Oscar Screener Leak Traced 519
EvilLiberalGuy writes "CNN has an article about a leak of a screener copy of 'Something's Gotta Give'. They are reporting that 'visible and hidden markings on the videocassette copy on the Internet identify it as the one sent to Carmine Caridi, a film and television actor'. Apparently this didn't stop the leak from happening in this case, but will it result in actions against Caridi and make others think twice before leaking films to the net?"
I, here and now, define the term.... (Score:5, Funny)
In case you are wondering who Carmine Caridi is here's the IMDB link [imdb.com]. He plays a lot of Italian type roles. Well with a name like Carmen Caridi....
I certainly hope that this doesn't ruin his chances of reprising his role in the sequel to "KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park" (Oh you know you want it)
Re:I, here and now, define the term.... (Score:2)
Odd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flo Fox the seventy year old spamming granny (Score:2, Funny)
Am I the only one that finds it "out of character" for a guy who will be 70 years old in 10 days to be the one that leaked the film?
Anyone remember Flo Fox [slashdot.org]? A seventy year old spamming grandmother. Those OAPs aren't as innocent as they look you know.
ajc.com appears to be down, but here's the Google cache copy [216.239.59.104]
Re:Odd (Score:3, Interesting)
He gives his screen copies to his personal assistant when he's done with them. The assistant then copies them to VCD and hands them out to his friends. Who knows where these end up?
Who is it?! (Score:3, Funny)
Who is it for Pete's sake?! How can you tease us like that?
Leaking of Scripts, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
When they did Star Trek V: The Worst Movie EVAR!!1, the producers were hardcore about protecting the scripts. Each one was coded in various ways (starbase numbers were the most popular for TNG scripts -- I think I was "Starbase 28" or something like that, Patrick was "Starbase 21" or something . . . I know they used our call sheet number in some way.) including stamping the name of the script's legitimate owner in HUGE semi-transparent letters across each page.
Being a super-nerd, I really wanted a copy of that script. Even though their Enterprise was less than 200 yards from my Enterprise, the STV:TWME!!1 producers wouldn't let me have one, so I bought a bootleg at a convention.
You know whose script was bootlegged and photocopied a zillion times? William Fucking Shatner's, that's who. Now, I seriously doubt that WFS wanted his script to get out, since he was the director and everything, but somehow it did.
It's easy to find out who was the rightful owner of a script, screener, or whatever . . . but determining exactly who was responsible for releasing it into the wild is a bit more difficult.
(And the script was as bad as the movie, for those of you keeping score at home.)
Re:Leaking of Scripts, etc. (Score:5, Funny)
You know whose script was bootlegged and photocopied a zillion times? William Fucking Shatner's, that's who.
I thought we were discussing major Holywood talent?
Re:Leaking of Scripts, etc. (Score:4, Funny)
True, for we all know his talent mainly lies in music... [allmusic.com]
Not to defend Shatner... (Score:3, Interesting)
Dan East
Re:Not to defend Shatner... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I don't think WFS needs to be defended. I wasn't accusing him of anything, so if it came off that way, allow me to correct myself.
*correct*
As to your suggestion, I suppose it's technically possible, though why anyone would want to go to the extreme lengths to falsify a script's ID is beyond me. We're talking about numerical codes on random pages, and the actor's (or sometimes character's) name stamped, by hand, across the center of every single page. If you watch the extended behind the scenes features on the LOTR DVDs, you can see them reading their sides, and each page is stamped "Sam" or "Frodo" or "Gollum," etc. (goddamn I'd do just about anything to get one of those!
Oh, and the encoding methods weren't exactly common knowledge. I was the only TNG cast member who read 2600 and TAP, if you get my drift.
2600 and Starfleet! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh this is fantastic, I knew I was right! Back in Middle school, a teacher discovered my friends and I hacking around the school network (Full root, and Admin accounts at 12 years old, w00t!).
