Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Harry Potter & The Chamber of Secrets Leaked

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the gotta-hate-when-that-happens dept.

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.

92 of 689 comments (clear)

  1. Big deal by Violet+Null · · Score: 5, Funny

    You've been able to buy the script at any bookstore for years now.

    1. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Huh?

      When did they make a book out of Harry Potter? ;)

    2. Re:Big deal by FortKnox · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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!
    3. Re:Big deal by Nintendork · · Score: 5, Funny
      Yeah, but that would involve reading.

      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

    4. Re:Big deal by Otter · · Score: 4, Funny
      Yeah, if you saw it in Palm Springs and a woman jumped up up at the end and shouted, "What? That sucked!" -- that'd be my wife, who somehow managed to get a math degree without ever encountering Tolkien (or Star Trek, or Monty Python or...).

      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.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    5. Re:Big deal by DrMaurer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because I, in reality, heard someone say, and it seemed quite sincere to me:

      "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.

      --
      Dan
    6. Re:Big deal by ciscoeng · · 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

      George? Is that you?

    7. Re:Big deal by Wumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Big deal by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know how it is; when a movie is successful they get some hack to write an adaptation of the movie to milk it further. :^P

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    9. Re:Big deal by Iffy+Bonzoolie · · Score: 3, Funny

      "It's probably better to say "faster than average" rather than better."

      It's probably faster to say "It's probably faster to say 'faster than average' rather than better," rather than better.

      -If

      --
      Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
    10. Re:Big deal by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, great idea! I tell you, what this whole storyline needs most is a big smelly dragon. And a big battle. Oh, I know! Have the battle between than 2 armies, like three or four. Five would be just crazy, though.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    11. Re:Big deal by Wumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sorry to hear that. This should make up for the disappointment...

  2. Trolling for congress? by Roskolnikov · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Trolling for congress? by CrazyDuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That thought occured to me, too. What better way to make sure even more restrictive laws are passed and ones that have already been passed (DMCA, etc.) stick. Its also a great excuse to use to justify paying 2x more and regional price fixing (see DVDs vs. VHS) on the 90% (that's an educated guess and estimate, stat trolls) of the target population that is not clueful enough to get the leaked version anyway.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    2. Re:Trolling for congress? by Theodore+Logan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I do call you paranoid, if you don't mind. This is nothing but speculation. And poor speculation it is.

      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...

      --

      "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok

    3. Re:Trolling for congress? by capt.Hij · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If these people really believe that the internet is one big conduit to steal music and movies then there is no way on earth that they would release the movie. The money that they think they would lose would be better spent greasing the palm of their local congress-person even if the released movie is a horrible quality. More than that they must also realize that they would be running the risk of proving that they are wrong when a sure fire hit like this will make a gazillion dollars. If this was their plan they would have done it on a stinker that they thought wouldn't make any money.

    4. Re:Trolling for congress? by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, that's not the logic. The logic is more under the "self fulfilling prophecy" world.

      The MPAA claims that they need ultra-strong protection to avoid movie leaks.

      They currently don't have these protections and look... ...the movie leaked.

      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 wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    5. Re:Trolling for congress? by jonnythan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the logic is that we have been shown repeatedly that the MPAA and RIAA will stop at nothing to show that the internet is a huge problem and that laws need to be passed to limit it.

    6. Re:Trolling for congress? by TGK · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm going to play the devils advocate and champion the "The MPAAA released it theory here"

      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.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    7. Re:Trolling for congress? by schlach · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I gotta go with TGK on this one. If you want to play conspiracy theory, walk with me.

      The number of people that are able to download movies P2P *
      • the percentage that want to watch Harry Potter period *
      • the percentage that want to watch a crappy version on their crappy computers *
      • the percentage that won't also want to see it in the theatre *
      • the percentage that would have seen it if it hadn't been leaked...

