Slashdot Mirror


Most Movies On P2P From Insiders?

An anonymous reader writes "AT&T Labs has determined that a significant majority of movies on P2P networks are the result of leaks from movie industry insiders (New York Times, free reg req'd). They not only point to the obvious cases (movies online before theatrical release, like The Hulk or Star Wars AOTC), but also examine other cases. The researchers examined 285 movies from P2P networks and used the quality of the file to determine whether it was some guy with a video camera or not. Choice quote: 'Our conclusion is that the distributors really need to take a hard look at their own internal processes and look at how they can stop the insider leaks of their movies before taking measures that might hamstring consumers' technologies and rights.'"

318 comments

  1. And this is this news to who? by inertia187 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Most Movies On P2P From Insiders?

    Should say: from the duh dept. Umkay?

    (fp)

    --
    A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    1. Re:And this is this news to who? by Lawbeefaroni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or from the we know what you're up to dept.

      Choice quote: 'Our conclusion is that the distributors really need to take a hard look at their own internal processes and look at how they can stop the insider leaks of their movies before taking measures that might hamstring consumers' technologies and rights.'"

      They care about hamstringing consumers' rights and tech? If the result of "leaked" movies is more control for the industry, I would be suprised if they're not giving employees who "leak" films big fat bonuses.

      Let's see. Get a few extra $million at the box office or leak a film and take another giant step towards total media domination. You know what they'll choose. It's not like they shy away from spending $millions lobbying to get similar results.

      --
      "When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
    2. Re:And this is this news to who? by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      True, this is probably news to no-one, but what I find of most interest is that this is not a study by a university research team but an large US corporate. If it were a university backed team, then the MPAA would no doubt dismiss their findings with the same haste that a typical Slashdotter would dismiss a Microsoft funded report dissing Linux. After all, it's a university and the **AA's know what rabid copyright infringers their students are... The fact that this comes instead from AT&T should lend a little more credence to the report and *hopefully* cause them to at least think about their strategy some.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:And this is this news to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should say: from the duh dept. Umkay?

      I can't stand people who say "Umkay".

    4. Re:And this is this news to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you must really love the song. Man, I love that song... UMKAY?

    5. Re:And this is this news to who? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but having that "duh" come from AT&T Labs means a lot more in court than having it come from your or me. It doesn't hurt to point out that a chunk of so-called "piracy" is due to the studios' own irresponsibility.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:And this is this news to who? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      It's very much clear that DVD Rips of movies that aren't available on DVD yet. Jeez, have of them have copyright and "property of ..." overlays.

      On the otherhand, any telescreener is clearly someone who knows a friendly cinema manager who will let them do captures after-hours. Films captured during public screenings are rare and understandably so. I haven't seen someone standup or talk in one of these since I saw a friends copy of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles over a year before it's UK theatrical release!

    7. Re:And this is this news to who? by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Come on, that's an off-the-wall conspiracy theory....

      The real problem is the old saying of of "Information wants to be free." Major movie releases are mega-hyped events where the content is something that is kept out of public view until the designated day, hour, minute of a moment, but within the process has to pass through the hands of thousands of people. It takes only one person to make an unauthorized copy at that level to get it onto the P2P networks.

    8. Re:And this is this news to who? by swordboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Should say: from the duh dept.

      I disagree with this as well as AT&T's asessment. Actually, I believe that most movies are "inside jobs" but not as inside as they seem to believe.

      They based their conclusion on the quality of the bootleg. Now, I've seen a bootleg that had quality so remarkable that I would swear that it must have been created by an insider with a method of transferring it digitally. That is, until someone *walked* in front of the movie screen. How's *that* for an analog hole?

      So I was fooled by a remarkable quality big screen to video camera recording. Now, I still believe that this particular instance was an inside job because this was no ordinary camera piece of recording equipment and, aside from the guy who barely poked his head into the viewing area, I think that the theater was otherwise empty.

      I think that most bootlegs are recorded by people who work at the movie theater. We will see a day when watermarks are being inserted into the movie itself.

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    9. Re:And this is this news to who? by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Bingo, people forget that napster's death warrant was signed when AOL/TW got screwed three weeks in a row by insiders droping tracks online, Metalica, Dr. Dre, and Madonnna releases in Summer 2000 were all inside jobs but they went after the secondary offenders, not there own internal leaks.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    10. Re:And this is this news to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't read the article yet, but preproduction rips and studio tapes ARE watermarked... the copy I have of The HULK even has CG glitches!

    11. Re:And this is this news to who? by vDave420 · · Score: 4, Informative
      We will see a day when watermarks are being inserted into the movie itself.

      They already watermark many major movies, and will continue to do so.

      This will, of course, not be effective.

      When will they learn?

      -dave-

      --
      The pig browse. With Google. Sigh is to the chicken. Chicken is fool. Giggle. The DailyWTF giggle.
    12. Re:And this is this news to who? by rot26 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't you knee-jerk-anti-conspiracy-theory-buffs ever get tired of poopooing every friggin thing that comes along? Guess what? THERE ARE CONSPIRACIES OUT THERE!!!! How do I know? BECAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE MINE. Hey, when my plot to overthrow the world gets close to implementation, I'll run it by you first so you can announce to the world what a load of crap it is. We'll see who has the last laugh then, buddy.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    13. Re:And this is this news to who? by antiMStroll · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yikes, remove the Slashdot-coloured glasses! The world doesn't operate on this forum's model. The notion that university researchers fudge results to protect student file trading, or that the MPAA believes this, doesn't make sense outside the twisted perspective this place can foster.

      The opposite is far more likely, AT&T is a major provider of connectivity threatened by potential legal responsibily for facilitating file trading. They have significant self-interest in making these statements (true or no), moreso than any university, and the MPAA no doubt realizes it.

    14. Re:And this is this news to who? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First off, it's about time for them to look at this focus rather than, as the report states, solutions that will hamstring consumers (i.e. attacks on p2p and other emerging technologies). Had Metallica figured this out in the Napster days, they would have realized their problem was in house rather than with their fans. Remember, what pissed Metallica off the most was hearing an unreleased song of theirs on the radio because a radio DJ had downloaded it via Napster. I don't think it's conspiracy theory to notice that the RIAA lawyers cynically manipulated artists who were upset about this by focusing their attention on p2p rather than on the problems that were in their own studios.

    15. Re:And this is this news to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, aren't you clever!

    16. Re:And this is this news to who? by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Don't be so sure, what theatre shows movies that look like this?

    17. Re:And this is this news to who? by kaltkalt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good point. It's very similar to how the RIAA is secretly sharing kiddie porn on all the p2p networks so they can make a case to congress that all p2p should be shut down to save the precious children from horrible emotional abuse (ignoring the fact that the RIAA is suing 12 year old children at the same time, because one can comprehend only so much hypocrisy).

      Do I really believe the RIAA is putting kiddie porn on p2p networks? Well, I've never, EVER actually come across kiddie porn on any p2p's, but then again I've never looked for it. Considering how highly illegal it is (much moreso than sharing a song... kiddie porn is right up there with crashing jetliners into buildings), I have a hard time believing anyone would be so stupid as to voluntarily share kiddie porn on a public network... unless it greatly benefitted his business model. So, I firmly believe IF there is actually kiddie porn on KaZaA, etc, that the RIAA is 100% responsible for it being there. They got the children naked, they took the pictures, they stuck them online, and they are bringing it to the government's attention. That way there is evidence to justify the Children's Peer to Peer Protection Act of 2003 (banning p2p software). Who is producing all the lobbying material (videos, booklets, etc) advocating shutting down p2p networks because of kiddie porn? The RIAA. And idiots like Orin Hatch (who, as a musician is currently getting $10+k in royalties per year, and should recuse himself from such debates due to the conflict of interest) have already taken up the RIAA's cause.

      So, the bottom line is that "every time you download a song, the RIAA sexually molests a child" is not too far from the truth.

      Machiavellian? Maybe so, but the fact that they're willing to sue 12 year old kids to sustain their worldwide monopoly doesn't make it much of a stretch to presume that they'd stick kiddie porn online if it meant possibly getting rid of all file sharing once and for all.

      --

      Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
    18. Re:And this is this news to who? by jedrek · · Score: 1

      Most DVD screeners I've been watching lately have a blured rectangle in the upper-right-hand corner, where I assume a watermark should be.

    19. Re:And this is this news to who? by WNight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For people who scoff at conspiracy theories, remember that if only takes one boss to "joke" about such an idea, one employee to do it on his own time, and year-end bonuses to reward the employee without actually establishing a link between the illegal action and the boss or the company.

      The boss has plausible deniability. Even if the conversation was recorder he only said "Damn Company X and their fleet of trucks", he didn't tell the employee to pour sugar in their tanks. It was all a terrible misunderstanding, that terrible lawbreaking employee did it of their own initiative.

      Maybe some RIAA mid-manager in charge of P2P stuff commented on how much easier it would be to shut down KaZaa if it started to deliver kiddy porn when you searched for a song...

    20. Re:And this is this news to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And sometimes it's very obviously an inside job. Like the DVD rip I found of "The Lion King", the new version with added scenes, a few months before release.

    21. Re:And this is this news to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all I have to say to this shoot down is ouch! :)

    22. Re:And this is this news to who? by Lawbeefaroni · · Score: 1

      I admit it's off-the-wall. Whether or not they actively caused the leaks doesn't matter. The point is they can work it to their benefit and my (our) detriment. I don't care if I have to pay to watch a movie. But as soon as I have to buy an approved player, pay licensing for an approved decoder, and sit through 20 minutes of approved advertising, that's when I feel screwed.

      Ah, the old "Information wants to be free" mantra. And you consider The Hulk information? It's a piece of entertainment. I suppose Grand Theft Auto wants to be free as well?

      What's next, "Gap jeans want to be free?"

      --
      "When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
    23. Re:And this is this news to who? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Since when could Gap jeans be stored on a disk? That's what seperates information from matter... :)

    24. Re:And this is this news to who? by PhoenixOne · · Score: 2, Informative
      I kind of wish this was true (only because it would be easier to track back to the source and stop it) but I doubt that it is.

      quote: " I have a hard time believing anyone would be so stupid as to voluntarily share kiddie porn on a public network."

      The sad thing is people are really that stupid. People have posted child porn to UseNet, sent it out as emails, and even put it on public web-sites. Don't you remember that a couple of celebrities have been busted in the latest kiddie porn sting?

      People that deal in child porn are not bright (they are also sick, soulless individuals, but that is another story). Like many people who break the law by sharing illegal files on P2P servers, they may actually believe that it is totally anonymous (just like people who post AC on this forum ;)).

      --
      Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
    25. Re:And this is this news to who? by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest ?"

    26. Re:And this is this news to who? by TomV · · Score: 1

      Who, indeed, will rid me of this turbulent priest?

      tv

    27. Re:And this is this news to who? by Excen · · Score: 1

      They [The RIAA] got the children naked, they took the pictures, they stuck them online,

      How old was Britney Spears when her first album came out?

      --
      "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
    28. Re:And this is this news to who? by kaltkalt · · Score: 1

      Ahh, this is another argument I was making a few weeks ago when we had the article on the RIAA trying to ban p2p for kiddie porn. The RIAA makes most of its money nowadays by selling products with pictures of half-naked kids (some barely legal, some not) plastered all over them. There are younger ones than brittney, too. As far as i'm concerned, the RIAA is the biggest group of child-pron smut peddlers out there.

