Harry Potter & The Chamber of Secrets Leaked 782
huh12312 writes "Illegal piraters have done it again. On Monday, the second movie in the acclaimed series of seven was leaked onto the internet to the horror of Warner Brothers. With so many blockbusters due out this holiday season this problem will only increase in the coming months." Also note that it will make millions and millions of dollars anyway. I'll probably be there opening night.
Big deal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Big deal (Score:3, Funny)
When did they make a book out of Harry Potter?
Re:Big deal (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually heard people bitch and moan at the end of Fellowship of the Ring, because the movie stopped in the middle of the story, and they'd have to wait a full year to find out the next part.
Eventually, someone yelled "Its a classic book! Go buy it and read it and you'll know the whole trilogy before the next movie comes out!"
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Funny)
As a modern man, I demand that my only sources of entertainment involve moving pictures. I also demand that the fast food industry be held accountable for my weight problem.
-Lucas
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Funny)
-Lucas
George? Is that you?
Re:Big deal (Score:4, Funny)
I'd carefully explained to her beforehand that it's a trilogy, but apparently hadn't made it clear that there were going to be three movies. Now, I'll be seeing The Two Towers on my own, but she said she'd join me for Return of the King. ("That ends with them throwing the ring in the volcano, right?" Well, it doesn't end there. They go home and some thugs have taken over the Shire and...I mean, yeah, that's how it ends.")
Incidentally, we finally got around to seeing the first Harry Potter a few months ago, and it is _terrific_! I don't understand why people were so ambivalent about it. I'd read the book but am hardly a buff, and thought it was superbly cast, written, acted, costumed staged and shot.
Re:Big deal (SPOILER!) (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, that's exactly how it ends. There is no retaking of the Shire in the movie. Saruman dies in The Two Towers
Uh...what about Frodo and Bilbo and Gandalf departing from the Grey Havens? And Merry and Pippen, etc., riding back to Hobbiton without them? That was one of the best parts of the book -- incredibly sad, poignant, and CUT OUT OF THE FRICKING MOVIE?!?!?!?!?!! Come on!!
You mean that Glenn Yarbrough won't sing the Road goes ever on and on? Are you telling me the animated fricking Kasey Casem version has a better ending that the Peter Jackson one?!?!??? I feel so betrayed! Galadriel had better show her f-ing tits, or I'm definitely not going to see Return of the King.
Re:Big deal (SPOILER!) (Score:3, Funny)
LOL That was classic.
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
"Jeez, they left that one wide open for a sequel."
For the record, I think the MPAA has a lot less to worry about from internet leaks than the RIAA. The theatre is a good place to watch a movie, most of the time (if you wait a week or two or even three for the big releases, or your movie is a little more undeground, you have less people even.) Don't underestimate the environment. I listen to music in my car, mostly.
The avg. movie still is around 700 megs big and often has bad compression artifacts. An album is of course, smaller.
Unless, of course, it's a really bad movie, one of those that they don't show to reviewers first, and they download a copy and tell everyone it's shitty.
Of course, occasionally the power of people to detect crap is amazing. Only occasionally. The Cast Away movie with Madonna only grossed a couple hundred grand the first week. More money than I will ever make, but maybe it'll be a lesson to the studios.
Well, (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Big deal (Score:3, Funny)
It's probably faster to say "It's probably faster to say 'faster than average' rather than better," rather than better.
-If
Re:Big deal (Score:3, Funny)
Trolling for congress? (Score:4, Interesting)
unintentional, I think the mpaa might be releasing them
in this fashion just to prove there is a problem, has anyone noticed the quality of the 'pirated prerelease' versions lately?
Re:Trolling for congress? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Trolling for congress? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh. That a movie has been leaked is bad. The MPAA is responsible for everything that is bad. Therefore, the MPAA must be responsible for the movie being leaked. That's the logic, right?
I can see why you would like to feel like you're standing on high moral ground when watching this movie on your box for exactly $0, and saying that the MPAA leaked it intentionally provides that ground. But merely wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. This is +4? Slashdot these days...
Re:Trolling for congress? (Score:5, Insightful)
The MPAA claims that they need ultra-strong protection to avoid movie leaks.
They currently don't have these protections and look...
See? We need these protections.
Needless to say they could guarantee that the "crisis" occurred by leaking it themselves. (This is not saying that they did, but that's the logic of the original post, not leak == bad, mpaa == bad therefor leak == mpaa)
I AM A BIG FAT TROLL! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm the guy that did the screen cap. I worked as an independ contractor hired by the MPAA.