My teacher tried to use Star Trek as a moral argument, and said that starfleet officers would never hack into someones computer. I said that Ensign Crusher would, and he gave me a detention!
But only now, after learning that Mr. Crusher was reading the same issues of 2600 I was, do I know the full injustice done to me
needed to be said... (Score:3, Funny)
"It's easy to find out who was the rightful owner of a script, screener, or whatever . . . but determining exactly who was responsible for releasing it into the wild is a bit more difficult."
KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!
Re:Leaking of Scripts, etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
He's not bad, he's just written that way. In all seriousness, the Wesley Crusher character was just another in a long line of hopeless "smart kid" characters in tv sci fi: and he was usually somewhat more bearable than Will Robinson (except in the stupid Traveler scripts, of course). Remember, too, that WW wasn't exactly a 40 year old man when he got that job, and it's not like they expected him to deliver his lines in iambic pentameter. The Wesley Crusher character, mindless as he was, was the creation of
Re:Leaking of Scripts, etc. (Score:3)
>>Phuck Wesley/Wil
>>He's just another self promoting/blogging attention wh0re
And, yet, he still managed to land himself a role as a main character on a highly regarded television series. Which, I am willing to wager, is at least one more than you have, my dear AC.
Brave soul, convicted in your beliefs, true to your convictions as you are, next time step out of the darkness and show your cowardice in the light of day
Re:Leaking of Scripts, etc. (Score:3, Informative)
Worst Star Trek film ever. I should have been clear about that. I mean, my piles of shit "The Curse" and "Deep Core 2000" are significantly worse than even the worst of Star Trek, including the first two seasons of Voyager.
So, foreach "STV:TWME" in (@mypost)
{"STV:TESTME11!"}
. . . Or something like that. I reverse polarity on stuff. I'm not a programmer. I'm more of a hardware guy.
Re:Odd (Score:5, Funny)
Godfather III (Score:3, Funny)
He was in Godfather III, Nuff Said
Re:Odd (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Depends(R) (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps you guys need to be wearing some of your own products to keep that stuff out of the equipment...
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I, here and now, define the term.... (Score:2, Funny)
Personally, I'm more interested in a sequel.. (Score:2)
There SHOULD be a sequel! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I, here and now, define the term.... (Score:5, Informative)
Hollywood's real problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The real underlining problem in Hollywood is not whether someone somewhere is watching a movie in some format for free...
The real issue that Hollywood won't face is that their audience (the people who stand in line to give their money away) has stopped growing while the cost of producing the movies continues to grow unchecked every year.
Movies have become a saturated business. Last year the actual number of paid admissions actually fell 4% for the first time in since 1991 (according to NPR - the US
bummer (Score:2)
Old People Today! (Score:5, Funny)
These geriatric hooligans are ruining the Internet for the rest of us. The problem is they've got time on their hands, they retire and if they're not out on the streets selling drugs, they're at home violating copyrights on Kazaa.
Have they no shame!
I say bring back compulsory military service for the over 60s. They need a dose of good-old military discipline to whip them into shape. And if that doesn't work then cut off their supply of Tums.
Harsh I know, but it's the only language that they understand.
John.
Re:Old People Today! (Score:2)
Look at what the elected ones are up to!
Re:Old People Today! (Score:5, Funny)
I say the producers of "Gigli" should get the chair!
Re:Old People Today! (Score:5, Funny)
> I say the producers of "Gigli" should get the chair!
He was right. What are you smoking to think that Gigli was mediocre? That would insinuate there were much worse films last year.
Re:Old People Today! (Score:2)
Re:Old People Today! (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is that he gave it to a grandson/great nephew/etc who decided it would be kewl to rip it.
Oh the irony (Score:5, Funny)
I want an apology (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I want an apology (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I want an apology (Score:5, Informative)
Just so you know...