      --

      Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
    29. Re:And this is this news to who? by kamakot · · Score: 0

      Since when could Gap jeans be stored on a disk? That's what seperates information from matter... :)

      When they become digital, I'll be making illegal copies...that is, until OpenGap becomes available. Then we'll be sued by Pants Industry Associ---

      I can't wait for peer-to-peer pants.

    30. Re:And this is this news to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because your knee-jerk judgement based on personal experience is much better than scientific analysis. Knee-jerk judgement is the way the RIAA works. Don't be like them!

    31. Re:And this is this news to who? by PMuse · · Score: 1

      ...what I find of most interest is that this is not a study by a university research team ... The fact that this comes instead from AT&T should lend a little more credence to the report...

      Right. AT&T has no motive for bias here. They're just a provider of bandwidth.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    32. Re:And this is this news to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: nanotech...woohoo!

    33. Re:And this is this news to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Brian blessed gived the best delivery of that line in the first Blackadder series.

    34. Re:And this is this news to who? by WNight · · Score: 1

      I saw this in Underworld in the theatre tonight. Maybe 10+ instances of red dots. I *think* they're in various patterns, but I'm not sure. They always seemed to happen during an action scene so it's hard to tell.

      I complained about red dots on the picture and got free passes. Maybe if enough people complain they'll stop.

  2. Don't subscribe to NYTimes? by RIAAwakka_nakka_bakk · · Score: 3, Informative
    Hollywood Faces Online Piracy, but It Looks Like an Inside Job
    By JOHN SCHWARTZ

    When "Hulk" hit the small screen early, Hollywood hit the roof. Two weeks before this summer's film adaptation of the angry green giant opened in theaters in June, copies started showing up on file-sharing networks around the world. The film cost Universal $150 million to make and distribute, but anyone with a fast Internet connection, a big hard drive and plenty of time could see it free.

    Hollywood is desperately worried that it will soon face the widespread illegal copying that has bedeviled the music industry -- and that prompted record companies to file lawsuits last week against 261 people accused of illegally distributing copyrighted music online. Piracy of works in digital format, like DVD's or high-definition television is, in theory, so simple that whole movies could be zapped around the globe with a click of a mouse -- a prospect that Jack Valenti, chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America, has told lawmakers "gives movie producers multiple Maalox moments."

    But the early debut of "Hulk" was not the work of the armies of KaZaA-loving college students or cinephile hackers. The copy that made its way to the Internet was an almost-complete working version of the film that had been circulated to an advertising agency as part of the run-up to theatrical release. And "Hulk" is not alone.

    According to a new study published by AT&T Labs, the prime source of unauthorized copies of new movies on file-sharing networks appears to be movie industry insiders, not consumers. The study is "the first publicly available assessment of the source of leaks of popular movies," according to its authors.

    Nearly 80 percent of some 300 copies of popular movies found by the researchers on online file sharing networks "appeared to have been leaked by industry insiders," and nearly all showed up online before their official consumer DVD release date, suggesting that consumer DVD copying represents a relatively minor factor compared with insider leaks.

    "Our conclusion is that the distributors really need to take a hard look at their own internal processes and look at how they can stop the insider leaks of their movies" before taking measures that might hamstring consumers' technologies and rights, said Lorrie Cranor, a researcher at AT&T Labs and lead author of the study.

    The production and distribution process provide a better choke point, Ms. Cranor said, than antipiracy measures that could hamstring consumer electronics devices and computer networks. "If you're not going to worry about the insiders, it's kind of pointless to worry about the outsiders," she said.

    The insiders might be workers in production or promotion, or even Academy Awards screeners, to whom the studios send thousands of advance copies of DVD's each year. "The movie industry ought to treat everybody within its influence equally, from studio executives and investors, down through movie editors, truck drivers and out to the critics," concluded Ms. Cranor and her coauthors, AT&T Labs researchers Patrick McDaniel, Simon Byers and Dave Kormann, and Eric Cronin of the University of Pennsylvania.

    Ken Jacobsen, senior vice president and director of worldwide piracy issues for the motion picture association, said he had not yet seen the report, but added that its conclusions seemed off.

    "The industry experience is the awards screeners are a source for piracy," he said, but primarily during the Oscar-judging season. "The industry experience also is, on a rare occasion, a copy gets out of a postproduction house and enters the pirate marketplace. And the industry experience is that a majority of movies enter the pirate marketplace as a result of illegal camcording" in theaters. Digital piracy, he said, is "a serious problem for us now."

    Still, large-scale swapping of high quality, full-length films and HDTV programs is out of the reach of all but the most wired consumer b

    1. Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to OFF THE MAN, brutha!

    2. Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? by mike_mgo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Don't subscribe to NYTimes?

      Yeah, It's not like they ever print stories of interest to /. readers so why should we try to support them in even a meager way.

    3. Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 5, Funny

      This text brought to you by an insider at the New York Times.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    4. Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? by rifter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't subscribe to NYTimes?

      Yeah, It's not like they ever print stories of interest to /. readers so why should we try to support them in even a meager way.

      What's stupidest about this is that not only is there free (as in beer) registration, but several nice slashdotters have set up logins over the years that everyone on slashdot could use (they published the login name and password). The coolest thing is no one ever changed the passwords on these accounts.

      If you really want to karma whore, you could always create a new user and publish its name and password. Honestly, i do not know why submitters do not just link to the archive version of the nytimes story, whcih never requires a login to see.

      Every time a nytimes story is used on /. I see the same 100 goddamn posts. Whining about registration, suggesting registration, suggesting archive urls, giving usernames to use to login... it's all a binch of malarky. Everyone who reads slashdot knows the deal with nytimes. Why they don't link the archive version to at least preempt the whining is beyond me.

    5. Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The coolest thing is no one ever changed the passwords on these accounts.

      Because the NYT deletes these accounts as soon as they figure out they're being used by multiple users.

      Honestly, i do not know why submitters do not just link to the archive version of the nytimes story, whcih never requires a login to see.

      Because those URLs are notoriously unreliable; sometimes the archive URL works and sometimes it doesn't.

    6. Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but several nice slashdotters have set up logins over the years that everyone on slashdot could use (they published the login name and password).

      Um, I never saw one. Like what?

    7. Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? by jrockway · · Score: 1

      user: noreg
      pass: noreg

      --
      My other car is first.
    8. Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Funny


      People say "I don't care if it is free, they sell my information to advertisers and the NSA and the Aliens!" Who says you have to give them valid information?



      It's great fun to see what restrictions they put on your date of birth. Can I be born yesterday? How about tomorrow? Can I be born in the 1600's? I believe New York Times will not let you enter a birth day any earlier than 1800.
      My NTY user is a 182 year old Female Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Engineer.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    9. Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't work

    10. Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      user: noreg22
      pass: noreg

    11. Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? by rifter · · Score: 1

      "The coolest thing is no one ever changed the passwords on these accounts."

      Because the NYT deletes these accounts as soon as they figure out they're being used by multiple users.

      That is news to me. Are you sure about that? I have been using the same slashdot-provided username and password for nyt articles for years.

      "Honestly, i do not know why submitters do not just link to the archive version of the nytimes story, whcih never requires a login to see."

      Because those URLs are notoriously unreliable; sometimes the archive URL works and sometimes it doesn't.

      That is understandable, but of course using this would mean slashdotters would have to actually check the links used in story submissions (a process during which slashdotters have been notoriously unreliable). :)

  3. FS ANOTHER NYTIMES LINK by Neophytus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google access and a new scientist story on the same thing.

  4. /me crosses fingers.. by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


    [insiders putting] movies online before theatrical release [..]

    Hopefully someone working on Duke Nukem Forever is reading /. today..

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:/me crosses fingers.. by wo1verin3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      >> Hopefully someone working on Duke Nukem
      >> Forever [3drealms.com] is reading /. today..

      The most upto date version was already leaked on Kazaa. It consisted of one file: duke.nukem.4ever.plan.txt. The contents were as follow:

      --- start duke.nukem.4ever.plan.txt ---

      Step 1) Announce Duke Nuken Forever
      Step 2) ???
      Step 3) Release game

      --- end duke.nukem.4ever.plan.txt ---

      For the boys over at 3D Realms, step 2 is: MAKE THE DAMN GAME

    2. Re:/me crosses fingers.. by Reaper9889 · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that you can only do a release a certain time before. Lets say 5 % of the development time. so: Time to the "scene" release it + time since the dev. started = (Time to Duke Nukem Forever gets released+time since they started) * 0,95 Time to the scene release it + 0,05 * time since they started = Time to game release * 0,95 = ??? Ps. that is forever * 0,95???

    3. Re:/me crosses fingers.. by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      Step 3) Release game
      --- end duke.nukem.4ever.plan.txt ---

      You forgot a step:

      Step 4) PROFIT!!!

      Say what you want, but they have a better track record than the Bitmap Bros. in releasing chipsets...

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    4. Re:/me crosses fingers.. by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      You can't leak something that doesn't exist in a working form yet...

    5. Re:/me crosses fingers.. by gnovos · · Score: 1

      You seem to have included an extra step there right at the end...

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    6. Re:/me crosses fingers.. by rendermaniac · · Score: 1

      there is a reason it is called "Forever"....

  5. MPAA is acting, but slowly. by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    My coworker's son left his system on, and people were downloading the movie "S.W.A.T." from him. A few days later Cox Communications (his ISP) sent him a letter telling him that the MPAA detected his illegal file sharing, and demanded that the file be deleted and the letter responded to within two days or he would lose his Internet connection - permanently.

    So while the MPAA is responding quickly to detected threats, they aren't seeking to estort money like the RIAA.

    1. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by Moth7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That is the definitely the right way to go about it. It shouldn't be _that_ absolute a threat but it seems more affective than the (potential)"threat" of legal action. Ok, maybe taking away a net connection for an indefinite period is harsh - but hey, they did it to Mitnick - filesharers are equally computer criminals.

    2. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by inertia187 · · Score: 1

      Why can't they be as on top of the worm-infected-complete-lack-of-patching internet accounts too?

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    3. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A friend of mine got the call from his ISP about sharing Star Wars: Episode 1 on an IRC channel the same night he was sharing it so he didn't go through more then 5gb on his cable connection. Shaw cable claimed it was Lucasarts that informed them.

    4. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by Neophytus · · Score: 1

      Because they dont get a big scary C+D letter from the mpaa lawyer gang. At most it will be a couple of email complaints to abuse@ (aka /dev/null for many isps) from those who can work out where the mail ACTUALLY came from.

    5. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by Cramer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because the number of DMCA claims received is very small -- small enough to be handled by one person or as part of the jobs for a small department. "virus" and other abuse reports number in the thousands (and even millions for large ISPs) -- far to many for even a warehouse of monkeys to manage. And then, they'd only do something about those that were explicitly pointed out. Abuse departments don't go hunting for stuff (for previous mentioned reasons.)

    6. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by Honest+Man · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The only reason they are not seeking money at this time is this:

      1) They are nice and safe at home, watching the RIAA go after purported acts of piracy (aka fair use + us patriot act + dmca) and fail miserably.
      2) They are still making money - and until profits drop below some invisible level they've set, I doubt they will do more than let the MPAA use their search bots/ip loggers to see what people are sharing.
      3) Movie traders are not your average Kazaa user (no insult to Kazaa users, but its' still a noob's p2p), in most cases they are sharing files in private networks and hubs amongst friends.
      4) They realize, to catch everyone sharing movies will cost them billions of dollars and so far they have been acting fairly obliviously to the reality of HOW many people are sharing the movies.

