BitTorrent Blamed for Matrix2 Downloads 847
MartyJG writes "The BBC are running a story on how Matrix Reloaded is available via P2P. This time BitTorrent is taking the heat for the distribution - even though there's no company behind it to drag over the coals. The story speculates about the source of the copy, suggesting it's from a film or digital source rather than a cinema-screen-leech." Despite this piracy, the flick has made over $365M already. Including my tickets. Twice.
Matrix???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares (Score:0, Insightful)
How much is enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what it cost to make, but to whine that "a few hundred million isn't enough, those bastards are ripping us off" doesn't leave me with a whole lot of sympathy.
How much is enough, Hollywood?
Social Event (Score:5, Insightful)
So they suspect an inside job? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, sounds like the culprit is an insider! Perhaps someone should contact these guys and point out the "inadvertant error" in their analysis before the real criminals get away?
Re:It's only a matter of time (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a bit of a joke really ! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll take a bet 95% of people who have an illegal copy of the movie have paid to see it.
There's no substitue for seeing a movie like the matrix on a big screen.
Re:How much is enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Film source? Nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
The rental industry is getting killed by movie piracy online. If you're a fan of a film, you'll go to the theatre to see it.
But all those so-so films that you tell yourself "I'll wait and rent it", can now be downloaded free-as-in-hobo at your leisure.
Of course we only need justify this the same way as we do with MP3 'sharing'; Why should I pay to see a movie that only has one good character and the rest is filler?
Re:Still making their money.... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the surface, I agree with you - I've seen it, and even if I downloaded a copy I'm going to buy it when it comes out on DVD anyway. Yet, if I downloaded it, they'd claim I "cost them" $30 or so (1 ticket price and one DVD price).
But the fact is that it is their content and as long as it's available to you (currently in the theater). There's never been a good argument for piracy, but then there's no evidence that piracy is really costing them money anyway. I wish they'd wake up and smell the coffee - every time a newer, better, more flexible medium comes along they throw a shit fit, and yet end up making more money than they ever did before.
Here's a hint (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that large-scale movie piracy (and indeed, any piracy) is happening is an indicator that people are largely unsatisfied with the current prices and/or distribution methods.
Factual inaccuracy in the linked Article (Score:3, Insightful)
There was no 'co-ordinated worldwide release' for Reloaded, here in Britain we got it a week an a half later than the US.
There were a whole host of pirate versions on alt.pictures.binaries.divx before the film was even released over here.
As for a solution to the problem, I've seen the film at the cinema, and I'd buy it on DVD, but guess what, there is no legitimate DVD yet.
I'd be tempted to download a divx as a stop-gap until the DVD is released (in it's final, most complete version) but I know that divx files rarely play back with sound even with the latest 5.05 release of the divx codec for Mac.
Re:That's not how it works... (Score:5, Insightful)
Without a Compant To Go After? (Score:5, Insightful)
Howabout going after themselves? I remeber a few days before Episode II came out I had a copy...and it was terrible. Sure I watched it and was wowed but when the movie came out I still went and saw it. Now if YOUR OWN COMPANY leaks a pristine digital copy it seems to me that the problem is your own company and not a file format (.torrent). And as many people pointed out, Ive seen matrix twice now and I garuntee you anyone searching out reloaded on bit torrent is A. a huge fan and B. will or has already shelled out to see it.
If they start to sue individual users since there is no company ill boycot the 3rd movie. Just like ill never buy a CD again (i support my artists by buying a tshirt at concerts, that is where they make money) the only thing you can do these days is vot with your dollar.
You guys (and gals) talk so much shit about the MPAA but who pays their salaries? You do. Everytime you see the matrix / LOTR your paying their lawyers to hunt people down. Never forget that.
Re:Social Event (Score:2, Insightful)
Watched it on a projection TV from the edge of my pool, had a few beers, had a few friends around. Personally I preferred it like that. In my opinion the copy was good, no random heads in the way, sound was good too.
Most of my family went to see it at the cinema though - each to their own, I'm not a huge Matrix fan anyway (heresy).
Personally I'm not quite sure of the social advantage of seeing movies with a bunch of over excited 15 year olds (my local cinema).
