•             4K appears to have the upper hand over 3D when it comes to the next level of content production

•             Even so, 4K does not appear to be quite ready for prime time until at least 2015 or beyond

•             This notwithstanding, the numbers show that 4K build outs could earlier as facilities seek to protect their investment in content life and delivery capability.

The full SCRI report, covering several technology issues (3D, 4K, Mobile TV, Video production in the Cloud) as well as equipment budget and purchase trends and brand and model shares  is available from SCRI or contact SCRI Co-Founder & Research Director, Desmond Chaskelson at des_chas@scri.com

The data and report is based on the results of a closed-end structured questionnaire survey of Broadcast Engineering subscribers. A series of three emails was sent to the list in Feb 2013 to obtain survey responses. The survey’s $100 incentive winner was selected at random from those survey respondents, the winner is Mark Mohesky, Media production Supervisor, Wichita Public Schools.

While Internet TV is only a small percent of video viewing today, Netflix said it will increase in popularity every year going forward. While detailing its predictions for the future of video distribution, Netflix gets to the point quickly: “Over the coming decades and across the world, Internet TV will replace linear TV. Apps will replace channels, remote controls will disappear and screens will proliferate. As Internet TV grows from millions to billions, Netflix, HBO and ESPN are leading the way.”

That’s according to Netflix’s “Long Term View,” a new document that lays out the company’s role in the battle with traditional television broadcasting. While Netflix agrees that viewers love television content, it doesn’t think viewers care so much for the linear television experience.

“ … People don’t love the linear TV experience where channels present programs at particular times on non-portable screens with complicated remote controls,” the company wrote. “Consumers click through a grid to choose something to watch. DVRs and VOD add an on-demand layer at the cost of storage and increased complexity. Finding good things to watch isn’t easy or enjoyable. While hugely popular, the linear TV channel model is ripe for replacement.”

Netflix said most of the world’s leading linear TV networks are moving toward Internet TV. The WatchESPN app runs on many Internet platforms and is specifically designed to showcase sports. ESPN will keep improving their app to try to stay ahead of MLB.tv, which is another Internet TV sports app.

The HBO GO app, Netflix said, makes HBO’s films and series much more accessible than on HBO’s linear channel. The BBC iPlayer app in the UK provides a rich and popular on-demand interface for a wide range of BBC programming. The other major linear networks are not far behind.

From a business terminology standpoint, HBO and ESPN are cable TV networks, and Netflix is an Internet TV network. From a consumer terminology standpoint, however, Netflix is a service and an app, while ESPN and HBO are channels, and WatchESPN and HBO GO are apps.

While Internet TV is only a small percent of video viewing today, Netflix said it will grow every year for the following reasons:

• The Internet will get faster, more reliable and more available;

• Smart TV sales will increase and eventually every TV will have Wi-Fi and apps;

• Smart TV adapters (Roku, AppleTV, etc.) will get less expensive and better;

• Tablet and smartphone viewing will increase;

• Tablets and smartphones will be used as touch interfaces for Internet TV;

• Internet TV apps will rapidly improve through competition and frequent updates;

• Streaming 4K video will happen long before linear TV supports 4K video;

• Internet video advertising will be personalized and relevant;

• TV Everywhere will provide a smooth economic transition for existing networks;

• New entrants (like Netflix) are innovating rapidly.

Eventually, as linear TV is viewed less, Netflix said the spectrum it now uses on cable and fiber will be reallocated to expanding data transmission. Satellite TV subscribers will be fewer and will mostly reside in places where high-speed Internet (cable or fiber) is not available. The importance of high-speed Internet will increase.

Netflix said its key strength is simplicity. “We are commercial-free unlimited-viewing subscription TV,” it said. “We don’t have pay-per-view and we don’t have advertisements. Those are fine business models that other brands do well. We choose to be the best at our model, and to have our brand stand for commercial-free, unlimited viewing and low flat monthly fee.”