They has a special section roped off for me at the sneak preview, and stressed that I wasn't too careful about the quality -- they just wanted enough of a teaser to get people into the theater. The bigwigs figure that for the price of a crappy download that nobody will be able to watch all the way through, they get advertising that can't be beat!
Re:Trolling for congress? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have heard it told - not witnessed myself, mind you - that some of the "theater tapings" have been made in completely empty theaters, with only the camera running, and often before the official release date.
The theaters HAVE to get the film before opening day, after all... well before it in most cases, because you do NOT want to have half a premiere because of some fedex delay.
Couple that advance availability with just one owner who feel philanthropic, and you have a very high quality theater recording hitting the streets in advance of the release.
Re:Trolling for congress? (Score:3, Interesting)
It also occured to me that you can avoid vagaries of couriers by having local "staging points" - non-theater people, presumably your own employees, that recieve the movies a few days in advance, in the various towns (so no courier problems), then take them out the night before to the theaters.
Re:Trolling for congress? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trolling for congress? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Trolling for congress? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, your first major assumpion: If these people really believe that the internet is one big conduit to steal music and movies
Lets get real people. They don't belive this any more than Phillip Morris belived that smoking was healthy. These people are in the buisness of making movies based on the statistical sampling of a population (to determine what will sell). Don't you think they have access to the very same statistics you and I do?
They -=know=- just as well as we do that they're not loosing revenue to pirated movies. The numbers aren't there. They -=know=- that the overwhelming majority of their target audiance for every movie they release (execpt maybe Sneakers or whatever) is so technologicaly clueless as to require tech support to find the "any" key.
Given that, what would you do? Push Congress to enact tougher laws daming the P2P flow. Why? Because while your target audiance may not be tech savy today, in 30 years -=our=- kids (who are damn sure going to be recompiling the kernal when they're four are going to be the target audiance. And then they -=will=- loose money hand over fist.
Furthermore, creating this kind of situation does allow price fixing! If enough Senators and Congresscritters are convinced that the Movie Industry really does need to change $9.55 for a ticket to re-coup the costs of movie piracy then there is no way in hell the Justice Department will ever prosecute (yes, I know the JD isn't run by the Congress, I also know what log rolling is).
Remember, all the figures here are ethereal. HPACOS may shatter all box office records. But the MPAA can still point to Kazaa and say, "
Well, we can find some 1.3 Million copies of this file world wide, which indicates that we lost (9.55 x 1.3Million) 12.4 million in potential revenues."
As long as the MPAA counts every downloaded movie as a lost ticket sale (and probably a lost VHS sale, a lost DVD sale, and several more for the various special editions) they will never loose this argument. They will -=always=- be in the hole because the ASSUMPTION is that they are in the hole. No data can exist to disprove the assumption because in order to get that data you need to get 1.3 million people (or whatever) to admit to commiting a CRIME.
Re:Trolling for congress? (Score:5, Insightful)
The number of people that are able to download movies P2P *
is probably going to cost them about $200 bucks.
Then factor in how much they'd lose in DVD sales eventually to the hard-core fans that aren't morally shy about downloading a DivX rip off Kazaa. If that would be substantial, they can release their own crappy-quality leak that will be instantly proliferated throughout the community, since it's the only one there at first. This will make finding the high-quality rip that will eventually be made from a DVD that much harder. It's much more insidious a way to spoof than just having void files that are the same size, ala the RIAA, because plenty of people will download and share it, thinking they've got the "real" version and not knowing there's a much better one out there.
Add to that the publicity value in the war against terrori^H^H^H^H err pirates to "Congresscritters" and the public. "Hollywood bribes Democrats, Republicans" doesn't capture the public headlines as well as "Hollywood campaigns to combat pirates" - "Avast, ye scurvy dogs" says Jack Valenti.
I'm not saying the MPAA is behind this leak, I'm just saying that, if they weren't, the might want to think about it...
Re:Trolling for congress? (Score:4, Insightful)
it's the end of slashdot as we know it (AIFF) (Score:4, Funny)
I'm speechless.
Re:Noooo.... it's all PR (Score:5, Funny)
The sound you just heard... (Score:5, Funny)
This is Harry Potter. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The sound you just heard... (Score:4, Funny)
I'll give you that. But, did they make a sound?
How many geeks does it take to
Was it leaked to the cinemas too? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well the release date is this Friday but they had advanced previews last weekend at pretty much every cinema in the country.