Re:Link? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rental industry being HELPED by online sharing (Score:5, Insightful)
I've also heard that movie theaters are in far more trouble from video rentals than they could possibly be from file sharing. Who wants to go to some sticky-floor theater and eat overpriced greasy popcorn and pay $10 per person for tickets when you can rent a DVD and watch it on your home theater with your friends for less than the price of one ticket? Viewers are starting to figure that out.
These days I hardly ever go see big-release movies in the theater. I saw Spiderman and LOTR 1 and that's about it. Oh yeah, Attack of the Clones because a friend dragged me to the theater. I haven't seen LOTR 2 yet and I'm looking forward to seeing it, but I'm going to wait for a DVD rental. If that puts another nail into the MPAA's coffin, I'm all for it.
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
I beg to differ. I downloaded Fight Club off of some file sharing network a couple years ago. I heard it was good from a friend, but never got around to watching it. I was extremely impressed, so I bought it later that week. The same thing happened with Donnie Darko. There's something just *good* about owning a movie you know is good.
Re:Does Anyone Really Want a Crappy Bootleg? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdotting of BitTorrent (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Social Event (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Matrix???? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's a bit of a joke really ! (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no substitue for seeing a movie like the matrix on a big screen.
Too bad so many of the multiplex theaters don't have a big screen any more. Just 10 or 12 small to mid-sized ones.
If I have to watch on a small screen I'll watch at home.
They have to be kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of their target are probably 20's-30's, working males. Many of them downloading it are probably only filling the gap between when they no longer want to see it in the theater and when they can get the DVD. I did the same thing for LotR:FotR and LotR:TTT. I downloaded the movie, but the second that dvd comes out I"m getting the extended edition. Why? I want to watch the movie now, but I want the actual DVD when I can get it. Will I download Matrix Reloaded? Maybe. Will I buy Animatrix, matrix:reloaded and matrix when they come out on dvd? Of course. (And yes I realize matrix is out, I want to get it w/ reloaded though.)
350 million in a couple of weeks is not "'debilitating' for the industry no matter how they slice the pie.
But hey, at least bittorrent is getting some advertising in.
Re:How much is enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely. But in the case of copyright infringements against the copyright holders of the Matrix, this is not a valid argument.
The sole reason that they have special reproduction rights over Reloaded is because they are working for us, the public.
The entire point of copyright is to reward people who create original works. We reward them by allowing them sole reproduction rights over their works for a limited time. Then the works pass into the public domain, which they would have done instantly without copyright law.
The idea is that we are rewarding them for something we will eventually possess collectively. Creators are essentially working for the public. So I wouldn't say that we, the public, have nothing to do with their work.
Of course, this system is breaking down as our (the public's) property gets dragged further and further out of reach by extensions to copyright periods, copyright holders are attempting to extert more control than simple copyrights, and people are infringing on those copyrights more and more.
MPAA Shouldn't Freak .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Try doing that at home without the wife ripping your head off
I think it's an inside job!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Where can a high-quality version of this movie or any other movie come from than from the people who work with it in their own studios? That's where they need to concentrate their efforts if you ask me.
If it is available to download, then people are going to download it, including myself. But how did it get out there?
Think about it!!
Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't expect journalistic integrity but I'd like to see a longer-than-10-second attention span..
Re:Link? (Score:2, Insightful)
Btw, you act as if you can't both download the movie and watch it in the theatre, you can. Pretty much every movie I have watched in the movie theatre was prescreened by watching a cam/screener version of it beforehand.
Oh, and remember to wait for the credits to finish after the movie ends, you get to see a preview of Matrix Revolutions that is coming ( I think ) this
November.
Re:How much is enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
> wouldn't want someone else who has nothing to do with my work determining when
> I've made enough money from it and telling me I'm "whining" if somebody steals
> it.
Well, too bad. I mean seriously, you have no options to do that.
The two options are
1) You copyright your work. In that case the public owns your work after 14 years (I do not observe the new laws, explained below)
2) You do not copyright your work, in which case you have no say so anyways.
Copyright was made to 'determine' how long you have to profit before the public gets your work.