Re:I want an apology (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I want an apology (Score:3, Informative)
Downloaders are consuming, not producing. And it is a fact that lots of folks film movies in the theatres. The fact that an actor leaked a trailer doesn't change that.
Re:I want an apology (Score:2)
Try here [google.com] (google Image Search thumbnail; the site with the photo doesn't seem to have it any longer).
Actually, None. (Score:3, Informative)
According to the LA Times story [latimes.com], none.
Re:Actually, None. (Score:2)
Re:Actually, None. (Score:4, Informative)
There have certainly been screeners circulateddigitally before, so perhaps there's some subtle distinction here. Perhaps they're differentiating between the "screeners" sent to Oscar voters and the "screeners" sent to reviewers, etc., to promote the movies?
Question (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Question (Score:2, Funny)
"We aren't doing this for the money, we are doing this for a SHITLOAD of money!"
Good! (Score:5, Funny)
-T
Re:Good! (Score:5, Funny)
I stop dead in my tracks and think "Wait a minute, this is a Disney movie!". You know, Disney, home of a trillion copyrights. Jack Vallenti must have cringed at the line. I just found that deeply ironic.
More Info on Caridi (Score:2)
For those of you with an interest in his career, here is the relevant IMDB link [imdb.com]. I can't place him myself, perhaps someone could find a picture?
possible picture (Score:4, Informative)
Carmine Caridi [google.ca]
Re:possible picture (Score:2, Interesting)
or maybe it wasn't him? he's 70 years old. (Score:4, Interesting)
>> leaking films to the net?"
Can you imagine how many hands this went through before it got to Caridi? Manufacturing? Shipping? Someone had to imprint those special markings? Were the markings modified by the release group from one set to another that now matches the markings that were assigned to Caridi? Innocent until proven guilty here folks.
Carmine Caridi is about 70 years old [imdb.com] which doesn't strike me as the typical source for screener releases.
Re:or maybe it wasn't him? he's 70 years old. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:or maybe it wasn't him? he's 70 years old. (Score:5, Interesting)
A truly absurd amount of care has been taken to track and monitor these screeners this year, up to the point where the Academy itself has taken the role of managing the distribution of screeners, as opposed to having the studios do it themselves as in previous years.
Personally, I think that the war against piracy is unwinnable, and that piracy will destroy the business as it is today;. It has destroyed the Hong Kong film industry already. It's going to be a brutal process here.
thad
Re:or maybe it wasn't him? he's 70 years old. (Score:3, Insightful)
Piracy isn't destroying the movie industry, the movie industry is destroying the movie industry. The budget of the average movie is going up (how much money spent on making a movie is actually spent making the movie?) and the quality of the product is going down. And from television, to the VCR, to piracy, the internet, instant messaging, and even consumers themselves, they've always
Automatic guilt? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, who is to say how the damn thing ended up on the Internet? Who knows what happened while burning the screener, in the mail room at the studios, during the mail delivery process, etc.
Re:Automatic guilt? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, as the article linked-to says. It also mentions that only 80% of voters actually signed and returned the forms -- but apparently the other 20% got to vote anyway. So the whole thing doesn't really seem to be taken seriously.
I mean, who is to say how the damn thing ended up on the Internet? Who knows what happened while burning the screener, in the mail room at the studios, during the mail delivery process, etc.
Or maybe he just dumped it in his trash after watching it (or before), and someone picked it up from there.
For academy screeners maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Automatic guilt? (Score:2)
Considering this movie will rip the head off LOTR: Return of the King in terms of not only quality filmmaking, but overall fun, it's only understandable that such a plan of this calibur was devised.
I bet you his maid stole it. Kinda like the Pamela Lee & Tommy vid... someone knew it existed, and by god, nothing was going to stop him/her from acquiring it and giving us the pleasure of the highly coveted "holy grail" of porn; the same applies to this movie, for it shall cause a revolut
Re:Automatic guilt? (Score:5, Informative)
Yep. RTFA.
