Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Star Wars Prequels Media Movies

Bootleg Star Wars AotC Debuts on Internet 575

Arctic Fox writes "Matt Drudge is reporting that bootleg copies of the new Star Wars movie have been appearing on the internet one week before the movie's big screeen debut. The article says that they have used a tripod mounted camera at a pre-screening to tape it. Not known is if anyone is seen walking in front of the camera." I gotta admit, I find this amusing, although I'd never bother downloading it: I've had 12:01 tickets ready to go and there is no way I'm gonna spoil it watching a low quality divx.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bootleg Star Wars AotC Debuts on Internet

Comments Filter:
  • by Skirwan ( 244615 ) <skerwin AT mac DOT com> on Friday May 10, 2002 @09:52AM (#3496346) Homepage
    For those who haven't caught on yet, this is why the MPAA and RIAA dislike technology so strongly.

    --
    Damn the Emperor!
  • by dstanley ( 244917 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @09:53AM (#3496351)
    I downloaded a bootleg version of LOTR when it came out. It realy spoils the awe that accompanies seeing the film on the big screen for the first time. Having made the mistake once, I won't do it again. After all, the wait is just like waiting for Christmas as a little kid.

    Thats what I think, anyway.
  • by the_2nd_coming ( 444906 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @09:56AM (#3496381) Homepage
    well, if the MPAA would do a better job of searching folk before they let them come into the prescreening, then this would not be an issue would it.
  • For those who haven't caught on yet, this is why the MPAA and RIAA dislike technology so strongly.

    Oh yeah, these 'perfect' copies remind me of trying to watch softporn through static on TMC.

    "Standard" piracy isn't any better, or more widespread, than it was in the 80's.

    Sure there's high quality stuff out there, but there's high quality drugs out there too.. Which do you think you'll get a hold of?

    I think of it like Fort Knox:
    Where do you find pirated movies? The Internet.
    Where do you find Gold bars? Fort Knox.
    Where CAN you get pirated movies. The internet, sort of, if you know the FTP site, or manage to have a complete news server, then MAYBE..
    Where CAN you get gold? Fort Knox, if you have a small army with you..

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:01AM (#3496414)
    The movie is completed already. The MPAA refuses to sell you a CD copy of it, so they are leaving it up to the pirates to fill a market demand that they don't want to bother to satisfy.

    A large percentage of the piracy situation involves just this exact sort of situation: the material is out there, and the company won't sell it, so piracy flourishes. This has nothing to do with denying profits to creators, since they have decided that they don't want the profits by not selling it.
  • by Tom ( 822 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:07AM (#3496466) Homepage Journal
    The problem isn't that they don't like people watching their movies or listening to their music without paying. The problem is that they go way overboard with the actions to prevent it.

    When you shoot everyone with the same hair colour as the bad guy, you shouldn't be surprised that people start to hate you.

  • by soap.xml ( 469053 ) <ryan@pcdo m i n ion.net> on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:09AM (#3496473) Homepage
    If you give the DMCA any place to work, even with something like this, you are validating it as a law. The DMCA is not the solution here. It is simply copyright infringment. Plain, old fashioned copyright infringment. Its illegal, period. We don't need some stupid new law to tell us that. But my personal take on it is simply this. If you want to dl it.... go ahead. I won't, I'm watching it the day it comes out. Then I'll buy the dvd when it comes out, after lucas releases all of the dvd's Ill have a big star wars party and we will watch them in high quality, legally.

    Those with the low-qual divx may see it frist, but nothing beats the "big screen" :)

  • by grazzy ( 56382 ) <grazzy@quake.swe . n et> on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:09AM (#3496474) Homepage Journal
    why download ts and cams? i always wait for the dvdrips to come out..

    this movie is going to suck anyway and you know it. why not spend your money on some QUALITY movies instead that deserve your money, not this hollywood crapovera.

  • No Harm, No Foul (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:10AM (#3496490) Homepage Journal
    So, to see these you need to incur a gig of download and all you get to see is two crappy VCD's of a movie that's coming out next week.