Re:Was it leaked to the cinemas too? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Was it leaked to the cinemas too? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Was it leaked to the cinemas too? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not like the Phantom Menace reels that got stolen, or a Work Print leaked from the studio. It's just business as usuall, the only difference here is the movie was released in the UK a week before the US.
Re:Was it leaked to the cinemas too? (Score:3, Funny)
That's a relief; I thought it was worse than that. I made it into the site [nforce.nl] and when I saw all the ASCII-banner decorations, I was afraid they'd gotten the ASCII-Wars [asciimation.co.nz] guy to render the HP sequel.
Thats Strange.... (Score:4, Informative)
Tony.
Of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
That movies are always going to be leaked and pirated should be no surprise to the studios. And it shouldn't worry them: even the pirates will pay to see the movies at the big screen - those who care about watching a flick will want to see it *properly*; those who would only pirate the film would doubtless have waited for the video release, at best, and the TV release at worst.
Re:Of course... (Score:4, Interesting)
1) in the theatre, with big sound, good video, and a air-conditioned room and,
2) in my home theatre, with a pause button when i want a snack
however, i wouldn't discount suspicions that the movie biz leaks these movies themselves not only to get free press from it ( CNN will cover is as they are in bed with AOL/TW, and the others will probably do it too in the end) but these "constant" leaks will only provide more backing for any pending DMCA or other MPAA litigation
Re:Of course... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or worse, they tell you what happens in the movie. I make sure I always get good seats and tickets a few days ahead of time to see a movie, and it becomes increasingly annoying when your friend thinks he's l33t because he saw the movie before it was released. That's probably my biggest annoyance. People who go to the theaters now are considered "Pigeons", at least in the teenager group.
That's why I love it when they AIM me and say "Shit! I spent 5 hours downloading a movie and it was blank!"
Re:Of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your average teenagers go to real movies in the theater-- why? Getting together with friends and socializing. Going on a date with a girl. Getting out of the parents' house. These sort of things are as important to the average teenager as the movie itself a lot of the time.
Trust me on this. Movie-watching is one of those classic, tried-and-true places for teenagers to get together. It's not going away.
Re:Of course... (Score:4, Funny)
Somehow I still think that the solution to your problem is not some form of copyright protection, but new friends.
Re:Of course... (Score:3, Interesting)
Same applies to TV. I want to talk about the latest episode of 24 - which I can do so if I wait until MARCH for it to air in the UK. However I dont want to find out what happens in the last episode. I got "Lone Gunmanned" on 24 series 1 - There was a story on slashdot saying something like "Dells are evil". I read it, halfway down it said "The mole used a dell". Didnt mention 24, but it was obvious. Of course after that I went looking for who was using a Dell. It was arround noon, and Alberta greene was using one - but she didnt last. I knew nina was the mole at arround 4PM.
Hence this series I download the VCD's, watch them in at least VHS quality, on my widescreen TV, with my girlfriend. No danger of spoilers on slashdot either.
mirrors please (Score:4, Funny)
you could have saved us the trouble of looking for it on kazaa.
This is old news.... (Score:5, Funny)
Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly a comparison to the movie on a big screen.
It's also not like you can't read the book to find out the ending, sheesh.
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Funny)
Not only that but you can't watch it with Commander Taco. I know my kid would be screaming if I tried to go a Harry Potter movie without the commander. Fortunately, the folks at Warner Brothers realize this and won't be too upset over the whole affair.
Now if I can only keep him from spilling his soft drink on me when he tries to get past us, then I would be happy...
Illegal piraters?? (Score:5, Funny)
Illegal piraters?
Wow, President Bush reads Slashdot!
What?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, okay, so piracy is okay. Thank you for your social commentary "CmdrTaco," I'll be sure not to feel bad when I download it and the company doesn't get my money for a movie ticket or DVD purchase.
Re:What?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Siphoning gas from your neighbours tank is dead simple. But people don't do it. Why? It's stealing.
But explain to me why people don't mind steal^H^Hcopying movies/music/etc when clearly there are so many other things that can be easily stolen in life? Gee, maybe because its not stealing. Its copying. And yes, it can be terribly immoral (ie, selling bootlegs for profit, or downloading movies to circumvent renting or theatre going altogether.)
Also note that copyright holders' rights have never been 100% protected. If you listen to a CD at a friends house, I could easily make the case that you're stealing the music because _you_ didn't buy the CD.