Screeners are DVDs/tapes of movies that are still in theaters given to Academy Members so that they're able to see all of the films nominated so that they can properly vote for the Oscar awards.
While there's no proof that he actually did the encoding, there is proof that it was his copy of the movie that was incoded rather than anybody else's. It becomes a chain-of-custody issue from here on. I assume there was a point that there was a tamper-evident seal placed around the package, and if somebody had broken that seal in the mail process he should have called in right away.
Yeah, not quite automatic proof... but clearly a reason to look into the guy's connection because it sure seems likely he at least gave his copy away which would be a violation of his contract...
Re:Automatic guilt? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Automatic guilt? (Score:2)
RTFA. Yes, although the liability they are talking about is expulsion from the Academy. They may also be liable from a legal perspective, but you don't have to sign a contract for that to happen. The one these guys got is more holding them accountable for the actions of their staff. The MPAA is guessing, probably correctly, that most of the leaks come not fro
The system works... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's tons of ways a screener could be marked up so that unique ID numbers get inserted, and it was only a matter of time before everybody who got a screener got a serial number embeded into the content so that when the screener appears on the 'net, the leaker could be busted for a breach of their contract. For once, a copy-protection technology that I don't think anybody can argue with...
Re:The system works... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll argue, and it echoes sentiment that others have expressed in this thread: How do we know he did it? He's 70 years old and not exactly the key demographic for uploading/digitizing movies. Maybe one of his kids watched it and did it (I used to watch screen copies with my college roommate who's dad was in the Academy), or perhaps someone along the process (encoders, mailers, distributors) took 2 hours and did it.
The only proof is that a leaked copy with this guy's name on it is on the internet. We have no proof that he had anything to do with it being there.
Simple confusion... (Score:5, Funny)
At least when the sequal, "Dont copy this you theiving bastards", screeners become available the hole will be closed.
Re:Simple confusion... (Score:2)
Weird, I thought that was the subtitle to "Bring It On Again"...
did Carmine Caridi sign? (Score:2, Insightful)
i take it Carmine Caridi didn't sign, therefore can the MPAA can't do much can they?
Re:did Carmine Caridi sign? (Score:2)
Forget what the RIAA is going to do (Score:2)
If there was ever a reason to give ICANN the ability to try people for Crimes Against Humanity, this would be it...
It's all a sham... (Score:2, Interesting)
This whole hoopla was done deliberately in order to raise awareness of the film and build interest in seeing it.
Where as most of us would have not even noticed such a film, 10% of us will now at least pause and consider such a film!
Suitable Punishment (Score:2, Funny)
Oddly, Carmine played different characters ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Won't get to court (Score:2)
Actors have much to lose (Score:3, Interesting)
However, if it's the actor, this kind of publicity is going to make many in his industry think twice. Reputation is the only way an actor can make a living, and having this kind of monkey on his back is bound to leave him floating without any job prospects.
Imagine how many other Hollywood types who happen to "release" a screener from time to time notice this article (and future ones like it I'm sure) and realize their careers could be next? It's sure to make them all think twice and likely decide it's not worth the risk.
BTW for the record, while I do believe movies cost too much to make and market, that doesn't justify this kind of blatant piracy.
age? (Score:2)
Should be:
the one sent to Carmine Caridi, 69, a film and television actor'
Not to diss the elderly too much, but please. Recall the woman in the same age demographic that the RIAA listed as hard core song file sharers? I'll bet any amount you care to name that a young relative with no idea of the digital signatures snitched this disk to do the upload. It's nearly impossible to beleive that this actor, who undoubtedly got the disk with a har
*BOOM*! (Score:5, Funny)
More Likely that... (Score:2)
I was gonna moderate this article but it's just too juicy!
It was in the trash! (Score:4, Funny)
On another note, now that it's been an "inside copy" that got out, can the MPAA please quit running the anti-piracy ads before movies? And can they drop that stupid proposed law banning "video recording devices" in theatres?