      They will start attacking users when the RIAA finds a tactic that works and doesn't take 600 years to implement (like the RIAA's current plan would). If they want to start lowering the piracy levels, they will have to install metal detectors in ALL movie theaters worldwide, and have 'screeners' only watched by test groups in theaters - not handing out copies to thousands and expecting them not to use a vcd ripper and share the movies.

      They could also digitally add a digital watermark to the entire screener, or even include 'extra' scenes, or a few extra seconds here and there to certain regions of screeners distributed and once a ripped release is released, they could see which region's version is releasing the screener - from that point they could focus on each that region and do the same thing, but make a variant for each user after they narrow it down - eventually they would know who exactly is sending out these screeners. With the advent of CG video, the movie companies could do a scene say with a table that has a white table cloth, and just put a different pattern, color on each version for each region - they would not have to modify the whole movie, just that pattern or color in one scene.

      My point? They're not trying that hard, because they're not 'that' worried, yet. IMHO, if they really had a clue about the global sharing of movies/games/programs/music/literature, etc, they would be shocked, because guess what..... these people who download, still rent movies/goto drive-in's/goto walk-in's and all around still spend money because even dvd's or a proper rip, cannot compare to the big screen for a good movie.

      There are hundreds of agencies looking for pirated material though, so people should not be 'too' comfortable sharing/downloading these movies (especially if they are located in the US or an area that obey's US law/has strong copyright laws). Programs like Peerguardian (search google and you'll find it for dl) are good for blocking tcp-only connections to you, when they try to download and verify the file is 'real' but if all they are looking for is a files-size and name, then it wont help either because that's not hard to get.

      Be careful out there ya'll. :)

    7. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1

      Awesome! S.W.A.T. is out? Forget isonewz, /. is the place to be for moviez releases!

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    8. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by PylonHead · · Score: 1

      Programs like Peerguardian (search google and you'll find it for dl) are good for blocking tcp-only connections to you, when they try to download and verify the file is 'real' but if all they are looking for is a files-size and name, then it wont help either because that's not hard to get.

      Actually Peerguardian is a joke. As you say, there are many companies out there looking for pirated material. They all have many banks of ip addresses (for this very reason).

      It's kind of like the star wars missle defense system. If even one gets through.. you lose. And you'll never stop them all.

      --
      # (/.);;
      - : float -> float -> float =
    9. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "MPAA detected his illegal file sharing, and demanded that the file be deleted and the letter responded to within two days or he would lose his Internet connection - permanently."

      What is to stop someone from developing a P2P software that rips STRAIT OFF THE DVD, or just plain shares it, ala Windows Networking?

      "But Sir, I cannot delete the file, it is one a DVD that I bought!"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A DVD movie is 4 gigs you dope. Do you seriously expect kazaa lusers to trade 4 gig files?
      Shiat, if my average download speed is any indication, most of them are on 56k still.

    11. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by panaceaa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but hey, they did it to Mitnick - filesharers are equally computer criminals

      That's like saying since blacks are a minority in the US, they should be put into gas chambers because Germans did it to Jews. I'm not a "Free Kevin" fanatic, but Mitnick's been punished far more severly than justified because the FBI wanted to set an example and the legal system couldn't cope with the buzzwords. Using him as an example of what should happen to people who commit computer crimes is perverse.

      In my opinion, computer primes should be prosecuted based on their "real-world" equivalents. Having someone download MP3s off of you should be considered giving 10 or 100 illegal song copies out ($600 max), not the $150,000 the RIAA persues. Mitnick was punished too severly because the judicial system got too hung up on the threat of computer technologies and the potential for harm, rather than looking at the trespassing charges for what they really were.

    12. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by Honest+Man · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. Keep in mind though, if the one that would have nailed you was blocked, then it was worth having just the same. ;)

    13. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by 56ksucks · · Score: 0
      I'd delete it. Right after I burned it to CD.

      _____________

      --

      ---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

    14. Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by lunatik17 · · Score: 1
      What is to stop someone from developing a P2P software that rips STRAIT OFF THE DVD

      Um, because that would be stupid? Do you realize the kind of computing power that is involved in compressing a 7gig movie down to a managable level?

      --

      Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?

  6. Yeh but... by Moth7 · · Score: 1

    ...then they'll search through their internal processes and remove anyone who's likely to release it and push back the release date until all those who pose a threat have been fired. Real smart ^^

  7. Gosh darn them by georgeha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why, by releasing movies on P2P networks, they might create a buzz of interest and get people to actually go to the theaters and buy a ticket!

    What kind of cockamanie marketing scheme is that?

    1. Re:Gosh darn them by bobthemuse · · Score: 1

      Kind of makes you wonder... they might want to quietly pre-release the movie to create a buzz, but they wouldn't want it to get out of hand (thereby lowering the number of people who go to the theatre).

      One way to do this would be to release the movies via P2P and then complain about it. If it ever gets out of hand, they can still take legal action, whereas if they had publicly pre-released it, they would be SOL.

    2. Re:Gosh darn them by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Why, by releasing movies on P2P networks, they might create a buzz of interest and get people to actually go to the theaters and buy a ticket!

      I think the movie might actually have to be good first.

      If no one can download the movie for themselves, they can't really tell if the movie is going to be good, so they either have to see it for themselves in the theater, or they have to rent it when it comes out on video.

      I've bought at least as many movie tickets as not because of downloads, but that's just me. I've also managed to see a handful of movies that simply were not playing in my area.

      All of that being said, if a movie's good, I'll buy it on DVD (which I can watch anywhere in my house I have a screen that will display video), and delete the copy from my hard drive (which is almost always significantly lesser quality than the DVD). If a movie isn't good, I'm not going to waste the hard drive space keeping it on my computer.

      Regardless of what anyone says, movie reviews are almost completely useless in terms of finding out which movies are worth going to see.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    3. Re:Gosh darn them by xyzzy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quite the opposite. They are terrified that people will discover what shite some movies are and not go. I've read several articles in recent months that pretty much state that Hollywood relies on the first weekend bump to make back production costs, even on crapola movies. The article I read (in the WSJ) mentioned that kids text-ing their friends via cellphone to stay away from bad movies (e.g. the Hulk) was putting a real crimp in their plans.

      Bravo for those kids with cellphones, I say!

    4. Re:Gosh darn them by Trigun · · Score: 1

      The movies that I want to see at the theatre, I go see at the theatre. A small computer monitor and stereo sound are no real replacement for me.

      It still boils down to the fact that they're going to make their money if they make good movies. I'm not going to rush out to the theatre every night, but I'll go if there's something I want to see.
      Everything else, either wait for TV or download it. No big revenue loss there.

    5. Re:Gosh darn them by Catiline · · Score: 1
      I've read several articles in recent months that pretty much state that Hollywood relies on the first weekend bump to make back production costs, even on crapola movies.
      You can read The Age's version, which reports that exact effect as "buying your gross".

      Bravo for Google News, I say!

    6. Re:Gosh darn them by nomadicGeek · · Score: 1

      Assuming it is a quality product.

      If I had gotten my hands on some of the stinkers that I have been to recently prior to shelling out money to see them, I would have probably passed.

      The tactic these days seems to be to hype it as much as possible to get as many people there the first weekend before word gets out about how bad it sucks.

  8. On Purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe this was done on purpose to bring movie piracy into the spotlight (which as mostly been dominated by music piracy)?

  9. Nothing wrong with this... by SixDimensionalArray · · Score: 1

    .. it just means that our freedom of information infiltrators have successfully completed their mission! o_0

  10. Mikey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny


    When is Michael going to pre-release his soon-to-be-classic Beef Chunks in Gravy?

  11. Advertising wave of the future by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

    Offering beta versions of movies vie P2P is a great way "sex up" the product through illegality.
    You might even make a buck by suing someone not "in the loop" who does it.
    A possibly better way to advertise products might simply be to have better products.
    But then, I'm known for my unorthodox ideas.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  12. Well that explains it! by deep+square+leg · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wondered how that copy of Gigli could got onto Kazaa, seeing that nobody has seen it in theatres.

    1. Re:Well that explains it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      brownie points for those who can successfully pronounce that.

    2. Re:Well that explains it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Quagmire can pronounce it... He gets practice from saying "Giggity giggity GIGGITY" all the time

    3. Re:Well that explains it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pronounced just like "Jiggly".

    4. Re:Well that explains it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Crapfest"

      mmm, brownies.

  13. Academy C onsideration by big_fish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A major chanel for movies on P2P are copies sent to academy members by the studios.
    Either don't pass them out, put a tighter reign on them, or don't complain when they get on p2p before the dvd release.

    1. Re:Academy C onsideration by mr_exit · · Score: 1

      there are over 5000 voting members of the american accademy and over 5500 voting members in the british accademy.... if they were really serious they would watermark each copy they send out to these groups.

      A huge effort you say? yes it is, but they value member votes votes so much that they spend millions on their oscar and bafta campaigns anyway

      --

      -------
      Drink Coffee - Do Stupid Things Faster And With More Energy!
  14. Metallica by jafac · · Score: 2

    There was also the case of the Metallica album and some bad mixes making it out on Napster prior to release, which was what got them all hot and bothered about infringement - undoubtedly, such material comes from studio hands, etc.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    1. Re:Metallica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Alas, P2P sharing is the only realistic alternative on how their latest album St Anger would ever get widespread. I want the good old days of ...And Justice For All and Master of Puppets back!

    2. Re:Metallica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oi! What about Ride the Lightning?! It's the first album of Metallica's holy trinity.

      Oh well, at least Halford's with Judas Priest again and Iced Earth has a new singer (Ripper Owens, who sang with Judas Priest in Halford's absence).

    3. Re:Metallica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets and ...And Justice For All was the peak, surrounded rather nicely by Kill 'Em All and Metallica (aka Black Album).

  15. Yer kiddin' me by curtisk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Someone didn't know this? And even when its not new releases, DVD's that get out early are in the same boat. Just last weekend I watched the full blown "Finding Nemo" DVD at a friend of a friends place, complete menu/extras/etc. Isn't it a given that insiders have something to do with it?

    In other news fire is hot to touch.

    --

    Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!

    1. Re:Yer kiddin' me by sketerpot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Same here, only it was the two towers in my case. It's really kind of funny to hear people eagerly awaiting the release of a DVD that you've seen months ago, albeit with occasional "For Your Consideration" messages at the bottom of the screen tricking me into thinking they're subtitles. I guess that's the disadvantage of watching cowboy bebop subbed.

    2. Re:Yer kiddin' me by CastrTroy · · Score: 0

      How exactly would one touch fire? Considering that it actually doesn't consist of matter.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Yer kiddin' me by phorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      complete menu/extras/etc. Isn't it a given that insiders have something to do with it

      Believe it or not, I've seen a few Chinese DVD's with complete menus and everything,but with a few quirks that indicate that they are not commercial grade legal DVD's. Sometimes it is really, really hard to tell - especially since not all real DVD's are printed and some have the same thin sticky-labels as the pirated variety.

    4. Re:Yer kiddin' me by garcia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      most of these people are those that are doing subtitling in other languages.

      I saw Johnny English DVD-rip (like 2 weeks after it was out in the theatre) with a subtitle file included in the .ISO

      They even ship the fucking movies with the extras if you want them (menus, trailers, behind the scenes, etc).

    5. Re:Yer kiddin' me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  16. Heh heh. by HungWeiLo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Of course, if one has a sly sense of humor, and was put to the task of compiling a report for the suits in Hollywood as to identifying the leaks in the industry, the title page would have, in big huge letters, "For Your Consideration."