      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...
    8. Re:Trolling for congress? by Schnapple · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They -=know=- just as well as we do that they're not loosing revenue to pirated movies.
      Well this has been something I've pondered for a while now. Few if any people will bother to download this movie and watch it exclusively, as opposed to MP3's (i.e., a CD you burn using MP3's is close enough to the real CD for most people). Same thing with AOTC. I think the main reason they're going nuts (and I assume they are) is for different reasons:
      1. The main way a movie makes money is not through viewings but through repeat viewings. Having a VCD kills this since you're less likely to go back and see a movie you can see on your PC or TV. In some ways this movie's release is worse since people will download this movie and teach their kids how to operate a DVD player - instant babysitter.
      2. It could cut into DVD sales later. This is less of an issue for a CAM captured movie than a TV show. If you can download a TiVO Captured SVCD at near DVD quality, why would you buy a DVD of it in a season set later? Commentaries? Subtitles? Extras? Great for the hardcore, but for the casual fan just downloading it is plenty.
      3. Part of the marketing rush for a movie is in its release date, but if the movie is available for whomever before that date, then that equity is shot. Mainly it just irks movie execs that people see the movie before its even in theaters (though since this movie is already in the UK its not quite the situation AOTC was).
      4. IANAL, but the main reason, IMHO, movie companies go after this sort of thing is they have no choice. If they ignore it then they pretty much piss away their copyrights. If someone leaks Harry Potter onto the Internet and they do nothing to stop or combat it, then when they arrest a piracy ring for selling bootleg DVD's of Harry Potter on the streets of Hong Kong or something, they don't have a legal right to stand on since they didn't go after all of them. It sets a bad legal precedent because it says they ignore one kind of copyright infringement but not another.
      --

      Schnapple

    9. Re:Trolling for congress? by RollingThunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, there's one facet you overlooked - and that's the movie theater OWNER, who for some reason enjoys allowing copies to be made.

      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.

    10. Re:Trolling for congress? by RollingThunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Could be even easier... combination locks. Send the physical object out early, then distribute the combo on release day (or the night before).

      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.

  3. The sound you just heard... by slaker · · Score: 5, Funny

    Was a million geeks all hitting Gnutella at the same time.

    --
    -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    1. Re:The sound you just heard... by n08ody · · Score: 4, Funny

      Was a million geeks all hitting Gnutella at the same time.

      I'll give you that. But, did they make a sound?

      How many geeks does it take to ...

  4. Of course... by kafka93 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .. it will make millions, because nobody who really cares about seeing the movie will want to watch a grainy telesync with poor sound.

    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.

    1. Re:Of course... by mrpuffypants · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

    2. Re:Of course... by Anenga · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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!"

    3. Re:Of course... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would say, for your "pidgeon" analysis, I think your demographic (your friends) is a bit skewed towards the übergeek.

      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.

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    4. Re:Of course... by GlassHeart · · Score: 4, Funny
      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."

      Somehow I still think that the solution to your problem is not some form of copyright protection, but new friends.

    5. Re:Of course... by isorox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  5. mirrors please by Pave+Low · · Score: 4, Funny
    why didn't you guys link to mirrors of like last time, with the doom 3 alpha?

    you could have saved us the trouble of looking for it on kazaa.

    --
    SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
  6. This is old news.... by screenbert · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've already downloaded Episode 3 off of Kazaa! ... Today is Friday, if you disagree then I don't care cause I'll soon be in Ireland and you won't. So there.

  7. Much ado about nothing by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know my kid wouldn't settle for seeing some grainy rip of a movie at 200 x 180 (or whatever crappy res it looks least bad at).

    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.

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    1. Re:Much ado about nothing by capt.Hij · · Score: 5, Funny
      I'll probably be there opening night. - Commander Taco

      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...

  8. Illegal piraters?? by easyfrag · · Score: 5, Funny


    Illegal piraters?

    Wow, President Bush reads Slashdot!

  9. What?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also note that it will make millions and millions of dollars anyway. I'll probably be there opening night.

    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.

    1. Re:What?? by SirSlud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > 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!

      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) .. but it flies in the face of so many other cases of observed human behaviour. There are plenty of things that are easy to steal, and people don't do it nearly to the degree that people copy movies and music. This is the key point that folks postulating your line of reasoning seem unable to explain.

      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).

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:What?? by coupland · · 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?