Netflix said it could look decades into the future at the ways that people access entertainment. “We would no doubt see a very different image than we see today — mind-blowing video quality, a proliferation of screens, yet-unimagined natural user interface and an unbelievable range of choice.”

The full “Long Term View” document is available online.

Broadcasters, film studios and post-production houses are currently facing a major challenge in that the volume of generated video material is increasing dramatically. The result is a significant increase in the need for storage and archive capability.

Broadcasters and video archivists are also looking for long-term digital preservation. In most cases, the source material is not digital. Instead, it is on film that needs to be scanned or high-quality analog video tape.

A production and digital archive compression format, with no concessions in video content quality and the actual fabrication process, is the obvious choice — one that reduces storage costs compared to uncompressed video, while still maintaining indefinite protection from loss or damage. Such a format should preserve original quality, while also easily enabling the generation of most of the commonly used formats.

Several questions are frequent when selecting a format. What is the best physical long-term storage media for video content? What is a good candidate for a digital preservation? Can digital content be interpreted in the future? Various options are possible, and organizations have to decide carefully.

Today’s broadcasters understand the industry’s keywords: highest image quality, flexible delivery formats, interoperability and standardized profiles for optimal preservation. They also have a vested interest in a common high-end format to store, preserve and commercialize the avalanche of video footage generated globally. JPEG 2000 is the growing choice for master file format.

Digital storage keys

There are three keys to digital storage preservation:

• Ensure continuous access to content over time. Archive and storage covers all activities necessary to ensure continued access to digital materials for as long as necessary. This includes strategies to ensure access to reformatted and digitally-born content, regardless of the risks of media failure and technological changes. Quality preservation is crucial. A conversion system of archived items is important for dissemination or distribution.
• Everything that belongs together fits in one package. Archiving is an enduring process concerned with the impacts of changing technologies, whether it is the support of new media and data formats or a changing user community. “Long term” may extend indefinitely.

To standardize digital preservation practices and provide a set of recommendations for preservation program, the Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS) was developed. OAIS is concerned with all technical aspects of a digital object’s life cycle: ingest into and storage in a preservation infrastructure, data management, accessibility and distribution. Continued interoperability is strategic; one needs easy and fast format conversion, as well as playback compatibility between manufacturers. For instance, a master file format must not be linked to any specific application, production format or major user.

• Use open, well-documented industry standards — no proprietary formats. Ideally, focus on standards recognized and used for archiving applications. Open-file formats are published specifications, usually maintained by standards organizations, which can therefore be used and implemented by anyone. For example, an open format can be implemented by both proprietary and free/open-source softwares, using both types of software licenses. Open formats are also called free-file formats if they are not burdened by any copyrights, patents, trademarks or other restrictions. Anyone may use it at no cost for any desired purpose.

JPEG 2000 in OP1a MXF

JPEG 2000 is based on discrete wavelet transformation (DWT), scalar quantization, context modeling, arithmetic coding and post-compression rate allocation. (See Figure 1.) JPEG 2000 provides random access (i.e., involving minimal decoding) to the block level in each sub-band, thus making it possible to decode a region, a low resolution or a low-quality image version without decoding the whole picture.

Figure 1. JPEG 2000 is based on discrete wavelet transformation, scalar quantization, context modeling, arithmetic coding and post-compression rate allocation.

Functionally, JPEG 2000 is a true improvement that provides lossy and lossless compression, progressive and parseable code streams, error resilience, region of interest, proxies, random access and other features in one integrated algorithm.

In the video domain, JPEG 2000 is conceived as an intra-frame codec, so it closely matches the production workflow in which each video frame is treated as a single unit. Its ability to compress frame-by-frame has made it popular in the digital intermediate space in Hollywood. If the purpose of compression is the distribution of essence, and no further editing is expected, long-GOP MPEG will typically be preferred.

JPEG 2000 brings a storehouse of features to the broadcast process, whether ingest, transcoding, captioning, quality control or audio-track management is requested. Its inherent properties fully qualify it for high-quality, intermediate creation and masters archives. JPEG 2000 supports every resolution, color depth, number of components and frame rates; in short, the codec is future-proof.