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  17. Examined movies? by chrispl · · Score: 5, Informative

    The researchers examined 285 movies from P2P networks and used the quality of the file to determine whether it was some guy with a video camera or not.

    Why? They could just have checked VCDQuality and saved alot of time/bandwidth.

    --
    What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
    1. Re:Examined movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wanna get paid for watching 285 movies... or looking at a bunch of figures(*) on web pages?

      (*) not nude figures either.

    2. Re:Examined movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the quality of most of those 285 movies, definately look at figures on a web site.

  18. is this a suprise?? by peculiarmethod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How many of us are suprised by this? Just run a search for new albums that haven't even been released yet, and bam, all of the songs will almost always be there. I don't think the companies want allll the songs to be there, as teasers, before release date. Movies, software, even hardware gets leaked. What to do, what to do.. oh i know.. more legislation, and invest in stupid monitoring and/or crippling systems. Err.. wait.. we tried that already.

    pm

    --
    ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    1. Re:is this a suprise?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think about all the copies of CDs sent out to radio stations, newspapers and music mags.

      Many years ago I did some work for a verys small and insignificant radio station. We're talking about maybe a few thousand listeners.
      I personally received a few promo CDs per week, this was almost always before the release date of a particular CD.

  19. paper is here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    the nytimes article doesn't seem to link to the paper, which is here

  20. "bad mixes" and "metallica album" is a by RLiegh · · Score: 4, Funny

    redundant statement.

  21. Non-reg link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same article, no registration required.

    The karma points for this post will be donated to hungry orphans.

  22. So internal leaks are _not_ copyright violations? by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just to be sure on this... if one of my own employees steals code and gives it to a client, it's not the clients' fault if he uses it, right?

    Surely this is not a relevant discussion. As the first poster said, of course insider leaks are a big part of the (illicit) distribution process. That was also the case before P2P, for counterfeit rings.

    The question is surely a commercial one: can the studios survive free exchange of their wares, and if so, how will they manage and profit from it, and if not, how will movies be made in the future. Cause one way or another, free media is the way it's going to be, legal or illegal.

    Personally I like going to the movies, and I like high-quality DVDs, and I find P2P useful only for stuff that I simply can't buy, like Episodes of BTVS (sorry!) that are not yet on DVD. But as soon as they are, I go out and buy them.

    The smart people will learn how to use P2P to their own advantage. I predict future hits along the lines of Blair Witch, low budget, unexpected, distributed exclusively by P2P before it hits the big screen...

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  23. Probable corrilary of this finding.. by cmowire · · Score: 1

    Many attempts to DRM files are going to fail because the insiders who *need* non-DRMed versions of the content will release the non-DRM versions of the content.

    1. Re:Probable corrilary of this finding.. by Lawbeefaroni · · Score: 1

      But they'll make signed versions. Your serial number is attached to the "leaked" version? Nice to know ya, here's a summons. See you in court.

      --
      "When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
    2. Re:Probable corrilary of this finding.. by cmowire · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm.. True.

      Which is why you wait until the jerk who sits next to you and checks his voicemail on speakphone has forgotten to log out before grabbing it from his machine. ;)

      Of course signed, watermarked schemes tend to be crackable, as the SDMI folks found.

    3. Re:Probable corrilary of this finding.. by Lawbeefaroni · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there's always that damned human element.

      --
      "When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
    4. Re:Probable corrilary of this finding.. by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Oh anonymous hackers will remove the DRM and post away. (If I can display it on my TV, then I re-encode it and off we go...)

    5. Re:Probable corrilary of this finding.. by cmowire · · Score: 1

      In America, you watch the TV. In MPAA/RIAA/Paid-off-congressman America, the TV watches you.

      'nuff said

    6. Re:Probable corrilary of this finding.. by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      A far easier solution would be to embed a different secret deliberately-altered scene into each pre-release version of the film, since that would be a watermark that would be nearly impossible to make right. Little things such as using a scene that won't be used in the final product, or changing a billboard in the background from the real sponsor to that sponsor's competitor would be impossible for somebody not in-the-know to notice, and even if noticed it'd be impossible to cover up that watermark with the correct piece that because the outsider won't know what that is.

    7. Re:Probable corrilary of this finding.. by cmowire · · Score: 1

      They've done that in the past to combat script leakage.

  24. Same with the game industry by Samir+Gupta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most game software "leaks" are inside jobs.

    It's gotten so bad that at many third-party developers I've had the chance to work with and talk to, all development work must be done on-site, and no development or QA hardware or recordable media (CD-R, DVD-R, external hard drives, etc.) may be taken in/out of the office.

    Furthermore, many protocols such as outgoing FTP, etc. are blocked, and exceptions need to be handled on a case by case basis.

    --
    -- Samir Gupta, Ph. D. Head, New Technology Research Group, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.
    1. Re:Same with the game industry by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 2, Informative

      given that nowadays you can pack 2+ gigs in a CompactFlash form factor it must be hard to enforce the 'no recordable media in/out of the office' restrictions: that or maybe installing a 1 tesla 'gate' and having people walk through it :)

      Also it's not that hard to tunnel ssh sessions over http, so unless you completely isolate the boxes from the internet if somebody -really- means mischief they'll probably be able to figure out a way to do it...

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    2. Re:Same with the game industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Samir, you are truly an artist ...

    3. Re:Same with the game industry by Megane · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that you can get USB storage devices in a convienent cylindrical form factor. Handy for insertion into various bodily orifices! Watch out for those rogue booth babes!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:Same with the game industry by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      When it comes to the gaming software, it depends on what you mean by "leak." A friend of mine was playing the full retail version of Warcraft 3 four days before the game was supposed to be sold. A "leak?" Not exactly. He worked at a retail gaming store (EBGames) and Blizzard shipped copies of the game early.

      Result : he took his copy home early and played it before (mostly) everyone else.
      Leak, yes. Insider leak, no.

      A similar thing happens in the movie industry. My former teacher's husband manufactures DVDs. So when it comes time to start cranking out massive copies of movies for X movie when the orders comes, all he has to do is make an extra copy and bring it home. Mark the copy off as a one in a couple thousand flawed copies and no one will ever know.

    5. Re:Same with the game industry by bios10h · · Score: 1
    6. Re:Same with the game industry by Excen · · Score: 1

      So, Samir, how's Michael Bolton?

      --
      "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
    7. Re:Same with the game industry by JazFresh · · Score: 1
      Some may take your post to imply that the leaks are from the game developers themselves. Since it's in their interest to keep it secure, the leaks probably aren't from them. They're also unlikely to come from QA houses, where security is tight, and test discs are tallied and accounted for nightly.

      The real leaks come from journalists who are sent preview discs, and this claim is backed up by the many not-quite-bugfixed versions out on the Net that were sent to journalists.

      How to stop it? Well, Nintendo tried a strong-arm tactic with one game, having a security guard stand behind the journalist while he was playing it. With audio CDs, Sony once sent the preview CD sealed inside a CD walkman. Neither worked, because journalists felt they were being treated like criminals. Unfortunately, some of them are.

    8. Re:Same with the game industry by mbennis · · Score: 0

      Ahhhh, so DNF does not exist. Beacause otherway, it'll be on kazaa now.

    9. Re:Same with the game industry by Chacham · · Score: 1

      I remeber one game, Heart of Darkness. I was helping one of the developers write the install program, when, for some stupid reason, i asked him how to get passed a certain part. He asked how i played the game since it was not out of development yet! I told him that i'd ask the guy whose computer it was on, and found it to be a warez group. To this day i wonder how it leaked, and how the guy felt when i asked him that question.

      Neat though. He sent us a complimentary copy at the end. The 3D movie was pretty kewl.

  25. This is pretty obvious. by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Informative

    Anyone who's taken a trip over to Suprnova can tell you that a good portion of the movies there, no matter how recently they've been released, are of excellent quality. The high quality copying is done a couple ways:

    Some of the leaked movies are a copy of the actual film that they show in the theater - they use a machine to convert it to a digital format.

    Some of them are leaks of the DVDs that are sent out to awards judges. Every once in a while the words "For Your Consideration" will pop up across the bottom (this is also usually the source of the bootlegs on EBay)

    With the ways movies are distributed now, there's really not much that they can do about cutting off the source. Until they move to a completely digital format in theaters will lots of fun DRM, this will continue. (Although even then people will find a way to crack it, I'm sure)

    -- Dr. Eldarion --

    1. Re:This is pretty obvious. by rpillala · · Score: 1

      This must be part of what George Lucas wants for his "films." It seems to me though, that if a movie can be decoded by the player, it can be ripped with some degree of success. I think that will lead to even better copies being shared, no?

      Ravi

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  26. My guess is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They really don't want to know. Why look at your own internal problems, when all that can do is place additional burden on yourself.

    If people are stealing from you, do you want the burden of taking responsibility for your own employees, or would you rather have authority to investigate anyone at your discretion.

  27. Mod parent UP by RLiegh · · Score: 0

    Unmodified and COMPLETE article in parent post.

  28. Key part of the article by GreenCrackBaby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'and the economic effect is "basically nil -- there's no evidence whatsoever that people are not going to the theater or not buying DVD's or not renting videotapes because of this activity."'

    I think this cannot be stressed enough. Yes, people are downloading your movies. No, you aren't losing money. I love owning DVDs, but I also download like mad. My monthly DVD budget doesn't change based on the number of movies I download, but the movies I buy sure does. I can list off a large number of DVDs I've purchased after downloading them first.

    --

    "The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
    1. Re:Key part of the article by haystor · · Score: 1

      What they are worried about is that you'll find out the movie sucked before you've given them your money.

      --
      t
    2. Re:Key part of the article by Datasage · · Score: 1

      I can second that, although i dont dowload as much as i used to. Some movies i have downlaoded have inflenced my purchases.

      In some ways, its like the theater model, you show a movie in theaters and hope they will buy the dvd 6-12 months later. Just in this case, they loose out on the theater money.

      Maybe consumers dont want to pay $8-10 to see a movie in theaters. And then pay $15-$25 for the DVD later. Who can blame them.

      --
      In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
    3. Re:Key part of the article by dirk · · Score: 1

      One thing to consider is that while it may not be a problem now, it may develop into one in the future. When MP#s first came out, the quality was not as good, and it was harder to download because most people were on dial-up. Now, the quality is better and a large number of people are on broadband, so d/ling a song is nothing. As broadband continues to expand and video codecs continue to evolve, it is imaginable that in 5 years a near perfect copy of a movie could be downloaded in under and hour. The MPAA is trying to put a stop to things now so they don't end up in the same place the RIAA is in 5 years.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    4. Re:Key part of the article by GreenCrackBaby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      " What they are worried about is that you'll find out the movie sucked before you've given them your money."

      That's a key reason I do download movies. Let's face it, Hollywood can crank out shit like there's no tomorrow, but at the same time you get some good stuff once in a while. I could rely on critic opinions or imdb ratings, but that's a highly error-prone method.

      For example, have you ever looked at the DVD insert on Fight Club? Listed on there are all the "critical reviews" from movie critcs absolutely BLASTING the movie as a piece of shit. That's one of those movies I first watched after downloading and now own.

      Then take a movie like Alien 3. A 6.0 on imdb isn't exactly enticing me to see the movie, but downloading allowed me to realize that contrary to popular optinion the movie was worth buying (so I did).