If you wanna build a case for the immorality of copying content without paying for it, at least respect that a majority of peoples' behaviours dictate the morality. Morality isn't simply somebody or some group passing a law; that doesn't make breaking that law intrinsically immoral. I'm tired of folks using whats set in law as the yard stick of morality. There are plenty of legal things I can do to you that is immoral, and there are plenty of illegal things I can do that are moral.
> Or the best: if I can download this movie for free, it will encourage me to steal^H^H^H^H^H buy more DVDs!
That might be a valid point if you had any real (not annecdotal) evidence backing it up. I can understand your reasoning (if you can have it for free, why would anybody rent the DVD)
If you want to convince anybody that copying movies and music is bad, you might start with explaining why the amount of people stealing music and movies is so much higher than people who steal ungaurded physical objects. You'd probably also want to make sure that you viewed the rampant cassette copying of the 80s as highly immoral as well for consistancy (in addition to recording TV, recording the radio, etc).
+4 Interesting my fat, hairy ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Hide behind semantic hair-splitting all you want. It won't make a difference.
Re:+4 Interesting my fat, hairy ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Killing someone is murder.
Oh, wait, except when the fetus isn't born yet, then it's abortion. Legal in some places.
Oh, wait, except when the guy is a murderer being executed by the State. Legal in some places.
Oh, wait, except when he's trying to kill you and you shoot him first, then it's self defense, and legal probably everywhere.
Oh, wait, except when the guy is really old and sick and would rather die. I don't know if euthanasia is legal anywhere yet, but it's at least being argued.
Oh, wait, except when you kill yourself, then it's not a crime nearly everywhere.
So no, it's not theft the same way shoplifting is. The damage (lost potential sale) done to the victim is simply not the same as if the CD was shoplifted. In fact, the damage you make may be less than setting up a website to say how much the album sucks. Think about that, because it's protected free speech.
Note that I'm not saying it's right, just that it's not black and white like physical theft. Specifically, there should be a difference (in law) between someone who "pirates" for personal use, and someone who distributes, because they cause different damages.
Think of a paper book. You can buy it, read it, and give it to your friend to read. In fact, two people read the book, and only paid once. Now, how is that substantially different from beaming an ebook to your friend before you're finished reading? What about after you're finished reading?
It is different, by the way, because your friend could potentially want to read it so badly he buys his own copy - potential lost sale. However, the act of beaming the ebook is not the same as shoplifting, because its impact on the copyright owner is not the same. Think of the difference between murder and suicide, and while some people consider both immoral (perhaps even equally immoral), only murder is generally an actual crime.
Re:+4 Interesting my fat, hairy ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief.
I stole that from dictionary.com.
Good point about the difference between the two words, by the way.
Re:+4 Interesting my fat, hairy ass (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I had hoped to be clear that it is different. However, I was asking the reader to consider the relative damages to the author and publisher. In both cases, the end result is that two people read the book (let's simplify the discussion and assume that this is a book you'll only ever want to read once), but only one payment is made. Why is one completely legal and the other not?
The beamed ebook is indeed a violation of copyright laws, as you point out. However, I'm asking how this act damages the author or publisher over just lending the book, compared to stealing the book off a shelf.
If you beam an ebook to your friend, you've made a copy. You both have use of the book.
Let's make it interesting, then. What if he promises not to read it until I'm done, delete it from my reader, and give him a call? Who does that hurt now? In fact, his promise makes the case identical to the lent paper book case, but our act of beaming was still illegal. Why is that?
After all, if ebooks didn't exist, one of you would have had to buy a paper copy.
You're absolutely right. However, ebooks (and more to the point, MP3s) do exist, and they can be copied at no out-of-pocket cost to the author. Thus, it makes sense for the author to charge a smaller fee for the second copy to get the same profit. Thus, if the second copy was not paid for, the author lost less than if he lost the first copy (shoplifting).
Let me be clear: I'm not opposing copyright. However, I am arguing that copyright violation is not equivalent to theft. It causes less damage to the owner, and should carry a lighter penalty under law. In fact, in an age where copying is never cheaper or more convenient, it may be time to rethink how else we can protect artists, rather than cripple the technology we already have.
Imagine if the printing presses were artificially limited to the rate of production that the monks had copying by hand.
NO, It's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not just be a semantic prick here, you are being obtuse equating two very different things.
Equating copyright infringment with theft is like equating manslaughter with murder. In both examples, the similarities make you want to equate them, but there is that one semantic difference that changes everything.
Is it theft when there are no copyright laws?
Is it theft (copyright infringement) when a teacher photo copies an newspaper article for the class to read?