The intra-frame quality of JPEG 2000 prevents error propagation over multiple frames and allows video signal edition at any given time. Two wavelet filters are included: the irreversible 9/7 and the fully reversible 5/3. The 5/3 wavelet filter offers a pure mathematically lossless compression, allowing an average 60-percent reduction in storage, while still allowing the exact original image information to be recovered. (See Figure 2.) The 9/7 wavelet filter still performs visually lossless encoding. JPEG 2000 offers uncompressed quality, with no concession in video content quality and an important reduction in bandwidth and storage consumption.

Figure 2. JPEG 2000 can be fully lossless or bit-to-bit reversible. Also, the intra-frame quality of the future-proof codec prevents error propagation over multiple frames.

Additionally, its scalability features a “create once, use many times” approach for a wide range of platforms. Easy transcoding of the codec appeals to high-end applications where workflows vastly benefit from transcoding to an intermediate version. JPEG 2000 ensures a clean, quick operation when bit-rate is at a premium. (See Table 1.)

Correctly transcoded HD1080p JPEG 2000 files compressed at 100Mb/s have been labeled “visually identical” to the 2K original footage by professional viewers. Furthermore, the wavelet-based JPEG 2000 compression does not interfere with the final — usually DCT-based — broadcast formats.

Post-production workflows consist of several encoding/decoding cycles. JPEG 2000 preserves the highest quality throughout this process, without any blocking artifacts creation. Moreover, all common bit depths, whether it is 8-bit, 10-bit, 12-bit or 16-bit, are supported.

Table 1. Shown here are typical profiles in use for the JPEG 2000 MXF OP1a master for preservation.

Uniquely matching current industry needs, standardized broadcast profiles were adopted in 2010 (JPEG 2000 Part 1 Amd 3 – Profiles for Broadcast Application – ISO/IEC 15444-1:2004/Amd3), ensuring this wavelet-based codec its benchmark position in contribution, while fulfilling the industry-wide request for compression standards to archive and create mezzanine formats. A variety of media distribution channels can be transcoded. The ongoing standardization process of the Interoperable Master Format (IMF) by SMPTE, focused on JPEG 2000 profiles, brings the adoption full-closure. The SMPTE standards also specify, in detail, how JPEG 2000 video data should be encapsulated in the widely adopted MXF.

Finally, a non-technical feature makes the JPEG 2000 open standard even more attractive for long-term projects; it is license- and royalty-free.

Other codecs

Most other codecs are proprietary. Some have compliancy issues and several limitations to support any video formats or resolutions. (See Table 2.) The MPEG family is ideal for last-mile content delivery to viewers, but not for production and storage, since pictures have to be post-processed.

Conclusion

JPEG 2000 has gained significant attraction as a mezzanine format.  Open and well-documented, the codec is future-proof and extendable. That said, it is not surprising that the Library of Congress, France’s Institut National de l’Audiovisuel and several Hollywood studios, such as 20th Century Fox, have selected the codec for storage and preservation.

Table 2. Looking at different parameters, JPEG 2000 appears to be ideal as a mezzanine file format.

JPEG 2000 is a codec like no others. It gives users a superior quality, control and a unique flexibility of the image processing chain. The growing use of JPEG 2000 to archive and create mezzanine files, and the ongoing standardization process of the IMF based on JPEG 2000, are just a few of its advantages.

—Jean-Baptiste Lorent is product manager, intoPIX

The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera uses a Super 16 crop (around 12.5 x 7.4mm) of the sensor used in its existing cinema camera, and an “active” Micro Four Thirds lens mount.

The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera uses a Super 16 crop (around 12.5 x 7.4mm) of the sensor used in its existing cinema camera, and an “active” Micro Four Thirds lens mount, giving full aperture control of native lenses. The ultra-compact design allows the HD camera to be used in more situations where a larger camera would not be practical.The camera captures ProRes footage at 220Mb/s, allowing it to fit 50 minutes of footage on a 64GB SDXC card. It offers magnified focus and focus peaking, and can output an HDMI signal with or without overlays for external monitoring.