      That's the key here...the best critic is yourself, and if you can see the movie for free first and like it, even if it's crappy quality, you'll probably buy it.

      --

      "The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
    5. Re:Key part of the article by GreenCrackBaby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One more reply to this before I have to get some work done. :-)

      A key difference between grabbing MP3s and grabbing movies online is that there's a percieved value difference between CDs and DVDs. Most people believe CDs are a rip-off at their current prices, while most believe DVDs represent a good deal. People are willing to still go out and buy a DVD even after seeing a movie (for free or in the theater) because they believe there's value in their purchase.

      Even when presented with a way to download near-perfect copies of movies, I believe people will still turn to DVDs or legal download options (if they exist) than to copying.

      For those of you who don't download many movies, the stuff that's available isn't all camcorder quality. For example, the recent Matrix movie leaked to the net was a digital rip I believe (well it looked and sounded bloody amazing on my TV anyway). I still saw the movie in the theater and will buy the DVD -- I'm sure there's more like me.

      --

      "The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
    6. Re:Key part of the article by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      I've been repeating and repeating this same fact for years, and it generally seems to fall on deaf ears.

      This has been true for computer software, just as it's true for movies.

      The bottom line is this:

      People have a certain amount of their total income they're willing to spend on entertainment. Whether it's video games, computer software, books, music or movies - it's all under that one umbrella. After buying the essentials (paying rent or the house payment, car payment, utilities, etc.) - there's only so much left for entertainment purposes.

      Realizing that, it becomes obvious that all of these industries compete directly against each other for some of those dollars. (As they merge, they compete against themselves in many cases. Look at Sony for example. They sell video game system, music and movies!) What WON'T happen is getting people to spend more money on buying those games, movies or music by putting pressure on them not to duplicate them.

      People generally already spend all they're willing to spend on a mix of these items. Everyone I know shells out at least $40 to $80 per month simply to have older films piped in to them via cable TV or satellite! Then they go out and see a movie in the theater here or there, rent a few more titles, and buy the occasional DVD. How much more does the industry think a single person is going to buy? It matters not, ultimately, if this person has hundreds of VHS tape copies of movies. He/she did his/her part to support the industry already. The only way he/she might STOP doing so is if he/she gets legally harassed enough to rebel against the whole industry. That's where this is headed.

    7. Re:Key part of the article by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Just for the record, many movies are now available in their full DVD format on the internet. Sometimes they've been transcoded to a lower bitrate, but all the menus and such are often there. In cases where the movie actually has good region protection (implemented in script form) all you have to do is rip the movie itself, discarding menus and such (which is kind of a bummer but nothing to cry about) and it is removed.

      So it is sadly true that there is little incentive to buy a DVD if you can download it. If I were head of legal at some studio I would be most concerned about DVD files, and worry about divx and such later. The average telesync, I wouldn't worry about at all.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Key part of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then take a movie like Alien 3. A 6.0 on imdb isn't exactly enticing me to see the movie, but downloading allowed me to realize that contrary to popular optinion the movie was worth buying (so I did).

      I'm sorry. Your p2p network must be fouling the title tags on your movie files because the Alien 3 I saw SUCKED EVERYTHING and then some!

      : )

  29. Well DUH! Of course it's Insiders! by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 2, Informative
    Movie studios ship videos all over the planet to any media outlet that has a reviewer on staff ... and the fastest way for the mailroom guy to impress his girlfriend is to have a private showing of the latest flicks.

    In the DVD production process, there would be multiple copies of the movie, at the subtitling studio, at the dubbing studio, at the scene selection encoding studio, and at the assembly point where all the extra stuff meets up with the dubbing and subtitling.

  30. URL for report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can read the full report at http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/drm03.html

  31. Makes you wonder... by 7759-60784-1-E · · Score: 1

    How likely is it that the leaks came from the guys in those guilt-trip anti-piracy ads the MPAA is putting before movies now? Maybe some desperately needed the cash that the ads offered and felt like putting their studio's work up on p2p networks was penance for shilling for their bosses.

  32. How do you remove the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "For your consideration" lines that appear at the beginning of every scene? Every one of the DVDs I've bought from that bargain store in Little Havana, Miami have that.

  33. This is hardly surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To read this post, you must register for a free account with the Anonymous Coward Comment Service.

  34. its always the insiders - think about it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its always the same way, let it be 9/11 and government secrecy and giving us all that scary piracy/terrorist/giveupallyourfreedom -act, or riaa/mpaa and hunting down the normal folks, and calling them pirates, terrorists and whatnot (see above).

    its those big corporations, agencies, governments and the already rich wealthy bastards who profit most in this criminal corporate and evil world, where everything that does common people some good, and improves this world is being hunted down, banned, forbidden, what doesnt bring those bastards huge amount of even more money and power.

    free stuff and good stuff doesnt need those bastards and questions their position and the reason why they should exists in the world.

    just think about it for a moment.

    insiders know the truth about 9/11 and the same goes for so called piracy business, and loss of billions of dollars due to potential piracy, terrorism, threats everywhere, and whatnot.

    they are the real threat and the evil in this world....

  35. The real roots by joynt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So many articles on movie/game sharing seem to think that p2p networks are where these start off. They're sadly mistaken. Any article that doesn't dig deep enough to talk about irc or release groups or anything actually related to the scene does not deserve my interest. The copies of movies on kazaa and other p2p nets are taken from the original groups, downsampled and put on kazaa. If they think that p2p applications are to blame then the mpaa needs to contract a real research team.

    1. Re:The real roots by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1

      Where it starts is only the FIRST violation. Every single subsequent copy on the P2P network is just as guilty as the first of violating (C). ANy person guilty of receiving stolen goods, then redistributing them is also guilty of a crime.

      Expecting that it be made "impossible" to do the first RIP is as unlikely as it being made "impossible" to break into your house.

      The ONLY possible deterrent is to make the "crime" illegal. Reguardless of where it starts or who subsequently propigates it.

      This article and most of the replies smak of completely self-serving pseudo-logic. "Well since you didn't prevent the first copy, I should be allowed to make as many more as I want." :(

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    2. Re:The real roots by 7759-60784-1-E · · Score: 1

      It's not really important to them where the actual source of the movies is. They realize it would be too expensive and complicated for them to go after anyone on IRC or Usenet. The average user (meaning almost everyone) who "pirates" movies is using a p2p program such as Kazaa, and that's who they aim to stop- those computer-literate enough to know how to download files from newsgroups or find them on IRC are enough of a fringe group not to warrant legal harassment. They're picking their battles just like the RIAA although they aren't shooting themselves in the foot like the record companies by suing everyone left and right.

    3. Re:The real roots by joynt · · Score: 1

      Well they are sort of going after the groups on irc. When a movie is cammed in the theatre small dots appear in certain frames which show the theatre it is being shown at, which can help track the person down. If they really wanted to stop movie piracy they should intensify their attack at the source instead of goin after occasional downloaders.

    4. Re:The real roots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll cry BS to that one. I would like to see evidence to this scheme rather than your recital of FUD.

    5. Re:The real roots by 7759-60784-1-E · · Score: 1

      Even if they were doing that, the source would be rendered moot if they prevented Joe Windows User from using p2p apps. The amount of people getting it from irc is miniscule compared to Kazaa, and they'll cripple most users' ability to download movies if they go after p2p since most will give up and go to the movies or the video store rather than learn an entirely different method of downloading. Doing this obviously won't get everyone but it'll be enough to satisfy the movie industry goons who don't know much about how these systems work anyway.

    6. Re:The real roots by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > When a movie is cammed in the theatre small dots appear in certain frames which show the theatre it is being shown at

      Bull-friggin-shit. Those "dots" are indications of when to start timing the queuing-up of the next reel of film. Movies shown in theatres do not fit on one reel of film. This, of course, excludes fully-digital theatres.

    7. Re:The real roots by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      and the same films are circulated(around here at least, in finland, i'd imagine the same for countryside usa) at _many_ theatres(10-50 copies for whole country depending on how big the rollout).

      -

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  36. File request... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can a New York Times insider post the article on Kazaa please?

    Thanks! :o)

  37. now if only... by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

    someone would leak out a playable doom3 demo(ie. with acceptable framerates), or better yet a HL2 demo, and we'd be all set.

    come on ATI and Valve, we could use some more eye-candy. heck, i wouldn't even have a problem with HL2 delay if there was a playable demo released...

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  38. They're violating the DMCA! Call the MPAA!!! by LucidityZero · · Score: 5, Funny
    The researchers examined 285 movies from P2P networks and used the quality of the file to determine whether it was some guy with a video camera or not.

    They watched 285 unauthorized copies of movies! That adds up to $3.7 billion dollars in fines per researcher, and a minimum of 784 years in prison!!!

    --
    Sig.i>
    1. Re:They're violating the DMCA! Call the MPAA!!! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No, this was legitimate research that is probably covered under the DMCA's exclusionary rules. Doesn't mean that they won't get sued anyway though.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:They're violating the DMCA! Call the MPAA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be willing to hazard a guess that a substantial fraction of those files came from the personal collections of people around the lab...

  39. Re:New York Times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    New York TIMES?!

    You think you're better than us?

    US?

    U.S.?

    U.S.A.?

    No way!

    Norway!

    Detta gar akkurat icke an!

  40. For Your Consideration by Dugsmyname · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have seen quite a few "near perfect" rips online that have the phrase "For Your Consideration" every 20 minutes or so... It is not only the "insiders" that are leaking these movies, but the people that they send them to, i.e. Academy Awards, Oscars, etc. If the industry deems it appropriate to send a perfect digital copy on DVD to independent reviewers and expect it to stay "in-house" they've got a lot of learning to do. I guess it's not fair to expect a movie reviewer to have to sit through [cough] a VHS copy without 5.1 surround sound, but that's their perogitave... The way things are now, movies will go the way of MP3's, it's almost inevitable.

    1. Re:For Your Consideration by Megane · · Score: 1
      The person who receives the video doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the piracy, aside from getting rid of the original video.

      Many of those "For Your Consideration" videos that aren't given to relatives and friends end up in thrift stores, where anybody can buy them (as long as someone else hasn't first). I found a VHS screener of a Babylon 5 episode at Goodwill a few years back, and a few months ago I passed up a stack of movie and TV awards-screener DVDs because everything (IMHO) sucked. I've also found a couple of pre-release screeners at used book stores.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  41. Oh... by PakProtector · · Score: 1

    ...so this is how me and my friends were watching a DVD quality copy of LotR: The Two Towers a week before the release of the movie.

    Ours had something scrolling on the bottom to the effect of, "DVD Screener Copy"

    --

    Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
    man: no entry for woman in the manual.
    "Qua!?"

    1. Re:Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I work in the media industry and you'd be surprised at how many of these promo things land on your desk before awards ceremonies etc. etc.

      Let's see: off the top of my head, a quick list of stuff I watched before it hit the movies... Chicago, 8 Mile, Catch Me If You Can, Gangs of New York, LotR2... these were region-free DVDs that bosses gladly let us take home and watch in the comfort of our own home.

      Now, I didn't copy off any of these simply because I could loose my job for doing it - maybe even based on rumour, but that was my company's policy, not the policy of the studios that send these disks out left, right and center. Heck, they didn't even ask for them back which means that over the last 10-12 years, we've amassed a pretty good film collection.

      The irony? We only do TV post-production and have never done anything film-related. Why do we get them? I'll never know...

  42. But you don't understand by kfg · · Score: 1

    We like hamstringing consumers.

    The looks on their little faces are just so precious.