Is it theft (copyright infringement) when copyright law allows for non-commercial copying (selling unauthorized copies)?
Is it theft (copyright infringement) when you videotape a party with copyrighted music in the background, and send copies to your friends? (Assume the quality is near perfect)
If copyright is theft, why don't you enlighten us, when situations ARE and ARE NOT theft?
Re:+4 Interesting my fat, hairy ass (Score:4, Interesting)
If its so _obviously_ stealing, why the fuck did copyright law come into existance when laws covered the act of theft in the first place.
Do you see the stupidity of your argument? If its so obviously theft, why have copyright law in the first place? Why not just tack on "copying the work of an author" to the laws pertaining to theft and abolish copyright law altogher?
Oh gee, I wonder if its because the act of copying something is a FUNDAMENTALLY different effect within the economy, and thus we must handle copying authors' works in entirely different ways than we handle the act of theft?
So explain that: why have copyright law at all if copying an authors work without their permission is simply 'theft'? Why don't we just say that an authors work is tantamount to a physical object, and they have eternal ownership and complete control over copying mechanisms, exclusivity, etc
Here's one clue: It _is_ different, and giving authors' property-like rights to copyrighted works (unlimited inherent ownership of creations, treating copying of said work to theft) has been shown time and time again, over the course of hundreds of years, as being bad for the producer, bad for the consumer, and bad for culture altogether.
This was the _REASON FOR COPYRIGHT LAW_. Its not the same as theft, and thats the reason for its very existance. And ironically, now you claim that its theft because its copywritten. In reality, its copywritten for the very reason that copying it is not theft, as lawmakers discovered centuries ago. All this is notwithstanding that copyright was introduced to weaken the 'ownership' argument content producers, publishers, and distributors claimed they had (as granted by the king at the time) on cultural works because said claim was shown to damage both the industry they operated within and the social culture at large. Get with the program, or at least read a book on the nature of copyright, its history, and how market forces operate differently on reproducable artistic works than they do on physical property.
Re:+4 Interesting my fat, hairy ass (Score:4, Insightful)
WRONG. The food riots showed that people were far more interested in paying a fair price for something than stealing it outright. Faced with the recognition that looting and pillaging food producers for free would cause said producers to be able to make food for the future, people rioted
The incentive for people to pay is to keep folks producing this valued content. You yourself say people place some value in the product, so WHY THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE WANNA RUN THE PRODUCT OUT OF BUSINESS. Nobody.
So people 'copy' when they feel they are not in danger of causing the producer to go out of business. But they _WONT_ pay for shit just for the sake of _garaunteeing_ that the producer wont go out of business.
I mean, risk is part of business. Whether or not you go out of business because people won't pay your asking price or because people circumvent your asking price because they feel its too high
Re:What?? (Score:3, Funny)
Siphoning gas from your neighbours tank is dead simple. But people don't do it. Why? It's stealing. But explain to me why people don't mind steal^H^Hcopying movies/music/etc when clearly there are so many other things that can be easily stolen in life?
Oooo! Ooooo! Pick me! Uhm, is it because my neighbours aren't money-grubbing thieves who charge me $13.50 for a movie admission and $10 for a cup of watered down soda and a bag of popped air?
Re:I think people DO know it's theft (Score:3, Insightful)
This doesn't make it right, it just makes it common.
No bickering on your point, just the language.
Your last statement intrigued me. This whole debate has little to do with what is "right" and "wrong". It is rather a debate over what is "legal" and "illegal". The distinction being that right and wrong have some sort of (probably) subjective moral sense underlying the determinations. The latter debate is simply a decision resulting from the existing political power structure that has happened to come to govern each of us.
That being said, I think that unauthorized copying is morally objectionable to me, and I disapprove of it. Is it "right" or "wrong" to do so, or will some hypothetical god send me to hell for doing it? I dunno. Clearly, the Ten Commandments are a little vague on P2P file sharing. My knowledge of the Torah and Koran is limited, so I can't really render anything but a guess, so I won't. Perhaps some other ecumenical peanut galleries can speak on this one -- anyone got the Buddha's cellphone number? What about Vishnu?
Is it legal? Clearly, no, it isn't. Right or wrong? You see the obvious problems.
Thank goodness (Score:4, Insightful)
News for Pirates. Stuff to Download. (Score:4, Funny)
(sarcasm btw)
Why go to the cinema to watch the movie... (Score:4, Funny)
Also, wtf is a pirater?
