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.
<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!"
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
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?
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.
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."
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 make a good point -- if there is no profit where is the crime?
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.
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...