    KFG

  43. I praise the P2P network... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...there I found insider movies that my money couldn't buy anyways. I wonder how the MPAA can help me to get the latest Bollywood movies or movies from Japan with subtitles instead of new dubbing. I don't know. Maybe the whole P2P stuff is just an american problem because of strange american laws.

  44. Lack of Control by pope1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Insider releases will always be an issue as long as people outside the profit circle (shipping companies, lower echelion MPAA employees, etc) have pre-release access to the disks/tapes that the movie is on. Either they need to build encryption into the projectors/disks or they need to make the people handling the movie pre-release some how more connected to the profit stream the movie generates.

    I don't know how much money it takes to replace the pride and joy an insider gets from seeing the movie out on the net before the 1st screening, but i bet it's less than the amount the MPAA would writeup as a 'loss' if they caught the person involved in the distribution.

    Can anyone think of a movie in recent times (past 2 or 3 years) that *wasn't* available on the net before the 1st screening?

    --
    /* * pope1 */
  45. They're ALL from insiders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whether inside the industry or the movie theater with a camcorder.

  46. Types of Rips by joynt · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is a list of the sources that can be used.
    Courtesy of http://www.vcdquality.com/
    CAM -
    A cam is a theater rip usually done with a digital video camera. A mini tripod is sometimes used, but a lot of the time this wont be possible, so the camera make shake. Also seating placement isn't always idle, and it might be filmed from an angle. If cropped properly, this is hard to tell unless there's text on the screen, but a lot of times these are left with triangular borders on the top and bottom of the screen. Sound is taken from the onboard microphone of the camera, and especially in comedies, laughter can often be heard during the film. Due to these factors picture and sound quality are usually quite poor, but sometimes we're lucky, and the theater will be fairly empty and a fairly clear signal will be heard.

    TELESYNC (TS) -
    A telesync is the same spec as a CAM except it uses an external audio source (most likely an audio jack in the chair for hard of hearing people). A direct audio source does not ensure a good quality audio source, as a lot of background noise can interfere. A lot of the times a telesync is filmed in an empty cinema or from the projection booth with a professional camera, giving a better picture quality. Quality ranges drastically, check the sample before downloading the full release. A high percentage of Telesyncs are CAMs that have been mislabeled.

    TELECINE (TC) -
    A telecine machine copies the film digitally from the reels. Sound and picture should be very good, but due to the equipment involved and cost telecines are fairly uncommon. Generally the film will be in correct aspect ratio, although 4:3 telecines have existed. A great example is the JURASSIC PARK 3 TC done last year. TC should not be confused with TimeCode , which is a visible counter on screen throughout the film.

    SCREENER (SCR) -
    A pre VHS tape, sent to rental stores, and various other places for promotional use. A screener is supplied on a VHS tape, and is usually in a 4:3 (full screen) a/r, although letterboxed screeners are sometimes found. The main draw back is a "ticker" (a message that scrolls past at the bottom of the screen, with the copyright and anti-copy telephone number). Also, if the tape contains any serial numbers, or any other markings that could lead to the source of the tape, these will have to be blocked, usually with a black mark over the section. This is sometimes only for a few seconds, but unfortunately on some copies this will last for the entire film, and some can be quite big. Depending on the equipment used, screener quality can range from excellent if done from a MASTER copy, to very poor if done on an old VHS recorder thru poor capture equipment on a copied tape. Most screeners are transferred to VCD, but a few attempts at SVCD have occurred, some looking better than others.

    DVD-SCREENER (DVDscr) -
    Same premise as a screener, but transferred off a DVD. Usually letterbox , but without the extras that a DVD retail would contain. The ticker is not usually in the black bars, and will disrupt the viewing. If the ripper has any skill, a DVDscr should be very good. Usually transferred to SVCD or DivX/XviD.

    DVDRip -
    A copy of the final released DVD. If possible this is released PRE retail (for example, Star Wars episode 2) again, should be excellent quality. DVDrips are released in SVCD and DivX/XviD.

    VHSRip -
    Transferred off a retail VHS, mainly skating/sports videos and XXX releases.

    TVRip -
    TV episode that is either from Network (capped using digital cable/satellite boxes are preferable) or PRE-AIR from satellite feeds sending the program around to networks a few days earlier (do not contain "dogs" but sometimes have flickers etc) Some programs such as WWF Raw Is War contain extra parts, and the "dark matches" and camera/commentary tests are included on the rips. PDTV is capped from a digital TV PCI card, generally giving the best results, and groups tend to release in SVCD for these. VCD/SVCD/DivX/XviD rips are all supported by

  47. Insiders? by lemox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Um... ok, if you really want to call some dude working at a video store an "industry insider".

    --

    "We obviously need a new moderation category: (-1, Woo-fucking-hoo)" --Mr. AC

  48. AND??? Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by turnstyle · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, did he delete the file? ;)

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    1. Re:AND??? Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. by DirtyCowboy · · Score: 1

      Well, did he delete the file? ;)

      "Jesus Christ, man! There's just some things you don't talk about in public!"
      -- Brodie, Mallrats

      --
      D'oh -- the stuff that buys me beer! Ray -- the guy who sells me beer!
  49. Academy Screeners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case you didn't know, some college professors act as screeners for the Academy. Alot of the time, their students swipe the dvd and rip it. So, the pirated copies aren't necessarly an inside job--it's just a stolen original.

  50. Duke Nukem 4-0 - balder, fatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Garland, TX

    Looks like middle age hasn't been kind to action hero Duke Nukem. In a prerelease press preview, presented by Joe Siegler, the studly hero is bald with a huge beer-gut. "We wanted to flesh out the character of Duke", Siegler said, "we want to make him more a character that his fans can directly relate to". In the new title, Duke is in a custody dispute with his ex-wife. Apparently, since he lost his job, he's in arrears on his child-support payments. When his (alien) wife kidnaps their kids and leaves for her mothers on Arturus IV, it's butt-kicking time!"

  51. Cheap screen test. by nlinecomputers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Personally I think that this often done delibertly to test how popular the film will be. Throw it out on the net and see what comes up to grab it.

    --
    Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
  52. Am I being disingenuous? by Halvard · · Score: 1

    What makes you think that they aren't seeding the P2P sites themselves so that it looks like they have a better case?

  53. users' rights? no worries by nudicle · · Score: 1

    Um .... "hamstring consumers' technologies and rights?" Dude, users stopped having cognizable rights after the DMCA was passed so put your mind at ease! -nudicle

  54. Only time I ever downloaded a movie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Was when I had been to the theatre four time to watch the Two Towers, and just wanted to see the opening scene one more time. The studio already got 4 showing worth of cash from me, and I did not have time to sit another 3 hours to watch 3 minutes of scene.

    Does that make my piracy justifiable? Probably not, but ah well.

  55. They're already living in denial. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These people are utterly retarded:

    "Ken Jacobsen [..] said he had not yet seen the report, but added that its conclusions seemed off"

    "But the downloads were probably of low quality, [Josh Bernoff] said"

    What part of this do they not understand:

    MOVIES ARE AVAILABLE AS NEAR-DVD QUALITY DOWNLOADS BEFORE THEY ARE IN THEATRES.

    Duh! It's been that way for SEVERAL YEARS. The quality and availability has only been improving as time goes by with the new MP4-based Divx, Windows Media and Xvid codecs.

    1. Re:They're already living in denial. by joynt · · Score: 1

      Actually it is very rare to see a DVD-Quality version of a movie before the actual release date. Usually only happens when a movie has been delayed (ie: phone booth, due to the dc sniper), the best you will usually get is a high quality cam (which can be extraordinary) but are definately not dvd quality.

  56. I bet you'd be busted for accepting stolen... by nlinecomputers · · Score: 1

    goods. If I steal a car stereo and sell it at a pawn shop the pawn shop can be busted for accepting stolen property.

    --
    Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
    1. Re:I bet you'd be busted for accepting stolen... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If I steal a car stereo and sell it at a pawn shop the pawn shop can be busted for accepting stolen property.

      Umm, actually they don't usually get busted, because they keep the name & I.D. info of the person who sold it to them. Then the police go track them down. If the pawn shop does not have that info, then they're in deep sh!t, but that falls under different laws (and probably varies from state to state).

  57. MOD THIS FUCKER DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    He's a first class troll. Check his comment history.

    1. Re:MOD THIS FUCKER DOWN by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      Are you crazy?
      reading his comment history and all the stuff others have tracked down was the best laugh i got from ./ in weeks.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    2. Re:MOD THIS FUCKER DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      His real name is Samir Naga.. uh.. Nagonna post here any more.

  58. Re:YEAH, DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I suppose that those large lots of new cars are to blame for the high rate of car theft at car dealerships?

    Way to blaim the victums for the crime while letting the criminals get away with whatever they want.

    Lets see how fast you change your tune when one day the criminals come after you!

    It's YOU that needs to WAKE UP. Reality is right there in front of your face, if you would just open your eyes and look a it (Yes, it's ugly I know, you do not always get what you want, criminals actualy do exist) But this fantasy land of "If I can DL it, it has to be free" is complete crap!

  59. Don't be ridiculous by goldspider · · Score: 1
    Ever heard of previews?

    Why the hell would they release an entire movie on P2P to generate buzz, when a preview does the same thing without giving people the WHOLE DAMNED THING!

    It sounds to me like you're just trying to justify the illegal downloading of movies on P2P networks. You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid, because that argument is a load of bunk.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:Don't be ridiculous by rifter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ever heard of previews?

      Savvy people know the previews are FOS. In fact, generally the better a movie looks in preview the more likely that it is going to truly, deeply suck. Many movies give up the best three scenes in the whole movie in the preview. Then you go watch the movie and find that everything else in the movie sucks.

      Its probably better for everyone to have people p2p the movie and watch it small screen. I usulaly don't watch p2p movies, and am more inclined to buy a dvd than rent or watch a movie in the theatre (now that many dvd's are $5, why put up with the hassle of renting?). I will watch a movie in the theatre if it has aspects which will show better on a gigantic screen (case in point: LOTR with its massive battle scenes). Otherwise, it is not worth the money to watch it once when I can buy the dvd and watch it over and over with commentary.

      Regardless of the situation, I do not think p2p will make me not buy a movie I would have anyway. I frequently buy dvd's of movies I have watched at friend's houses or borrowed previously. P2P is essentially the same deal. Besides, watching movies on the computer sucks ass. A good viewing environment for movies is ultimately very important to me.

    2. Re:Don't be ridiculous by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 1

      How many copies of Gigli did you see floating around on the P2P networks?

      Not very many, that's for sure.

      Matrix Reloaded?

      The Two Towers?

      Finding Nemo?

      Lots of those and of all the other popular movies so far this year. If you can claim that 'a hundred zillion pirates have already downloaded copies of your movie off the net', that must mean that it's a movie that everybody wants to see. If the entire breadth of your movie being pirated is 'some random oscar previewer made a poor VHS copy for his brother', then it must not be that great of a movie...

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    3. Re:Don't be ridiculous by goldspider · · Score: 1
      "If you can claim that 'a hundred zillion pirates have already downloaded copies of your movie off the net', that must mean that it's a movie that everybody wants to see."

      I hope you're not suggesting that these movies were popular (and made lots of money in the theatre) because of P2P downloads prior to their release. That would just be absurd.

      I'd say the more likely scenario is that the people downloading a popular movie either A. have never seen it but heard it was a great movie, but didn't want to pay to see it, or B. have seen it in the theatre but don't feel like paying for the DVD.