Ewwww! (Score:5, Funny)
I would just assume see it in the theater... (Score:5, Interesting)
Release: 11/09/02
Quality: CAM
Some how I think I would rather pay and see it with none of the screen chopped off and in full quality (esp sound). Just because it exists, doesn't mean it is really worth having.
OMG! (Score:5, Funny)
reading the script in the library or bookstore years before release...
stealing the whole movie before it appears magically on the silver screen! it is too much! we are a lawless society!
Do We Really Need.. (Score:5, Funny)
Does it really matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
The not so good movies might loose some of their marked if they are heavily pirated. If I'd downloaded Reign Of Fire before I went to see it at the cimema, I would probably have seen another movie instead. That way Hollywood would still get all its money, but I wouldn't feel ripped of. I can't afford to see all movies (I don't even have time for that), so there is no money *lost* if that was the way it happened.
Now I bet the quality of the copy released on the net isn't that great, and even watching it might ruin the whole experience. Fitting punishment for beeing so silly.
- Ost
No big deal...does piracy hurt film anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
The bigger question is, does film piracy affect revenue at all? A film is not like music: Nevermind and Sticky Fingers will be just as valuable to me in ten years, and I'll listen to them a lot as a soundtrack to whatever else I'm doing. A film takes 100% of my concentration, (well most of it anyway) and you can't watch a film while you do something else..so film and music piracy are vastly different things.
Let's look at a few examples: In the Theatrical Window, Spiderman both broke box office and piracy records, hitting tens of thousands of copies a day at its peak.
In the Home Video window, the Spiderman DVD was released on pirate channels more than a month early and yet it still is going to break all sales records. 28 MILLION in preorders, which blows away anything before it.
The exact same thing happened with Shrek last year..most pirated film - most pirated DVD - best selling DVD.
While it would be difficult to quantify, it's possible that piracy acts simply as promotion when it comes to film: it certainly didn't cause the films above to fail on any scale, and probably won't affect Harry Potter either.
The million dollar question: could the use of piracy channels as a promotional venue actually increase film revenue?
Everyone assumes Valenti and Rosen are right: that piracy is damaging the film and music businesses. But Valenti was dead wrong about VCRs in the 70's and I suggest he's wrong about digital delivery and piracy in the 21st Century.
Re:No big deal...does piracy hurt film anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
Same thing in your case. You suggest that if piracy was not possible, 40 million would buy the DVD. You are assuming that piracy is a negative revenue generator.
But in my hypothesis (and it's nothing but a hypothesis) piracy might actually drive revenue. If this is true, then it's possible that without those twenty million illegal DVD downloads, Dreamworks might have only sold 10 million Shrek DVDs.
Be tough to prove it either way, but remember that the MPAA said the VCR would destroy the film industry back in the 70's. Now? Home Video is the number one revenue stream for ALL seven major Hollywood film studios.
I'm not insisting I'm right. But what if it's true? Could Jack Valenti possibly be wrong
And the Quality? (Score:3)
The VCD Community is growing larger and larger everyday. It's common now at school to watch in-theatre movies on "Movie Days" because students bring the DVD's to school. (I've witnessed around 10 kids huddled around a PC in amazement on how some "l33t schoolmate" obtained the movie)
Though, a problem with the VCD Community is they release over IRC. They should do it over Gnutella2, eDonkey or another good P2P Network where each downloader also uploads to other users using Partial File Sharing. Releases can get out waaay faster on P2P than IRC.
Re:And the Quality? (Score:3, Informative)
here, here, here.... (Score:3, Insightful)
thanks kindly. I'm not big on IRC and the usenet structure is so friendly.
Some people still don't get it... (Score:3, Interesting)
<insert "silly_old_piracy_isn't_theft_excuse.h">
Re:Some people still don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
(days pass, as the movie is slowly and painfully downloaded, in pieces, from any number of p2p networks)
"Boy, the movie was awesome, but the pirated copy sucked ass! The picture was lopped off at the edges, someone didn't adjust the camcorder and the colors were washed out, the dialog was basically incomprehensible, and people kept standing up and blocking the screen."
"I'm SUCH a huge Harry Potter fan, but since I've already seen the crappy camcorder rip, I guess I don't need to spend $8 to go see the movie anymore. And I certainly don't need to drop $30 on the DVD, nosir. 'Cause the noisy, incomplete DivX-encoded version was enough for me. Come to think of it, perhaps I'll stop buying Harry Potter merchandise as well."