It also includes a LANC connector for remotely controlling record, stop, focus and iris settings. It has external microphone and headphone jacks, a 12V power input and standard tripod mounts top and bottom to allow flexible incorporation into a shooting rig.

The 13 stops of dynamic range look of the Blackmagic camera is almost identical to shooting on a professional Super 16 film camera. The Micro Four Thirds lenses offer a wide range of low-cost lenses, and they are compatible with mount adapters such as PL mounts for large lens and professional motion picture film rigs.

Blackmagic also showed its 4K production camera, a new high-resolution digital film camera with a large Super 35 size sensor with global shutter, combined with precision EF mount optics and Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) file recording. It will cost $3995.

The 4K camera shoots to compressed CinemaDNG RAW and ProRes 422 (HQ) files in 4K, giving customers a complete solution to shoot high-resolution music videos, episodic television production, television commercials, sports, documentaries, news stories, interviews and feature films.

The wide dynamic range of the Super 35 sized sensor can be mapped into the quantizing range of the file so users can color grade shots to allow greater detail in highlights and shadows. When working fast, the customer can also record to regular Rec. 709 video files.

The Blackmagic Production Camera 4K uses standard connections. The camera features 6G-SDI output that can be down-converted to HD or used for Ultra HD video. In addition, the device includes a built-in Thunderbolt port and UltraScope software for real time waveform monitoring.

For audio, the camera features ¼-inch mic/line input jacks plus a 12V to 30V DC input, a 3.5mm headphone socket and LANC remote control. And with a built-in uncompressed audio recorder, users can eliminate post audio synching altogether.

RED CEO Jim Jannard wrote on the RED forums, “Seems like someone is nervous … it just ain’t me.”

RED wants Sony to stop the sale of and destroy existing models of its F65, F55 and F5 cinema cameras. Sony’s counter claim is that the RED ONE, EPIC and SCARLET cameras, various digital still and motion camera modules and accessories such as the REDMOTE, infringe on its own patents.

RED wants Sony to stop the sale of and destroy existing models of its F65, F55 (pictured) and F5 cinema cameras. Sony says RED is infringing on seven of its own patents.

Sony seeks both monetary damages and an injunction to stop the continued sale of RED’s infringing products.“Sony makes significant investments into the research and development of technology related to the cinema camera industry and intends to protect those investments against companies that infringe our patents,” the Sony suit said.

Sony’s lawsuit was filed in a Central District court in California. Sony’s announcement of the suit does not mention which Sony patents are alleged to be infringed by RED. The full lawsuit was not yet available for scrutiny. RED’s lawsuit claims Sony infringes on two RED patents with three cameras — the F65, F5 and F55 models.

After Sony’s filing, RED CEO Jim Jannard wrote on the RED forums, “Seems like someone is nervous … it just ain’t me.” He added that RED pays “many companies royalties to use patented technology.”

The lawsuits between a major conventional manufacturer and upstart RED have significant stakes in the battle for customer loyalty and the spending dollars of filmmakers switching from film technology to digital cameras.

Although Sony has been making video cameras for several decades, RED was the first to produce a camera with an image that essentially matched the quality of 35mm film.

In filing the original suit, Jannard said that patents exist for a reason.

“They protect IP. Receiving a patent now means that you have an obligation to protect it … or they have absolutely no value whatsoever,” he told RED customers.

Jannard and his companies are no strangers to patent infringement suits. In addition to its case against Sony, RED has been in court 10 times in other cases.

Colin Baden, now CEO of Oakley, Jannard’s former optics company, told Forbes the Jannard was always aggressive in defense of his company’s intellectual property.

“We’re very skilled at putting four walls around that IP,” Baden said. “In Oakley’s history, we’ve filed hundreds of lawsuits, and we’ve never lost one. It doesn’t matter how big the guy is. We have conviction over our work. It doesn’t matter who is doing the copying. It’s really, really not cool in our world, so we protect it.”