It was setup this way to better man kind by giving us encentive to create.
TO use copyright as it is now, there is no difference to the public if you make a copyrighted work and never let the public have it, and if you dont make it in the first place (The end result is the same, the public doesnt get anything)
Given the choices, I could care less if you stop making things. No difference to me than if you made it and dictate that i cant use it anyways.
Its people like you that dont care to see humans as a race advance, and just want to be greedy and horde everything for yourself.
If you dont want to give your work back to the public to better mankind, then stop bitching when the public doesnt want to help you.
They could've made more than $365 mill.... (Score:3, Insightful)
straight from the theatre (Score:2, Insightful)
as soon as i got home, it was already available on our apartment network. sheesh!
Re:Slashdotting of BitTorrent (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's only a matter of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow! (Score:1, Insightful)
Piracy isn't a problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
The only solution - zero day offical DVD's (Score:4, Insightful)
They can then offer the DVD later with all the extras, and most people would buy that too. At least for movies like the Matrix... it would probably only be a good plan for mega-movies and not smaller stuff.
...On this whole piracy thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
What you are stealing from a movie company, record label or software developer is a SERVICE that you otherwise would have paid for, not a tangible product, not intellectual property, not potential income, but simply a service.
By way of example, let's say you get a copy of Photoshop. Sure, it's $699 or whatever it goes for today and you wouldn't have bought it anyway. Fine, no argument about lost income then, Adobe can't claim a loss on something they wouldn't have gotten in the first place.
However, you now have the service of that program with no compensation to the author. It's not so much the copy of the program being a problem, but the fact that you aren't paying for the service it provides.
As an admittedly contrived analogy, let's say you grab a guy off the street and make him mow your lawn at gunpoint. You are benefiting from his service without conpensating him. Had you not held the gun to your head, you would have had to compensate him for providing the service. While I admit there is nothing analogous to a gun when copying software or a movie, the argument still holds.
What service does a movie provide? Well, assuming it's not an utter piece of crap, entertainment is of course the answer. Therefore, to get a copy of the Matrix and watch it and enjoy it is deriving benefit of the service that movie provides without compensating those that should be compensated for creating it.
THIS is why piracy is wrong. No analogies to stealing a car, no arguments about lost potential profits, nothing like that. Simply put, a service is being stolen, and that is wrong.
Since this is Slashdot, and everything has to have a Microsoft spin one way or another, let me point out that this is the reason that Microsoft is pushing for a service-based model of the world. If you use Word for an hour, you are making use of the services the program provides for that timeframe. Hence, you are in essence renting it. In fact, to force people to purchase the software as we do today is actually worse for us as consumers in many ways. If you rent a car for a week but only drive it for two hours on Monday, your still paying for that entire week whether you used the car or not. This happens with software too. Microsoft has come up with some essnetially arbitrary value and assigned it to their software. You pay that amount and use it as much as you want. You might think you make out good because you use the software so much that the price seems good, but you also might use it so little that when calculated your paying on the order of $50 an hour or something (I'm pulling numbers out of my ass to illustrate the point, they may or may not be remotely accurate).
Microsoft however recognizes the essential fact that what they are selling is not a tangible product, but the service of a piece of software. This is also why you license software rather than purchase it outright incidentally. By offering software as a service, as the marketing monkeys have told us they want to do, they are in essence charging us for the real thing we are purchasing from them, the service, rather than a convenient representation of that (the software itself in purchaseable form). We will pay for the exact amount of that product we use, not some arbitrary amount. Note that I'm not saying I'm for this, mearly that it is a more accurate way of charging people and in effect is charging for what is actually being purchased, which is not really the case today.
Re:Let's see (Score:2, Insightful)
First, the
Second, the
Which leads to the third part.. Go get one of the newer advanced BitTorrent clients. Some of them list all peers that your system can see, detailing their progress completion, IP address, and how fast they are moving data to-and-from you.
Now, who's to say someone from the **AA can't hop onto a tracker and get a bunch of IP's of infringers? Each infringer is hosting part of, or all of a file. These files are crc checked and everything, they can concievably prove that you are making this data available to all. These infringers have nothing to hide behind because they are chasing a single file, not 'sharing' or whatever else you want to call it on Kazaa.