      Be honest with yourself. Do you really think the movie industry has anything at all to gain from giving away their movies on P2P? Puh-lease!

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    4. Re:Don't be ridiculous by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 1

      Maybe I wasn't clear, but if a movie company spokesperson can tell the press on Monday morning that a hundred zillion people downloaded their new blockbuster, then it must be a really great movie that everyone wants to see and if you don't have broadband, you should rush to the theater and see it, now!

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    5. Re:Don't be ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      OK, here's the deal.

      Good movies get passed around on P2P networks because they are good movies.

      Bad movies don't get passed around on P2P networks because they suck.

      Now, how the hell you can possibly believe that downloading Matrix: Reloaded and watching it on your 19" computer monitor with a 2.1 sound system possibly compares to a giant screen with pounding sound and NO FUCKING COMPRESSION ARTEFACTS?!?

      Also, factor in the fact that, even with a decent home-theater setup (and ignoring the aforementioned low-quality of even the best downloaded movies), you still don't get the satisfaction of spending an evening out with your friends or significant other. Even slow films with a more dramatic touch are better watched on a big screen. More emotion to see, crisper sound.. And again, NO FUCKING COMPRESSION ARTEFACTS.

      Those people that don't care about low quality and don't care about choppy sound, a moving cam, etc etc etc are the kinds of people who wouldn't go to the fucking movies to begin with! They would just wait to rent it anyway, or wait to get their hands on a screener on VHS. Believe it or not, the Internet didn't create movie piracy. It's been around for a long time, and it's always been insiders.

      People will pay for the privelage of going to a movie theater and seeing a movie, larger than life and exactly as the makers of the film desired, even with movie piracy around.

      To throw in my own little anectodal evidence, I downloaded Matrix: Reloaded the week it was in theaters. And I've seen it in theaters twice. And, if they re-issue it before Matrix: Revolutions comes out, I will see it again. Even though I already have the option of watching an inferior version as many times as I choose.

      Don't downplay the theater experience. That is all.

    6. Re:Don't be ridiculous by goldspider · · Score: 1
      "a hundred zillion people downloaded their new blockbuster, then it must be a really great movie that everyone wants to see and if you don't have broadband, you should rush to the theater and see it, now!"

      "...but if you DO have broadband, don't bother paying to see it in the theatre, because you can download it for free!"

      That's not very smart business, especially as more and more people upgrade to broadband.

      And what about DVDs that are being shared on P2P networks? Should the movie industry also encourage people to download it for free instead of pay for it, as long as they have the bandwidth?

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    7. Re:Don't be ridiculous by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      fact, generally the better a movie looks in preview the more likely that it is going to truly, deeply suck

      followed by


      Many movies give up the best three scenes in the whole movie in the preview. Then you go watch the movie and find that everything else in the movie sucks.


      So if the best three scenes are in the preview, but the preview is really bad, then the movie will be great ?

      Hmm.

    8. Re:Don't be ridiculous by Jardine · · Score: 1

      Besides, watching movies on the computer sucks ass. A good viewing environment for movies is ultimately very important to me.

      Most movies that are still in theatres are released in SVCD, supported by many DVD players. When a DVD version comes out, it will usually be put out in Xvid (or some other mpeg4 based codec) or SVCD.

      That's when Tv-out might come in handy.

  60. So was Hollywood lying about The Hulk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw the movie in threatres, and the Hulk looked totally fake... I remember Hollywood whining about how the effects weren't finished in the copy released on the net. But I never saw the net version of the movie.

    So were the Hulk effects really that much different in the final film from the pre-release copy?

  61. ARTICLE TEXT HAS BEEN MODIFIED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moderators, please do your homework before modding stuff like this up. If you're not going to check the original site, at the very least check the character of the poster's previous posts. Trolls have been in the habit of posting subtlely (and not so subtlely) modified versions of articles lately. Don't help them out.

  62. Research by nnnneedles · · Score: 2, Funny
    researchers examined 285 movies from P2P networks

    Yea, I'm also doing extensive research via p2p applications. Can I please get some RIAA funding?

    --
    Will code a sig generator for food
  63. I heard it WASN'T the movie houses by sielwolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But the advertising houses that are the major source of leaks (you know, the guys who take any movie and reduce it to "In a world... where a man..."). I remember Film Threat looking into this two years back.

    The problem is that while only a certain controllable group inside a studio needs/has access to the complete movie, a whole slew of folks at the advertising companies have it. So while some guy getting paid 20k a year to chop up some shots from the film to put into a coming attraction, he throws it up on the web. Because these companies are peripheral to the project but integral to the process (somebody has to put together the DVD/30-second primetime slot/Newspaper adverts) and so it is tough for the MPAA to regulate.

    --
    What is music when you despise all sound?
  64. On a related note... by psydeshow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is anybody else afraid that with Schwarzenegger as Governor of California, the statewide penalty for watching an illegally distributed movie will be to undergo memory-erasure?

  65. They could figure out who is leaking them by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 1

    It would not be hard to figure out who is leeking the movies. Assuming that you are sending out pre-realease DVD's to critics and so on. In each DVD you send out a small on screen defect, just a few pixles in one frame, Something that no one will notice when watching. Then make it different for each pre-release you send out.

    You could write a simple program to put them in and go find them.

    When you find one floating around you can figure out who's copy it was and go yell at them.

    I would say this was an original Idea but there was something like it in a Tom Clancy Novel.

    --
    Erlang Developer and podcaster
    1. Re:They could figure out who is leaking them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that lossy compression will mask out those pixels. These aren't 9GB files flying around, they're heavily compressed and a two pixel difference isn't going to be detecable on these.

      Since the pre-releases are screeners, why can't the just put a message that unique for each pre-release they send scroll across the bottom instead of the standard "This is a pre-screener" or whatever that scrolls along the bottom. Much more detectable IMHO.

    2. Re:They could figure out who is leaking them by sp3c1alK · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the 'canary trap'!

      Good idea:)

    3. Re:They could figure out who is leaking them by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      What would be even easier for the studios to do would be to use alt-version scenes in the pre-release DVDs, where things such as a digitally-added billboard shows a different sponsor than the one who paid for the placement to be in the "real" version, an extra stood in a position where they won't be seen in the final cut, the color of a house passed by while driving is changed.

      Without knowing what the change is, it'd be nearly impossible to correct it...

  66. Dont you watch South Park by I'mKindaDumb · · Score: 0

    Underpants Gnome episode.. Step 1: Steal Underpants Step 2: ???? Step 3: Profit Its a joke YOU didnt get.

    --
    -i am n00b.
    1. Re:Dont you watch South Park by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      >>Underpants Gnome episode.. Step 1: Steal
      >>Underpants Step 2: ???? Step 3: Profit Its a
      >>joke YOU didnt get.

      The fact it is one of my favourite SP jokes was the ONLY thing that made my original post funny....

      -1 Not So Bright for you.

    2. Re:Dont you watch South Park by rifter · · Score: 1

      Underpants Gnome episode.. Step 1: Steal Underpants Step 2: ???? Step 3: Profit Its a joke YOU didnt get.

      Aren't you being a little anal about the Underpants Gnome joke? It made sense the way the poster said it to me.. Besides, at this rate, profit cannot be in 3dRealms plan since they seem to be working on the daikatana model.

    3. Re:Dont you watch South Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know what the funniest part of the whole underpants gnomes thing was? They were making fun of OPEN SOURCE at the time...

      1. give away for free
      2. ??????
      3. Profit! ...sound familiar?

    4. Re:Dont you watch South Park by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > you know what the funniest part of the whole underpants gnomes thing was? They were making fun of OPEN SOURCE at the time...

      Umm, no? They were making fun of the fake "economic boom" of the 90's where venture capitalists threw money at everything with ".com" at the end of the name. They offered all kinds of content for free with the hope of making money.

      Since OSS doesn't really need the "3. Profit" step to succeed, it is not a statement of Open Source. If it was supposed to be, it's not a very accurate statement.

    5. Re:Dont you watch South Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah, you mean Red Hat, VA Linux, those kinds of "buisness"...

      and yes, open source needs profit. If it didn't why are those companies trying? Why is SCO trying? I'll tell you why. Cause the chum has run out, and the sharks are still hungry, baby. You ever seen what heppens when sharks go into a feeding frenzy and the food runs out? They eat each other....

    6. Re:Dont you watch South Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you, auditioning for Miami Vice? That was a trainwreck of cliches.

    7. Re:Dont you watch South Park by rifter · · Score: 1

      you know what the funniest part of the whole underpants gnomes thing was? They were making fun of OPEN SOURCE at the time...

      1. give away for free

      2. ??????

      3. Profit! ...sound familiar?

      The underpants gnomes were not giving anything away. They stole underpants! Only a SCO lawyer would see an indictmnet of Open Source in a story about stealing other people's property and making a profit off of it. :P

  67. Watermarking by Covener · · Score: 1

    Heard recently that studios are pursuing watermarking of screeners and other promotional DVD's to at least have a fighting chance at figuring out where these things are coming from.

    1. Re:Watermarking by joynt · · Score: 2, Informative

      As of now they put serials and watermarks on a small portion of the screen. They get blurred out or have a block of black overtop when they get ripped. The only solution would be to put a watermark over the entire screen, which would ruin the whole purpose. Or use hidden watermarks/identification at certain frames.

  68. The best security I've ever seen... by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...was at a film distribution company. The Homeland Security folks could learn a thing or two from these people.

    Once on entering the facility, and again when I left, I had to stand on a little box, about four inches tall. A security guard then waved a wand over me and another physically patted me down. My notebook bag had all contents removed, inspected, and then put back in place. They did a pretty good job of putting everything back where it came from.

    If everybody did things the way those guys did, I don't think insiders would be contributing much to the P2P networks.

    --

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  69. Re:So internal leaks are _not_ copyright violation by LostCluster · · Score: 1

    Just to be sure on this... if one of my own employees steals code and gives it to a client, it's not the clients' fault if he uses it, right?

    Nope, it is the client's fault as soon as they realize (i.e. are told in a certified mail letter by your lawyers) that they're in possession of stolen code that they really shouldn't have. At that point, they're prohibited from using it any further. They're entitled to use it for as long as they in good faith believe that they're standing on solid ground, but once they look down they fall.

  70. Why would you want to download a movie on P2P? by goldspider · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It costs less than buying the DVD. It always comes back to that.

    I don't buy the "I want to stick it to the man!" argument. Some people are just too cheap to drop $15 - $25 on a DVD.

    If you think that's too expensive, don't buy it. Affordability (or lack thereof) is not justification for downloading it illegally.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:Why would you want to download a movie on P2P? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegality is not justification for not dowloading.

    2. Re:Why would you want to download a movie on P2P? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hope that's the defense you use when you're caught and slapped with a fine or (as they say in the FBI warning) jail time.

      In fact, I think I'm going to use that defense the next time I knock over a Quickie Mart or beat the hell out of my asshole neighbor.

    3. Re:Why would you want to download a movie on P2P? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, think I'll take a toke and go to prison.

    4. Re:Why would you want to download a movie on P2P? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Affordability (or lack thereof) is not justification for downloading it illegally."

      I'm sure the local magistrate used the same justification for having little Habib's hands chopped off for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family.

    5. Re:Why would you want to download a movie on P2P? by macemoneta · · Score: 1
      Affordability (or lack thereof) is not justification for downloading it illegally

      It's human nature, and anything that goes against that is going to fail (or at least have a real hard time).