I'm not going to argue that it's *right* to distribute copyrighted works over the Internet. But you cannot by any means claim that Chamber of Secrets being leaked is somehow going to cut into the movie's box office gross. At best, the camcorder rip or the telesync (which is what they call it when they pipe the sound in from a theater-supplied hearing aid) is a pale imitation of the real cinema experience. People who were going to see the movie in the first place, won't be satisfied.
Re:Some people still don't get it... (Score:3, Funny)
And if you make $100,000/year then it's okay for someone to steal $100.
That would explain taxes :).
Movies these days (Score:5, Funny)
Some are even resorting to adding a pixelized 'NB' or scary watermarks as a cheap play on audience emotions. Heck, some of these hacks are even adding audience reaction to the soundtracks or overlaying eerie back outlines of audience members on top of the primary action. I think we can blame Woody Allen's Purple Rose of Cairo for this new trend in filmmaking.
If these Hollywood hacks can't come up with some new visual ideas, I'm staying away from news servers altogether.
Who defeated the interlock? (Score:3, Funny)
I think it is most important to determine who defeated the interlock system. I'd be willing to bet that person is also the pirate, or could lead to the capture of the pirates.
Nice blanket statement (Score:3, Insightful)
As always Taco, you are right on the mark. They'll get a lot of cash anyway, and this clearly justifies piracy. That it's their product and that they should have the right to choose whether or not to share it with the world prior to its release, even if it was proven that it could boost revenue, is of no importance. Nevermind the tenets of capitalism. Who needs basic IP property right when you can have movies for free?
value added (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that the entertainment industry does not take 'value added' seriously enough. They put two good songs on an album (blues traveler 'four' comes to mind) and expect the populous to pay $20. Why should they, just download the two songs from the net(or, for those who can remember, record it from the radio, anyone got albums from the late night full play?). The same is true for movie theaters. They have 30 screens, 5 movies, only of which one are worth seeing at the theater, and the staff antagonizes you the whole time. How much money do they expect make. And yet I do not see the movie industry, those great champions of legislating profit from intellectual property, doing a thing to help the poor suffering movie theaters. Rather the studios leave movie theaters to fend for themselves and legislate for copy protection in hope of making money on the DVD release.
Harry potter has buzz, is probably a good movie, and is squarely directed at the annoying child demographic. The leak will certainly affect ticket sales in some minuscule manner, but isn't going to make anyone homeless. It is too effective of a method to keep generally undisciplined children quite for an hour or so.
What a Disappointment.... (Score:5, Funny)
Illegal piraters? (Score:3, Funny)
The Truth about film piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Film piracy is never going to cut into box office dollars, period. No computer setup -- not even one with a projector screen and 5.1 surround sound -- will ever duplicate the theater experience, especially with a grainy telesync. The big screen and crowded theater hold too much fascination for us as human beings, and it won't go away any time soon.
The place where film piracy will hurt the most is in the home video market, because DivX rips of DVD films are at least VHS quality, usually better in some cases. Still, the movie industry has an advantage over the music industry here, because DivX rips are hard to download and DVDs are cheap. Hell, it's easier to rent a DVD and rip it yourself then to hunt down a film on Gnutella, and even then, you're still supporting the filmmakers in some small way, because you're paying the rental fee.
If the movie industry can improve the video quality and service quality of sites like MovieLink [movielink.com] and CinemaNow [cinemanow.com], they'll have the one thing the music industry never really created -- a convenient, inexpensive alternative to piracy in the marketplace. Gee, is that all it takes? Who knews?
I agree, therefore we disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, nothing like
Yep, I'm sure there aren't any good reasons to sitting at home in front of a good home cinema.
Kjella
Sort of like playing songs on the radio? (Score:5, Interesting)
The MPAA has some clever people; it seems like they could figure this out. Or they could ask the RIAA about it; they've been paying ClearChannel tons of money for decades to distribute low-quality versions of music before it is widely available. Maybe they're afraid the pirates will start charging them millions of dollars to pirate their movies?
Re:Sort of like playing songs on the radio? (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly I've had my movie viewing experience ruined (for example, Lord of the Rings) with people talking on their cel phones, talking through the movies, walking back and forth since they couldn't handle sitting still for 3 hours... Either way, the MPAA gets my precious money...
old, old, old (Score:5, Interesting)
I sat there watching, squinting, trying to make out the plot through grainy video and wavering camera, wondering why the hell we were bothering.
It did, indeed, cost Hollywood $6.50, though, because the movie sucked, and there was no way we'd pay to see the real thing.
