Slashdot Mirror
Harry Potter & The Chamber of Secrets Leaked
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.
call me paranoid, I do not think that these 'leaks' are
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?
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
So true.
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!"
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
precisely: my dad has gotten into downloading these movies through the various means but i just hate watching them. only two ways that i want to see a movie:
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
From the info file linked to:
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.
The amount of money I spend going to the cinema and buying DVDs is mostly a fixed number: the rest of my money. No matter how good quality the Harry Potter II rip I probably will find on DC the next couple of days is, I'll still show up at the cinema, atleast twice. And I'll probably buy the DVD as well. I don't think *good* movies loose much money to piracy at all.
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
---- Sig. gone.
They let these things leak to create interest in the product. As nifty as your computer system may be, it's very likely that it's nowhere near the quality of a movie theater.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Hear, hear! I'll never understand this idea that if a company makes a lot of money from a quality product, that it's OK to steal it. Or better yet, if someone feels a company is charging too much for a product, it's OK to steal it. 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!
The mind boggles.
-Shane
I love teh int4rw3b!!!!!111one1
Keep in mind that Warner Bros. has an ongoing campaign against p2p USERS.
There have been a number of people who's ISPs were contacted after Warner Bros. planted false video files (I've heard they were avi-like files claiming to be Lord of the Rings, supposedly capable of connecting to some WB site and sending system information - probably by manipulating the 'codec needed' tokens). Anyone who really wants to watch this in theaters should stay far, far away from this file on p2p networks.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
I know this theory always crops up, but look at logistics. Leaked material of ANY kind, be it movies, music, or software, equal lost sales. Sure it sounds like a viable thing to do to people not in the industry, a staged disaster to try to get laws pushed through to prevent piracy, but no one connected to leaked material ever wants to see it happen. Why? Money. They made their product to make money, and I don't think they are going to be altruistic to their industry and lose lots of money intentionally. Losing money would be the exact opposite of what they want to achieve. Sure it makes for a great conspiracy theory, but it's just not a practical idea.
I've seen a couple downloaded movies which have a note that pops up stating "This copy property of Warner Bros..." and others that say "...if you are watching this, please call 1-800-...".
This, to me, shows that there is as much distribution from inside as from Pirates.
Of course, this won't be the line put out by the MPAA.
<insert "silly_old_piracy_isn't_theft_excuse.h">
I hate it when I want to go see a movie and my friends say "Oh, just saw that. It was okay." "What do you mean? It comes out tomarrow?" "I downloaded it on Kazaa."
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!"
On the other hand, it is totally reasonable to question the outrageous claims the recording, movie and other content industries and their front organizations are making about how badly the internet is hitting their bottom line. It has become a catch-all excuse for fiscal ineptitude. Inflating the financial impact of this type of illegal activity is a bad thing because it justifies interfering with legal activities in the same medium to a greater degree than is fair. the DMCA is a classic example. The comment about the movie's all but guaranteed success is perfectly jsutified.
If the big studios are keeping such a close eye on the effect of illegal trading, why don't they use that information for marketing purposes?
I got a bootleg copy of Kiki's Delivery Service (the dub shown on JAL flights, IIRC), and it immediately became a hit with the kids and their friends. So when Disney finally got around to releasing it, did I say "Pfft, I've already got that one"? Heck no, I bought it as soon as I could find it! So why won't Disney make it available again?
But I don't want to get carried away about Disney (that would be a whole other discussion)... can I safely assume that this myopia is not specific to just one big studio?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
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.)
John
Indirectly they are, because film-making is like digging for gold. You have to work through tons of dirt to get just a little gold but if you're lucky it's worth it (of course watching movies works that way, too =).
The point is, while Harry Potter is a guaranteed success the studios need all the money they can get from the block-busters to finance all the movies which flop.
I completely agree with the rest of the posting
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Like another thread above about the mpaa the reason the rhetoric "leaked" is even being used is so that they [mpaa] and for that matter the riaa, can both say "see, there's a problem, where are the laws to protect us from these nasty pirates! It was leaked before we could make our full profit!" The problem is, at least in the US, these people have a large voice thanks to lobbying and campaign donations. It doesn't even occur to anybody in government the hows of the pirating of the music or movie ie. radio broadcast recorded and then shared--basically Napster... or a telesync recording where some dolt carried a camcorder into the theatre and then hooked it to his/her computer. The hows aren't important... the fact that the mpaa and riaa are no longer in control of their copywrited works is the entire problem in their eyes. If there were no pirating, riaa would still be losing money because they're in need of some new talent to push, and the mpaa will still make profit because people have to see these movies right when they come out.
I'm not conceited, conceit is a fault and I have no faults.
At some point, the MPAA will realize that these things actually serve to promote the movies. People will go to see the movie (provided it didn't suck, which they'd probably have found out from reviews anyway) to see it with quality that isn't terrible. Consider how many people buy DVDs of movies they have on VHS for the difference in quality there; now consider the difference in quality between a camcorder and a movie theater.
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?
Unless yer still living in your parents basement, which you probably are...
Dude, if you're going to flame, at least be clever about it. Next time, try something like "Unless you're still living in the cupboard under the stairs in your abusive surrogate parent's house, which you probably are..."
Gow what I wouldn't give for some mod points to slap you down (not for flaming, but for flaming uncleverly)
--
Posting anonymously because Bush/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld are a group of nutsucking McCarthyist Nazi fucks...