    These are obsessed people, my friends. Nobody is doing this to avoid paying $8 at the box office. The people who download this will probably be first in line, dressed up as their favorite StarWars character. And they'll probably see it 6 times, even if it sucks.

    Noone is loosing money here.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:13AM (#3496514)
    well, if the MPAA would do a better job of searching folk before they let them come into the prescreening, then this would not be an issue would it.

    I wouldn't be surprised if it was an "inside" job. Like, one of the theater employees sets up a discrete camera and records it so he can impress his friends.

  • by pgrote ( 68235 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:14AM (#3496519) Homepage
    Have you actually downloaded it and watched it?

    Has anyone?

    In looking around I have seen files with the name, but they are always bogus. Big time bogus. Different movie, not large enough, etc.

    Has anyone for a single second considered that this could be a disinformation campaign created by the MPAA?
  • by samjam ( 256347 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:16AM (#3496530) Homepage Journal
    > Sherk ahd problems with feet and hands
    > interacting with other objects

    Not just sherk by the looks of it, LOL! :-)

    Sam
  • by pcardoso ( 132954 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:17AM (#3496535) Homepage
    I have friends with 100's of cds of movies downloaded from the net. as DIVX is non-streamable, there are some programs to make a valid DIVX file from a download from Kazaa/Morpheus/etc, just to check if the rest of the movie is worth downloading.

    I have friends with lots of movies obtained this way. If one of them downloads a new movie, it will be shared among all the others.

    The thing that strikes me odd in the previous post is the people that rename movies to fool others into downloading them. It's not like a few years ago in BBS were we had the upload/download ratio, and sometimes we just pumped something in with a goodlooking file name to be able to download something. These are p2p networks. They will get nothing more from the network, and will probably pay for the bandwith to upload the movie.
  • by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:19AM (#3496554) Homepage Journal
    For those who haven't caught on yet, this is why the MPAA and RIAA dislike technology so strongly.

    And you think this is really going to cut into Lucas' bottom line, how? If anything, this should stand as a perfect example of why such things don't matter because I'm sure Star Wars is going to make beaucoup bucks this weekend despite the availability of bootlegs.

  • What is the point? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dfn5 ( 524972 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:32AM (#3496634) Journal
    What the hell is the point? Episode II is going to suck just as bad as Episode I did, therefore, it isn't even worth downloading.
  • Re:Coding Films? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:38AM (#3496683) Homepage Journal

    I'm wondering why they haven't...
    [..taken steps to id and punish the guilty party]

    Maybe they haven't done it, because it would just discourage people from doing it in the future. This type of low-quality piracy probably causes less loss of ticket revenue than it makes up for in free marketing and hype.

  • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:40AM (#3496690) Homepage
    • [The people who download films] are obsessed people, my friends. Nobody is doing this to avoid paying $8 at the box office.

    Hmm. Sounds reasonable, until you consider the guy sitting right behind me. He's currently downloading four films to his home machine over his cable modem (using VNC to drive it from work) and has just started looking for AOTC (based on me telling him that it's out there). He basically downloads everything, just because it's free, and it's there. He's getting megabits per second that he's not paying for, he's got a 120GB hard drive, and CD's are dirt cheap. Downloading a film involves half a dozen keypresses, two mouse clicks, and bingo, it's waiting for him when he gets home.

    Would he have spent money at theatres to see all of those films? Probably not, but he's damn sure not going to now. The main point is that he's not a hard core Star Wars fan (he's too young), so it's not just the obsessives who are doing this. Remember, original Star Wars fans are all 30+ now, there's a whole new generation coming up who are seeing films not so much as something you go and watch as something you download to see if it sucks.

    I can quite honestly see why the movie industry is worried. However, I think that the solution is to make fewer and better quality films, and (personal gripe) to show them in theatres with a strict "Shut the hell up and don't bring your damn chattering hyperactive kids, you morons" policy, rather than doing what they're doing, which is dumbing down, going for quantity over quality, and shrieking for legislation to protect their profits.

