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.
You've been able to buy the script at any bookstore for years now.
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.
Was a million geeks all hitting Gnutella at the same time.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
.. 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.
you could have saved us the trouble of looking for it on kazaa.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
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.
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!
Illegal piraters?
Wow, President Bush reads Slashdot!
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.
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.
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)
Also, wtf is a pirater?
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
It's more like four geeks.
Harry's Chamber Pot of Secrets has leaked? Gross!
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.
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
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!"
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.
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."
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 !
This paranoid speculation with no evidence whatsoever gets a 5.
I'm speechless.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
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
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.
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
"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.
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.
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
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"
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.
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
Yep, nothing like
Yep, I'm sure there aren't any good reasons to sitting at home in front of a good home cinema.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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...
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".
"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
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.
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
> 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.
.. 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.)
.. 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*.
WRONG. The food riots showed that people were far more interested in paying a fair price for something than stealing it outright. Faced with the recognition that looting and pillaging food producers for free would cause said producers to be able to make food for the future, people rioted
The incentive for people to pay is to keep folks producing this valued content. You yourself say people place some value in the product, so WHY THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE WANNA RUN THE PRODUCT OUT OF BUSINESS. Nobody.
So people 'copy' when they feel they are not in danger of causing the producer to go out of business. But they _WONT_ pay for shit just for the sake of _garaunteeing_ that the producer wont go out of business.
I mean, risk is part of business. Whether or not you go out of business because people won't pay your asking price or because people circumvent your asking price because they feel its too high
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.