Wouldn't it be great if dweebs wrapped their tiny criminal minds around the fact that correlation does not imply causation?
I know it's not good for my Karma to reply to a troll (and be ignored along with him), but he/she/it makes a good point. Even if it's wrong.
Roughly translated from TrollSpeak, the poster is trying to point out that the huge popularity of the films is not a direct result of their being pirated. Shrek would have been a hit whether it was pirated or not, and the troll would like to think that the pirating is therefore completely unrelated to the film's success.
Since there's no causation, we should prosecute the pirates like the scum they are, right?
Well, hold on a sec.
If you extend that argument that correlation does not imply causation, then you've just blown away the entire advertising industry.
Say Proctor & Gamble advertises their new Demonic Tide on the TV show Friends. The next week, sales of Demonic Tide spike. That's a correleation, but is it there causation? What if it was just such a "hot" product that it would have sold big anyway?
Prosecute those who are making money from your IP if you must, but as far as the P2P networks and such... call it a "cost of doing business", and charge it to the promotions budget.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
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.
The cake is a pie
I'd recommend Bored of The Rings to really slow readers. It's amazing how it captures most of the story (the important bits, at least), and crams the last two books into what seemed like the last few pages of a 176 page book. The jokes get tired after the 100th time or so, if you're patient, much sooner if you're like me. Still, I've read worse.
Well, the experience is always going to vary from theater to theater. A few chains where I am get it right. One small chain where I live that shows a lot of well-regarded indie flicks doesn't overcharge for tickets and popcorn, offers great seating arrangements, and actually sells beer at the concession stand. Try getting away with that at the local dodecaplex.
As for actors making millions, that's just capitalism in action. Sure, we don't think Julia Roberts should make $20 million for Erin Brockovich, but that movie netted somewhere between $50 million and $75 million in theaters alone, and residuals from home video are probably still coming in. Any studio exec will see $20 million as a relative bargain.
Of course, filmmakers are starting to see some real value in low-budget films by talented filmmakers, too. "Memento", "Barbershop", and "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" cost a combined $22 million to make. They grossed a combined $284 million (!) in theaters.
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
That's why I said "it would be difficult to quantify" in my original post. As the troll said above, correlation does not imply causation. Totally correct of course.
...twice?
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
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
read the fs'cking NFO file people.
:: CAM
Quality
This means that someone captured it using a CAMera in the theater, most likely in the UK where the movie was released publically. This also means that if the piraters were really *good* they would patch into the sound board. otherwise you'll hear the difference (audience noise, room tone) Also the screen will be cut off on the sides and picture will have a grainy look to it. For it to be *leaked* like LOTR would involve someone with a screener copy (in this case a DVD sent to the Oscar's panel) releasing the data to the internet.
Before the movie goes to home video another release will occur that will be of much higher quality. (sorry to spoil it for those of you playing along at home)
This is sort of tangential, but piracy has devastated the Asian movie industry. This doesn't mean it would do it in the US or other parts of the world, but when the society at large is willing to see the movie in less than auspicious circumstances- in asia, I'm told that the theaters aren't as generally good as ours, so the incentive for the movie going experience isn't as persuasive.
Many a film in asia has been devastated by the piracy there. There's a movie called Hero that I'm really really looking forward to that had armed guards during the first week of screenings- the ratio of guards to audience members being something ridiculous like 1 guard per six watchers.
In any case, I don't believe that scenario is a likely in the US or most of the world at all, but its not entirely a toothless specter.
I don't feel quite so bad when I go to the theater and see they want $9.50 for a movie ticket. We're talking about capitalism at its best here. I'll take a look at what you're selling, and if I like it, I'll pay you what it's worth - whether it's $9.50 for a ticket to a movie I've been anticipating, 4 bucks to rent something I was kind of interested in but missed, or whatever the studios get from HBO out of my monthly fees. I give the various entertainment industries a pretty good chunk of my disposable income, and no - not every movie is worth my $9.50. Not even CLOSE. If the industries don't like me making an informed decision as to the quality of their product, maybe they should outlaw film critics too, and maybe make us sign a gag order before we can watch.
I don't know anyone who collects ripped movies. The few that I've downloaded, I erased after watching, and I eventually ended up paying to see the ones I enjoyed again. I'd have most likely never seen the rest. We're not talking about me taking something off a shelf and depriving someone else of the opportunity to buy it. We're talking about me knowing the quality of what I buy. Nearly every other industry is required, morally and usually legally, to give my money back if they sell me something of inferior quality. So what makes me a thief in this case?
There is no EULA on a movie. It's copyrighted material that is sold, not licensed. Distributing media without expectation of payment is not piracy. There is no copyright violation in giving away free information even if the information itself is copyrighted. The copyright is a right to exclusively profit from the media, if there is no profit it doesn't concern copyright and shouldn't be called piracy or theft or anything of the sort.
The absolute funniest part about all this is that copyright law was introduced because the act of theft wasn't synonymous with copying an authors work in the days when copying technologies started to become more widespread (ie, the printing press.)
...
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.
"Old man yells at systemd"
You'd feel different if the movie was released aarround the world a few months before you got to see it. For example, I like reading and posting on TrekToday. I'll have to avoid it over christmas if I dont want to be spoiled. Nemesis comes out in the U.S. on 13-Dec. It hits the UK on 3-Jan.
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.
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.
I'm sorry to hear that. This should make up for the disappointment...