  10. Thank goodness by BigGar' · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really enjoy watching a poor copy of a film on my small computer screen and 2" speakers, day's before going to see it in the theater. I was worried I'd have to see it for the first time on the big screen with surround sound. Thanks for saving me, kudos to you!!!!

    --


    Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
  11. News for Pirates. Stuff to Download. by Cirrius · · Score: 4, Funny

    Forget trolling IRC for pirate info, just start come to Slashdot for all the news on the latest pirated releases! Doom III, Harry Potter, keep em coming Slashdot!

    (sarcasm btw)

  12. Why go to the cinema to watch the movie... by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 4, Funny
    when I can download a shaky, crap quality divx off the Internet?

    Also, wtf is a pirater?

    --
    Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
  13. This is Harry Potter. by traphicone · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's more like four geeks.

  14. Ewwww! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Harry's Chamber Pot of Secrets has leaked? Gross!

  15. I would just assume see it in the theater... by Camulus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  16. OMG! by GMontag · · Score: 5, Funny

    It starts small, theivery by sneeking popcorn and cokes from "the street" into the theater, then it just gets worse...
    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!

    --
    Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
  17. But you forget... by jmu1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that the new state of lawmaking is to take away all responsibility from everyone and place it all squarely in the hands of the government. Once that responsibility has evaporated, along with it goes liberty, freedom, and the ability to choose to ignore the laws made by disconnected legislators.

  18. Do We Really Need.. by asv108 · · Score: 5, Funny

    A slashdot story for everytime a movie is leaked? I can understand Star Wars, but Harry Potter? What is the criteria for allowing leaked movie news to be posted on slashdot since its a pretty common event anymore? I can see the stories now, "Ya Ya Sisterhood 2 LEAKED!"

  19. Does it really matter? by Ost99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  20. No big deal...does piracy hurt film anyway? by droopus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The release of Harry Potter is a crappy cam, and won't affect Theatrical revenue. It's almost unwatchable.

    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.

    --
    "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
    1. Re:No big deal...does piracy hurt film anyway? by droopus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      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 ...twice?

      --
      "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
  21. And the Quality? by Anenga · · Score: 3

    Over at VCDQuality there are screencaps up. A little too bright, but not bad. The quality seems to be improving since I've last seen a VCD Release.

    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.

    1. Re:And the Quality? by Anenga · · Score: 3, Informative

      Errr. It seems they have anti-leeching on their images. Try this.

  22. here, here, here.... by tiedyejeremy · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Could someone please post that to alt.binaries.svcd ?

    thanks kindly. I'm not big on IRC and the usenet structure is so friendly.

    --
    Anything you say will be held against you. ... "tits"
  23. Re:New DVD standard by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 3, Funny
    Studio President: Well, this has to stop!

    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!

    --
    Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
  24. Re:Not the fault of P2P. by tmark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Certainly the widespread distribution of it is something made possible by P2P, isn't it ? Certainly the people who are distributing and "sharing" this/these files are partly to blame for the illegal distribution. And given that there is no way they could fairly own the content, NOONE could possibly be crying "fair use" here, now, could they ? Could it possibly be that some P2P users are "sharing" content they don't own and have no "fair use" rights to ? Heavens to Betsy !

  25. it's the end of slashdot as we know it (AIFF) by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 4, Funny

    This paranoid speculation with no evidence whatsoever gets a 5.

    I'm speechless.

    --
    DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
  26. Re:Not the fault of P2P. by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is totally, entirely, and completely the fault of poor security at the film distributor.

    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.

    --
    $8.95/mo web hosting
  27. Some people still don't get it... by Andy+Smith · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Also note that it will make millions and millions of dollars anyway.
    So that's okay then. And if you make $100,000/year then it's okay for someone to steal $100.

    <insert "silly_old_piracy_isn't_theft_excuse.h">
    1. Re:Some people still don't get it... by Xeger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Look, someone's leaked the new Harry Potter movie onto the Internet! Geeze, being as how I'm such a tremendous fan, I think I'll download it."

      (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.

    2. Re:Some people still don't get it... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Funny

      And if you make $100,000/year then it's okay for someone to steal $100.

      That would explain taxes :).