What's wrong with that? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article just says that there's an investigation under way and that the academy isn't identifying the screener being looked at; the LA Times is the one fingering Caridi. So while the Academy and the MPAA may occasionally be up to no good, there's no indication right now that in this case they're unfairly blaming the wrong guy. (And assuming that it couldn't be him because of his age would be a pretty poor way to run an investigation).
Actually, tracking down the leak is the right way to handle this. Go after the distributors and those actually responsible for the infringement. Enforcing your copyright is not in itself the problem; it's pretty clear here that someone is doing something wrong. The problem comes in the way you enforce it, and whether it's the screener or someone in the supply chain or a family member, tracking down that person is the way to go.
Which leak? (Score:3, Informative)
Which leak - the Academy leak to the LA Times fingering Caridi, or the leak of the (lousy) movie onto the internet?
Clearly the Academy is full of internal holes. If the Academy couldn't keep the name of Caridi out of the press before it's full investigation, then how could the Academy keep thousands of videos from leaking?
Now the MPAA has done it... (Score:2)
Maybe Carmine Caridi knew... (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe he got mixed up in acting class . . . (Score:2, Funny)
The canary trap... (Score:2, Informative)
You can read more about the Canary Trap here [stentorian.com]
--
Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.
Mafioso (Score:2)
I guess it turns out that he got these roles because of "real life" experiences in the underworld.
LK
Conspiracy (Score:4, Funny)
-Caridi is a B-movie actor who has been in a ton of films, yet no one seems to have a picture of him, not even the IMDB.
-Caridi is given an advance copy of a movie. Now, perhaps this guy has more power than thought, but who gives an advance screening of a movie to a B-movie actor? Then again, when movies like Glitter and Gigli are leaked onto the Internet, who knows?
-Caridi is a 69 year-old man who allegedly had the knowledge to transfer a movie onto his computer and distribute it onto the Internet. My grandmother prints out e-mails and sends them via postal service to me. And I am supposed to believe this guy knows how to work video capture?
Add in other things like how bad the movie is and the unique tracking mechanisms, and one must seriously begin to wonder about the convenience of this discovery. Long live John Titor.
I love this stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Possible Marking Technique (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Possible Marking Technique (Score:3, Informative)
Theory? (Score:5, Funny)
Carmen: Stools a lil loose today. My hip still...
MPAA: Wonderful, fantastic! How about we strike a little deal?
Carmen: Speak into my good ear?
MPAA: Look, we'll lay it on the line. We spent all this money on this technology breakthrough and haven't seen a return on it. We've pissed off thousands of millions of fans with our red dots and fancy ways and we need you.
Carmen: Where do I come in?
MPAA: Quite frankly, we need a fall man. You've played in the Mob, you should remember.
Carmen: Ah yes, I can act well!
MPAA: Yeah, great. But we need someone to get into trouble so we can show the pirates of America that we mean business! And these dots will annoy future generations!
Carmen: I get to play a pirate? eh?
MPAA: We need you, I mean, you've made 1 movie in the last 5 years. How about it. You are perfect for our part!
Carmen: Where do I sign?
Caridi's resume (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Irony at it's best (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Irony at it's best (Score:2)
Re:Irony at it's best (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if say, Ford, gives out a number of free cars to a number of important clients, and one of them gets stolen, then we can go and steal the rest of the Fords sitting in front of our nearby Ford plant and Ford should in no way get upset about it?
Or if an independent musician records a song and emails it for *free* to his friends and a copy of this *free* song gets posted on the internet and now everyone can download it for *free*. Why would the musician be upset?
Think a little more about what you're saying. Yes the MPAA are bastards, but they do have a right to protect thair assets. Just because it's easy and probably 50% of the
Grow up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if you wrote some GPL software and someone went and modified it, then distributed it, but did not adhere to the specific requirements of the GPL guaranteeing your rights as the author, don't you think you would have a right to be pissed off? Do you think that might color your opinions of the people who ended up buying the software?