  • by Nehemiah S. ( 69069 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:45AM (#3496710)
    If it sucks as bad as TPM did, then it might. I dl'd TPM and didn't bother seeing it on dvd or in the theater, and I will probably do the same here.

    By the same token, I dl'd matrix and saw it afterwards in the theater 4 times. Same with LOTR (I only saw it at the theater twice though).

    The point being that P2P services are hollywoods worst nightmare- because if everyone has easy access to free movies, they will only pay to see good ones at the theater. Lucas doesn't want to be forced to make a good movie, but he wants to make $200M anyway--so he will fight KaZaA etc. with everything he has.
  • by bluesninja ( 192161 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @10:53AM (#3496745) Homepage
    What nonsense.

    They did not decide they "don't want the profits." It's their property. They spent $140 million creating it. They aren't under any compulsion to sell it, profits or no.

    How about I come over to your house, make copies of your home movies of you getting banged by your boyfriend, and then sell them on the 'net. You COULD have made a profit from them, but choose not to. And you still have the originals, so I'm not really "stealing," am I?

    Nobody here but us rational economic actors.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, 2002 @11:02AM (#3496798)
    This silly little low-quality screener isn't what the MPAA/CBPTA are all about about, although it does give them more fule for the fire. What the entire media industry is terrified of is the ability to steal original quality digital copies and distribute them. All of these laws are being pushed so that the media industry secures their revenue stream.

    Believe it or not, in the not too distant future, we will have broadband capable of transmitting DVD qualtiy video quite capably. When movies and television broadcasts are released completely in digital format, the thieves will have a field day. This is what the media people want you to believe.
  • by gila_monster ( 544999 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {ds+kcalb.ni.relevart}> on Friday May 10, 2002 @11:12AM (#3496855) Homepage
    Fodder to support their nefarious schemes.

    Will this affect ticket sales? No.

    Will this cost Lucas anything? No.

    Will this in any way directly damage anyone? No.

    Will the RIAA/MPAA use this as a scare tactic to ramrod any legislation they happen to want? You bet your bum.

    Right or wrong, harmful or not, giving your enemy ammunition is a pretty stupid idea.

    gm
  • by Skirwan ( 244615 ) <skerwin AT mac DOT com> on Friday May 10, 2002 @11:22AM (#3496934) Homepage
    well, if the MPAA would do a better job of searching folk before they let them come into the prescreening, then this would not be an issue would it.
    So, let me get this straight... when they go out of their way to prevent piracy, via CSS or protected CDs, that's wrong... but when someone does pirate something, it's their own damned fault for not trying hard enough to prevent it?

    Double standard much?

    --
    Damn the Emperor!
  • by ClockworkPlanet ( 244761 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @11:27AM (#3496980)
    "Films are constructed. Every element is precisely inserted for greatest effect. Find out what it's like, drop the $9 and get your ass in line."
    Hilarious! You believe that, and you call me an idiot! Rich!

    Lucas makes it up as he goes along! He "inserts" things to appease his daughters and his bank balance, that's why every film after the first has been aimed at a younger and younger audience, and that's why his re-released versions took out the parts that made Han seem like a guy who sometimes did bad things.

    After the nice lady at your Anger Management Therapy slips you the pink pills, get her to read my comment to you.

    I said nothing that was an "attempt to legitimize crap presentation" I merely told how I enjoyed watching my crappy looking VCD copy, and explained how it, in TPM's case, looked appropriate, in my opinion.

    If you find that "offensive", too bad. It's only a film, not a religion.

    And try to chill out a bit, eh?
  • Idiots... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stubear ( 130454 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @11:48AM (#3497133)
    People who pirate movies like SpiderMan and Star Wars: Episode II (to name tow recent ones) only undermine the efforts of the EFF and groups like them to reign in copyright protection. Even if copyright were returned to 14/14 like the copyright act of 1902, these would still be gross violations of intellectual property rights. Think before you download this movie REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE IT IN THE THEATERS!!! By downloading this movie or engaging in file sharing of copyrighted material you are spitting in the face of those in the EFF who are trying to protect our rights.
  • by Kombat ( 93720 ) <kevin@swanweddingphotography.com> on Friday May 10, 2002 @11:49AM (#3497139)

    based on what Lucas turned out for Episode I, I'm not holding my breath for this one.