  28. Movies these days by scotay · · Score: 5, Funny

    It seems that all the Hollywood movies I've seen recently are going for that washed-out, slate gray look of Saving Private Ryan. I'm thinking these cinematographers are now filming these things on budget camcorders in darkened theaters just to reproduce Spielberg's look.

    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.

  29. Who defeated the interlock? by jolshefsky · · Score: 3, Funny
    Usually sealed chambers, such as those containing secrets, will have a double door system to prevent the contents from leaking out. In all secret chamber systems I've seen, there is an interlock that prevents the inner door and outer door from being open at the same time.

    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.

    --
    --- Jason Olshefsky

    Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)

  30. Nice blanket statement by Theodore+Logan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Also note that it will make millions and millions of dollars anyway. I'll probably be there opening night.

    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?

    --

    "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok

  31. God Hates Us All by disc-chord · · Score: 3, Funny

    God hates Hairy Potter fans now? WTF? Dude this god fellow needs to lighten up and relax. What's he getting all pissy about everything for? If he's going to get all worked up about everything, maybe he ought not have made it to begin with.

    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?

  32. value added by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Like any industry, the amount of money that one can make depends on the perceived 'value added' to the product. The movie industry 'adds value' to the books and expects to make a profit on that addition. The question is how. If the theaters can 'add value' to the viewing experience, then the cinemas and the movie makers make a profit. If the cinemas do not, then perhaps the movie companies can make a profit through video rental and sales, at the expense of ticket sales. Or, perhaps the movie is such a dud that no one wants to pay for the movie and will just watch the grainy pirated copy, shadow heads and all. Or, perhaps, the movie is so bad that the leaked copy, which should be a prime advertising tool, so sickens people that they swear never to see the movie. We all have wasted money on movies that made us sick.

    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.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  33. Re:Noooo.... it's all PR by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 5, Funny

    I disagree, after watching the pirated Attack of the Clones I decided not to go to the theatres because the movie was so god-awful.

  34. Re:Not the fault of P2P. by plover · · Score: 5, Interesting
    -1, wrong.

    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
  35. I AM A BIG FAT TROLL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, you're not paranoid.

    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!

  36. Re:Not the fault of P2P. by Wiwi+Jumbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure about that... If it wasn't distributed by P2P it would be distributed by something else...

    I don't think P2P is any more to blame then anything else, it's just faster.

    --
    Wiwi
    "I trust in my abilities,
    but I want more then they offer"
  37. The Truth about film piracy by DaveOf9thKey · · 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 and CinemaNow, 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?

    --

    Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
  38. Sort of like playing songs on the radio? by iabervon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Sort of like playing songs on the radio? by NeuroManson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Definately, I've bought DVDs of movies I previously refused to view in movie theaters (such as South Park, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, The One, The Emperor's New Groove, Princess Mononoke)...

      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...

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  39. +4 Interesting my fat, hairy ass by RatBastard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Copying work without the owners permission is theft. No amount of self-serving rationalizations will change that. You are not stealing your friend's cd of the Back Street Boys when copy it, but you are stealing money from the record company that owns the rights to the music (and Lance and his little friends).

    Hide behind semantic hair-splitting all you want. It won't make a difference.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    1. Re:+4 Interesting my fat, hairy ass by GlassHeart · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Copying work without the owners permission is theft.

      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.

    2. Re:+4 Interesting my fat, hairy ass by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > At some point the piece of media would be inexpensive enough for you to purchase, but because you have access to it for effectively free.. you have no economic incentive to ever pay for it, even when you value it enough to pay for it at some price point.

      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 .. and damanded a fair price for the food. Mobs of people could have just gotten the food for free, but we're animals; if we can tell if our behaviour is going to destroy the producers of the things we value, we wont seek said product for free. AKA, we do have an incentive not to get said product for free. Anybody that denies this is saying that humans are _incapable_ of recognizing the need not to destroy the very systems we depend on for our lives. Thats patently untrue, as we can see in everything from p2p behavior to the food riots of earlier centuries in the UK when the price of food rose above what a majority of the population could afford (one of the unfortunate results of the implementation of capitalism in feudal times.)