Anyway, I love Bittorrent. It's a great way to do the P2P thing, but don't pretend you're invincible.
Re:downloaders are paying customers too (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the only issue with that argument, and erally the biggest problem with "piracy" in general.
Each candy bar has to be manufactured seperately. Each one uses up x amount of resources (sugan, cocoa, milk, etc) and is therefore intrinsically worth a certain amount, since it takes time and money to produce a steady supply of these resources (manpower being a resource as well).
A movie, especially in a digital format (DivX, etc) is produced ONCE. Each copy uses up no extra resources (except maybe hard drive space). Every time you make a copy, nobody has to get back in front of the cameras, rebuild sets, spend hours in a makeup room, no more cars are thrown of bridges and nobody spends all night creating complex computer generated sequences.
Once the movie is made, there is no longer any resources required to duplicate and maintain it. Therefore, it has no intrinsic value.
How can you really "steal" something that, physically, has no intrinsic value?
That's the real issue here.
=Smidge=
Say it with me (Score:4, Insightful)
Guns blamed for armed robbery
Airport security blamed for terrorism
Music blamed for school shootings
McDonald's blamed for fat people
I could go on...
Re:Slashdotting of BitTorrent (Score:3, Insightful)
Max
Re:Social Event (Score:2, Insightful)
No mention of Rocky Horror?! I think that would end it right there.
Re:How much is enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, "Artists and musicians" have rights, but they don't have more rights than everyone else. They don't have the right to sue new technologies out of existence just because those techonolgies may be used for copyright infringement. They don't have the right to force an DRM censorship system upon everyone, just because it may stop some people from infringing copyrights.
Your right to defend yourself ends when it requires you to take away the rights of many innocent people.
pirates should stop complaining (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually help pirate movies and games, and I think any attempt to justify my actions is ridiculous. I know what I'm doing is wrong; I'm not foolish enough to pretend it isn't.
The movie industry has the right to produce crap and distribute it however they like. They have the right to charge you $100 a ticket. And guess what... even if they did, you STILL wouldn't have any right to sneak into a theater or pirate the movie. If you think they're charging too much, or they're taking too long to get the DVD to you.. tough shit. I know it's painful to hear, but you don't have any rights when it comes to movies.. unless you've already paid your money.
It's absurd: Someone makes a product you want, but you don't need. They don't want to sell it to you at the price you would like to pay for it.. and they don't want to give it to you (in DVD form, in this case) when you want to receive it. Too damn bad. It's THEIRS.. they can do with it whatever they please. If you have a problem with it, then don't support them... but it's never justifiable to steal something you merely WANT, simply because you can't legitimately obtain it in a manner that would please you.
That being said... I pirate some stuff because I want it quickly, and half of the stuff I seriously wouldn't buy even if I couldn't pirate it.. For the most part, I just enjoy collecting things. If someone makes a product that I think should be supported, I pay for it. I do not think, however, that what I'm doing is okay. I just acknowledge that I'm not the most morally upstanding person around. Piracy supporters: Stop fooling yourselves.
This is different from sneaking in how? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the past those age-challened would sneak into theatres to see these R-rated films. It was almost a rite of passage. Many of today's kids are more tech-savvy and probably more likely to download a bootleged copy than sneak into the theatre. Yet I cannot recall one case where the MPAA complained about lost money due to people sneaking into theatres. Particularly those big ones with designated exit doors, where one could patiently wait outside until a patron leaves the theatre.
I'm sure the MPAA wouldn't try to crackdown on the theatres with relaxed security, because without the theatres, a lot of revenue is lost. 4 people can happily enjoy a DVD for $20 instead of seeing it in a theatre for $10 each.
Re:Slashdotting of BitTorrent (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure does. But IRC isn't automated P2P: you download from one person at a time, there is no centralized source for searches, etc. So, technically, it's "peer-to-peer" in the English sense of the word, but "server/client" in the technological sense.
Go see something that's not crap (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't be a sheep, see an intelligent movie.