    What about what he "turned out" for Episodes IV, V, and VI? Or the Indiana Jones franchise? Or Willow? So with you, it's "make one movie that I don't like and you're permanently blacklisted?" Doesn't that seem kind of silly?

    Lucas has an excellent track record. I still hold high hopes for the rest of the prequel trilogy.

  • by Archie Steel ( 539670 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @11:59AM (#3497198)
    Lucas has an excellent track record. I still hold high hopes for the rest of the prequel trilogy.

    Unfortunately Lucas does not have a good track record as a director, nor as a writer. Said simply, he is rather poor in those roles, though he is a great producer. Of the movies you mention, the only one he directed or wrote (the scenario, not story) was Episode IV, which holds a special place in my hard but is definetely not a cinematographic achievement. It did create a new genre, and there's no doubt in my mind that Lucas is (was) a visionary. But from an artistic point of view, the second one (Empire) is by far superior.

    Why Lucas insists on writing and directing the new Star Wars is beyond me. By refusing to accept his shortcomings and play on his strenghts instead, he's wearing himself thin and turning out inferior films. Too bad...at least the geek AND film buff in me are totally satisfied by LOTR (now, that's some director!). I'll still go see AOTC, but I'm not expecting much. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong.
  • by cei ( 107343 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @12:04PM (#3497231) Homepage Journal
    I've met projectionists that might do this. It's not unheard of. Especially if the projectionist has unrestricted access to the print and keys to the building. He could do it himself, late night, and not even have to have it as part of an official screening.

    You have to guess that this is going to open on at least 3000 screens domestically. If it's opening in a week, it's not hard to assume that their distribution channels might have some of those prints in place already.

  • by Sodium Attack ( 194559 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @12:15PM (#3497333)
    Will this have any impact on ticket sales? Obviously not!

    Here's a post [slashdot.org] from someone who admits he won't see AOTC in the theaters, now having seen it on the internet. Obviously, it will have an effect on ticket sales. (How much is debateable, but it's clearly a non-zero amount.)

  • by frunch ( 513023 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @12:38PM (#3497514) Homepage
    Wow. Somebody needs to watch a movie instead of just watching the special effects. If you only watched Shrek, Roger Rabbit, and LOTR for the FX, you missed out, bud.
  • Re:Big Screen (Score:2, Insightful)

    by r_barchetta ( 398431 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @12:41PM (#3497531)
    Funny how times change. It used to be said that widescreen movies were unwatchable on any TV 20" or smaller. Now it's up to 40"?!

    Hardly. My 27" does quite fine thank you very much. Is it perfect or just like a theater? Of course not. But unless you build a theater to scale in your house, nothing will be like a theater. Even the 61" screens are still smaller than a movie theater.

    My so-called too-small TV works as well as it does because of the room it is in. That's an important factor here, room size. Or, more precisely, how far away from the TV you are sitting. If you can't get very far away then a 40" is, in my experience, worse than something smaller.

    It's all about perspective and environment. Screen size is a factor, but it's not the only factor.

    -r
  • by ianezz ( 31449 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @01:40PM (#3497945) Homepage
    So, let me get this straight... when they go out of their way to prevent piracy, via CSS or protected CDs, that's wrong... but when someone does pirate something, it's their own damned fault for not trying hard enough to prevent it?

    If, in order to prevent piracy, they also prevent (or greately encumber in a pure artificial manner) perfectly lawful uses, that's wrong. It's called "throwing away the baby with the dirty water".

    It's just simple as that.

  • by antistuff ( 233076 ) on Friday May 10, 2002 @09:12PM (#3500300) Homepage
    Who the hell do you think you are to say that meth is bad? If someone wants to do it that is thier buisness not yours. Second you got rid of your roomate for pirating movies? And your accusing others of being obsesive? You really need to get off your high horse, things arent so black and white.

The Macintosh is Xerox technology at its best.

Working...