      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 .. ITS THE SAME THING. THe key difference is in the sake of the physical realm, youve deprived the original owner of product. In the digital world, you havn't in any way affected the producers ability to sell to other people because *each one of those people will either pay what you're asking for or won't*.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re:+4 Interesting my fat, hairy ass by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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"
    4. Re:+4 Interesting my fat, hairy ass by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I had never noticed this before:

      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.

    5. Re:+4 Interesting my fat, hairy ass by GlassHeart · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It is different. If you give the book to your friend, you no longer have the book.

      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.

  40. old, old, old by ucblockhead · · Score: 5, Interesting
    When I was a teenager, a friend called me up, ecstatic, about getting his hands on a videotape of The Last Starfighter, which was opening in a couple of weeks.

    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
  41. I agree, therefore we disagree by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful
    No computer setup -- not even one with a projector screen and 5.1 surround sound -- will ever duplicate the theater experience

    Yep, nothing like
    • Waiting for the movie you want to see to show
    • Having to order ahead to get the best seats
    • Actually having to get to/from the cinema
    • Buying overpriced food/drink
    • ...and it's not even what you like
    • See thirty minutes of commercials
    • The latecomer that needs to get past you
    • Him or her asking around for what has happened
    • ...and somebody answering, in great detail
    • The crunchy snack-munchers
    • With obligatory noisy snack wrapping
    • The one who still forgot to turn off his cell
    • And answers it...
    • The two that are talking about everyhing but the movie.
    • The two who've seen it 100 times before and are discussing the ending already.
    • A so crappy movie that you'd rather just stop and see something else
    • Wanting to pause the movie to go to the bathroom
    • And I don't want to get started on why you might want to watch pr0n or other exciting movies at home, alone or in company...


    Yep, I'm sure there aren't any good reasons to sitting at home in front of a good home cinema.

    Kjella
    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  42. This sounds like a promotional stunt by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I suspect the studio wanted something like this to happen. The new HP movie hasn't been getting as much press as the first one. So it opened in the UK last weekend. Although it's billed as a "preview", it's not. Look at this show list. 19 screenings each day last weekend. That's a multi-screen booking at a multiplex, not a reaction preview. Quite a number of UK locations seem to have been running that movie last weekend.

    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...

  43. I saw it last saturday in the cinema! by muffen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Leaked must be the wrong word. This is a screener, and it started in cinemas last Thursday in the UK/Ireland.

    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".

  44. Re:Big deal (SPOILER!) by guacamolefoo · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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.

    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.

    --
    Lots of petrified grits
  45. Re:I think people DO know it's theft by guacamolefoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, I think folks know it's stealing in the same way they also know that going 65 in a 55 zone is breaking the law. "It's okay, everyone does it." "I'm not hurting anyone (at least that I know and care about)." "It's cheap and painless." "Nobody will ever know." "Nobody will bother me for doing this, so I can do it with impunity."

    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.

    --
    Lots of petrified grits
  46. Illegal Pirates??? by Snaller · · Score: 5, Funny

    As opposed to Legal Pirates? Which would be... what? The IRS? RIAA?

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  47. Well, by Washizu · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Jerk store just called and they're all out of you!

    --
    OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
  48. Re:Big deal (SPOILER!) by cheese_wallet · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Galadriel had better show her f-ing tits, or I'm definitely not going to see Return of the King."

    LOL That was classic.

  49. NO, It's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT by JohnDenver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First, I do have to agree with you on one point. Intellectual Property balanced with Fair Use and Unregulated Use is very promising...

    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?

    --
    "Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
  50. What a tragedy... by seanscottrogers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sneaking into a theater with a camera is nothing new. This wasn't any more of a leak than borrowing your movie critic friends VHS tape was 10 or 15 years ago. It's sad that such powerful software progress like P2P will pay the price for "leaks" that have existed for years. And I'm still under the impression that with movies this big, "leak" publicity stunts like this only serve to promote the movies release, not hinder it. I'de have to agree with schlach that we are talking about a very small demographic that would cut into movie sales.

  51. So? by xenoweeno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With so many blockbusters due out this holiday season this problem will only increase in the coming months.

    I give up. Why is this a problem? This is not a rhetorical question.

  52. Re:Why is free distribution of media "pirating?" by Qrlx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.