But funny, this taping, which has obviously been going on for twenty years now, has not killed Hollywood yet.
This sounds like a promotional stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big Bond movie opening in a week, and so the marketeers for HP have to get attention on their product before they get run over. So anything that gets people talking about the movie...
I saw it last saturday in the cinema! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't call this leaked. Instead, I would asume this to be completly normal. This what happens to all big movies. First you get a screener, and then someone manages to produce a decent copy. Finally you get the DVDrip. As far as I know, this is the normal thing for all movies...
Anyways, in regards to the movie, I must say that I liked it. I think it was better than the first one, as more things happened all the time. It is fairly long, roughly three hours, but definatly worth seeing. See it in the cinema, as watching the screener (in my opinion) completly destroys the experience. The sound is really good and really helps you get into the "Harry Potter atmosphere".
Illegal Pirates??? (Score:5, Funny)
What a tragedy... (Score:3, Insightful)
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
I give up. Why is this a problem? This is not a rhetorical question.
But you forget... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not the fault of P2P. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not the fault of P2P. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think P2P is any more to blame then anything else, it's just faster.
Re:Not the fault of P2P. (Score:5, Insightful)
So by your logic, in every case where an abused woman doesn't know enough karate to fend off an attacker and she is mugged, dateraped, or worse, you think that is her fault? Are stores that get robbed to blame for not having armed guards posted at the door?
Sorry, but theft is totally, entirely, and completely the fault of the THIEF, never the fault of the victim.
Re:Not the fault of P2P. (Score:5, Interesting)
The actual act of copying the film to video probably took place in a movie theatre in England, where it's already been released. The distribution channels are probably secure, but they're delivering media to thousands of untrustworthy theatres.
In the past, the studios have used unique-by-theatre editing to identify the the leaky theatres. They may have done so this time as well. With a guaranteed blockbuster like this movie, they'd have been irresponsible if they didn't take some precautions. Don't be surprised if you see an offending theatre up against the wall in a multi-million pound lawsuit, and criminal charges filed against the owners.
Media theft is one of the driving motivations behind George Lucas' attempt to build a fibre-optic movie distribution network in America. It will ensure that the only pirated copies that come out are ugly camcorder-in-the-theatre recordings that aren't fit to be viewed. And technological tricks such as dynamically varying the frame rate (possible with a digital projection system) will render most of those tapes unwatchable.
(I'll drop the phony British accent now, Rupert.)
Re:New DVD standard (Score:3, Funny)
Exec 2: But sir, what can we do?
Exec 3: How about making all films in 3d? This way everyone who enters a theatre will have to wear these red/green glasses!
(silence)
Studio President: Give the man a cigar!
God Hates Us All (Score:3, Funny)
Let's check the score board... So far god hates:
jews, women, homosexuals, anyone with a tan slightly darker than anglos, and now Hairy Potter Fans.
It's time we ask ourselves does god like anyone? Are you even sure he likes you?
Re:Why is free distribution of media "pirating?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, unfortunately Congress already thought of that. Under the current laws, which were passed in 1998 I think (around the time of the DMCA), you don't need to be actually selling warez for it to be considered piracy. Simply handing them out is a crime. Burning a CD with warez and passing it out to strangers can get you *20 years.* Really. (Someday, when I come to love Big Brother, I will see how the punishment fits the crime.)
Another thing that got changed with the law: Profitless piracy is a *Federal* *criminal* *offense*, not a civil one. That means that the FBI kicks in your door with guns drawn.
I think most Americans, if the question were put to them, would NOT support the FBI enforcing Sony or Microsoft's EULAs. However, those few Americans with gobs of money who buy and sell congressman ARE in favor of having the government (aka the taxpayer, aka little people, aka 99.9% of people reading this) do that work for them.
It's pretty clever, and it went pretty unnoticed at the time. And the media (surprise) every now and again runs a "success" story, like how warehouse X in LA was raided by the Feds and U.S. Marshalls, and how piracy costs U.S. businesses $billions per year. No mention of the cost to you and I to keep Sony profitable.
While I and many others agree with your point about copyright being a "private" affair, good luck getting a court to look at the issue on the Constitutional merits.
The criminalization of profitless piracy along with the DMCA et al are some scary first steps towards turning the FBI into the Bureau of Thoughtcrime. Think about it, while it's still legal.
Why the expanded *police power* for the Federal Government, swallowing up a legal matter which was historically dealt with in civil law?
I'd ask you to remember this before you vote, but both parties are whistling Walt's tune on this one.
The Revolution will be webcast.