This individual violated a binding agreement, no less so than the GPL. Just because the MPAA is the wronged party doesn't make the wrong right.
More, if the demand for the fruits of such unlawful activity wasn't disproportionately high, the temptation would have been far less, and the whole issue likely wouldn't have occured.
And please don't try to ascribe people's unethical behaviour to some sort of protest over movie quality. If a movie is bad, you don't go see it, period. That is not license to obtain an unlawful copy. That kind of reasoning is childish, narcisistic, and anti-social. If all movies suck, you don't go to any, and you certainly do not obtain unlawful copies. If you want to send a message, fine, send the message. But when you obtain an unlawful copy of a movie the signal you are sending is not that the movie sucks, you are signalling your desire to watch/own the movie, while engaging in a childish reaction to the cost.
There is no moral reason to obtain unlawful copies of music, movies, software, what have you. The motive is greed pure and simple.
And the oft quoted argument of try and buy, is worse than useless. That kind of arrangement requires trust. Why should the MPAA or RIAA or anyone else trust you? If they could trust you the problem wouldn't be as pandemic as it is.
Having said all that, there are responsible people who could live within a reasonable try before buy setup, and who would honor their obligations, this post is not directed at you. This post is wasted effort, since it directed at the large group of internet toddlers who can't prosecute an argument, and use the internet primarily as a means to slake their insatiable greed.
Re:Grow up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful with the absolutes. All but the most simple of laws have grey areas.
Take for example Walt Disney's creation, Steamboat Willy, generally held to be the first Mickey Mouse cartoon. It was created in 1928. Based on laws of the time, Disney could expect a term of 56 years, so it would fall into the public domain in 1984. Despite this "short" time period, he chose to make the cartoon, suggesting that the system worked. Disney proceeded to control the copyright through his death in 1966. By any measure, society held up our part of the deal.
Now, thanks to several copyright extensions, Steamboat Willy enjoys a 95 year copyright duration. Steamboat Willy remains the exclusive property of the Disney corporation until 2023. That's 39 extra years for which the public has received no recompense. This extension is not going to increase the productivity of the creator, seeing as he's dead and all. It's a shameless handout to an industry that didn't need it.
This is theft from the public, it's only legal because of embarassing behavior by our so-called representatives. There is no moral reason for these extensions, so there is no moral reason to obey them.
(All that said, I agree. "This movie sucks, so I'm going to download it for free," is a pretty stupid argument. Even as a poor college student I could scrape up the cash to occasionally rent a movie (especially if I could convince a few other people to kick in). If you can afford a computer to download it on, you can afford a secondhand VCR and an occasional few bucks at the video rental store.)
Re:Grow up. (Score:3, Informative)
For what it is worth, I do believe you when you tell me that you don't engage in these practices, and do pay for your entertainment media. I not only believe that, I laud you for it.
But, I think there are some
Re:Irony at it's best (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. And while the /. is doing the big 'we told you so' over unauthorized copying clearly starting with MPAA members, the MPAA is doing a little 'we told you so' of their own.
The MPAA powers-that-be don't want 'screener' copies sent out to academy voters, and this has actually been the subject of a couple court cases. The makers of sm
Re:Christmas at Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, that's a horrible point you're trying to make. This kind of thing is exactly why we DO need Palladium. This is a shining example of the MPAA catching the real criminal in the act instead of blaming everyone who happens to buy blank media or downloads porn off the Internet for stealing MPAA member company movies.
Re:Christmas at Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Palladium, on the other hand, has the opposite goal -- it's goal is to prevent anyone from being able to do anything that the content creater doesn't want to have happen. So rather than treating people as honest and catching the exceptions, it treats everyone as a potential criminal.
Re:Really lame acting (Score:2)