      If a bag of money falls out of an armored car and the money starts blowing around you will:

      1. Collect as many bills as you can, and return them to the company, or
      2. Collect as many bills as you can, to buy that plasma TV.

      Most people will keep the money they find. It's human nature (greed). Companies aren't the only ones that are greedy. The only way to overcome greed, is with another aspect of human nature; sloth. If it's just easier/better to pay for something than to get it for free, people will do that.

      If there are only one or two dollar bills being blown around in a strong wind, few people will bother to chase them down.

      --

      Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

  71. Re:So internal leaks are _not_ copyright violation by bearclaw · · Score: 1
    Just to be sure on this... if one of my own employees steals code and gives it to a client, it's not the clients' fault if he uses it, right?

    I beleive, though I am not 100% sure, that you must exercise due diligence to determine if the material is legal or not.
    --
    -- bearclaw
  72. Simple, do the math... by MrFreshly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Go to the Movies : $9.50 each person
    Buy the DVD : $14.95 - $19.95
    Download and burn DVD : ~$200 for burner and $1.5 per disk.

    Figure for a family to go see a movie ~$38.50 + concessions...It's way cheaper to buy the DVD. However, when DVD's are > $20 each - it makes more sense to copy them...

    The point is, lower the prices on this stuff (movies and music) and people will pay for it. A large portion of the piracy is due to price gouging, IMHO.

    Oh, and put out more movies worth seeing! :)

    1. Re:Simple, do the math... by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      $200 for a burner?

      I can buy one in the UK for 69, so you should be able to get one for $80-100 at least.

    2. Re:Simple, do the math... by Jacer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I totally agree. There is a play-again theatre a few blocks from my campus. Movies get there around a month to two months after the regular theatres. They're there before rentals. Anyway, the play-again theatre costs $1 for admission and regular movie prices for concessions. I use to go to movies 2-4 times a month at $8.50 a pop. Now I go about 2-4 times a week. Now that's what I call a working buisness model. At any given time the theatre is completely packed. Even for crappy movies.

      --
      --fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
    3. Re:Simple, do the math... by 2MuchC0ffeeMan · · Score: 1

      cdr burners for $50, dvdr burners for $200.

      --
      Runnin' On Empty .... I'm Still Alive
    4. Re:Simple, do the math... by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Great point. I do that to nowadays. I stopped going to the "regular" movies when tickets went from $5.50 to $7.50. Wait a month or two and you can go to the "dollar" theater and watch a good show AND have some expensive popcorn and drink for the same cost just for the ticket a month or two earlier.

      This is a great example of why I would never think of "pirating" a movie...You either see it when it comes out for full price, See it for $1 a month or $2 later, buy or rent the DVD, or even wait for them to show up in the used bin and buy the whole DVD for about the same price it would have cost to go to the movie when it came out.

      In comparison to the music world it is just to easy for us patient folk to legally participate. Imagine if a CD was dropped from $18 to $6.99 after it had been released a while?

      --
      (+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
    5. Re:Simple, do the math... by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      104 UKP, so that's much less than $200, the US generally has better prices.

      http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html ?N EC-ND13SP

      or 69UKP

      http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html ?S ON-DVDRW

      I rest my case.

    6. Re:Simple, do the math... by yerricde · · Score: 1

      Great point. I do that to nowadays. I stopped going to the "regular" movies when tickets went from $5.50 to $7.50. Wait a month or two and you can go to the "dollar" theater

      Unless there aren't any second-run theaters left in your town.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
  73. Re:So internal leaks are _not_ copyright violation by Akai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You're missing the point of the article.

    The "Industry" (or as someone expertly put it the *AA's) want legal means (DRM, taxes on blank media, etc, etc) to take away computer user's rights when dealing with all media, not just media copied from them.

    What the AT&T Study basically said, is that it doesn't matter if you make it illegal to sell hardware to convert a DV recording into a DVD or VCD without a license, since the content being distrubuted is being authored in-house by the studios or their contactors.

    It's like allowing a taper at a rock concert to plug straight into the soundboard instead of using mics in the audience. Both are illegal (unless permission is granted, a la The Dead, etc) copies of material, but banning the sale of high-quality microphones to people not in the music industry wouldn't stop the board recording from being made.

    The US Governemnt, however, has a sad history of limiting the quality of a product for "our protection", examples include GPS (we get the crummy one, the military gets the good one), crypto (fixed now, but remember when 56-bit was barely legal), and so on.

    --
    Please send all UCE to scally@devolution.com so I can f
  74. Re:So internal leaks are _not_ copyright violation by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just to be sure on this... if one of my own employees steals code and gives it to a client, it's not the clients' fault if he uses it, right?

    Of course it is, if he knowingly misused copyrighted code. Even if your employee didn't tell him the code was stolen, the client has a responsibility to make sure he is operating within the bounds of the law. Ignorance of the law is rarely a successful defense.

    Yes, you're probably right about P2P being used for exclusive releases. There's precedent for it. Films used to be held for years before being released for private viewing on cable, satellite or DVD, if ever. Now I see more films made for exclusively for home viewing than ever make it into the theaters. A logical extension of that would be to just eliminate the DVD and send the data direct. That's all satellite and digital cable do anyway ... they just ship MPEG-encoded video streams around. Eliminate the custom hardware and dump it to a multimedia PC and you have the same effect, but with fewer controls on the viewer's behavior. That possibility is what has the industry so up in arms, and explains the court cases against video recorder/player manufacturers.

    What irritates me is that the entertainment industry as a whole has gotten so accustomed to profit levels that would be considered miraculous in most other industries. Most large-scale manufacturing operations (those that, say, make blank CDs for pressing) operate on a tiny fraction of that kind of margin. A few percent over cost is considered a good year. True media piracy, and simple file-sharing of copyrighted material, all those things would become very uncommon if a. the entertainment monopolies were broken up under Antitrust law and returned to a competitive market and b. media cost to the end user returned to levels inline with what they are willing to pay. The consumer armed with a choice of vendors should ultimately determine pricing: that is what antitrust law is all about, and why monopolies are very bad for the consumer. Illegally inflating profits via a monopoly position, and then claiming that you are being stolen from when people find a way to not pay is somewhat hypocritical.

    The thing to remember is that the entertainment industry is just that, an industry, a business. And the history of business, in every country on the planet, has shown that when businesses achieve near-absolute control of their marketplace, the invariably abuse that market. They just can't resist, and furthermore they come to believe that this is their rightful position. What makes the MPAA/RIAA cartel so extreme in this regard is that they are trying to make the government guarantee them their monopoly.

    Still, this should come as no surprise to anyone with a functioning brain stem. The Sherman Antitrust Act, and laws written for a similar purpose, were enacted to provide the government with tools to correct extreme aberrant behavior in the private sector. It seems to me that the MPAA and the RIAA both come under that heading, with the RIAA taking the lead in outrageousness.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  75. well, this should buy P2P some time by sbma44 · · Score: 1
    the movie companies will likely decide that the answer to their burgeoning P2P program is fixing their internal leaks

    Of course, that'll just delay (slightly) the release schedule of movies on the P2P networks.

    Which is good -- the RIAA clearly can't handle P2P, and the more entrenched it becomes the better its odds against the more-powerful movie industry.

  76. just make it annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just make it annoying to watch a downloaded dvd off kazaa. by breaking the movie into 15 sections all of which are in a format that wont work unless you get the last 15 bytes of the file. (old RM format comes to mind). and put different version online for each section. each with different check sums and different file lengths. so that by the time you actually have downloaded a working version that you pieced together to watch the movie is already out on DVD. ohh also make it so the people sharing it are on modem.

  77. Shorts by phorm · · Score: 1

    Indeed, I've always thought that the best way was to include a portion of the ending, a decent portion of the beginning, and then stick some BS filler in the middle to look like it has full content.

    Kazaa user 987 downloads file,maybe checks to see that the movie has an ending: watches, sees that movie looks good, then ends up partway through having the real movie dissappear and "Gone with the wind" play instead.

    Might just entice Kazaa user 987 to go see the movie in the theatre (or rent the DVD) to catch the rest.
    I still think that it's unfortunately that one would have to resort to movie piracy just to avoid adcrap. Theatres-ads on a $10 ticket really suck (except for funny ads, geeze companies should wise up that they are really preferable), and even DVD's you often have to wade through FBI warnings and previews.

  78. Simiple, Easy way to STOP the leaks by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 3, Funny

    If the MPAA were serious about stopping these internal leaks, there is a very simple and inexpensive way that they could stop this which would be 100% effective. :-)

    Simply make all of their employees watch a stupid preachy commercial exhorting them to respect copyrights. (And stop making us watch it. It was funny the first few times, but the joke is old now.)

    --

    Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    1. Re:Simiple, Easy way to STOP the leaks by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Hey, Microsoft says we Linux people don't believe in Intellectual Property rights anyway.

      See this.

      regional director of Microsoft Middle East: "Linux people don't believe in Intellectual Property Rights. This is the biggest problem in the Linux world.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  79. movies don't have to worry as much by Twillerror · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The movie industry doesn't have to worry so much as the music industry for several reasons, mainly because they know not to gouge their customers.

    Let's compare the two.

    1) Movies come out in theaters for about 8 to 12 dollars, sometimes cheaper. This is as close to a live concert as your going to get. A live concert tickets for a major band is easily $30 dollars. Not to mention having to wait in a really long line, and deal with all the kids. Go to a movie on a Tuesday, sneak in a coke in your pockets or girlfriends purse and your cool.

    2) Once out on DVD you get all kinds of extras, and a really high quaility piece of art. CDs are cds, they don't make them with surround sound or anything special. No video of live concerts or anything. And you usually have to pay 18 bucks for them, even when they have been out for 10 years! You can get all those marginally good movies for $10 bucks in those bins.

    3) Movies can cast 10s of millions, while CDs could be made for near nothing. Yet they continue to sell for about the same and they just trust the user to want a collection.

    I think the music industry could learn a thing or two. I don't really think we need multi-million a show tours. I don't want a million lights and gimics. I just want to see a live band for a decent price. I wish I liked phish, cause then I could get it. Why must I pay $100 bucks for a Radiohead concert. What ever happened to the arena concert?

    1. Re:movies don't have to worry as much by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      Movies come out in theaters for about 8 to 12 dollars, sometimes cheaper. This is as close to a live concert as your going to get. A live concert tickets for a major band is easily $30 dollars.

      Um, no? The closest thing to a live concert you're going to get is a live play. For those, the price you will pay fairly closely parallels the cost of a live concert. A few bucks at the door for a small amateur production, ninety or a hundred bucks a pop for the good seats at a top-level professional show.

      Marginal cost to display a movie is virtually nil--an underpaid projectionist (who has to dash from theatre to theatre in the multiplex) and some guy to mop the floors. Of course they're cheaper than a concert. Performers, backstage crew, backup band--all of these people have to be present for each and every concert performance.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:movies don't have to worry as much by mcknation · · Score: 1

      I wish I liked phish, cause then I could get it.

      Are you kidding me? When Phish played Hampton a while back tickets were going for thousands of dollars. Heck even the festival they did this summer was 150+ a ticket! Plus I don't know what to think about this story.

    3. Re:movies don't have to worry as much by filmsmith · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that to keep those prices nice and comfortable ($8 for a movie), you should be supporting the concession stands. That, after all, is the primary income for movie theatres. Next time you're at the movies, would it kill you to throw a little change into the pockets of the people who provide you those comfy seats and big, purdy screens?

    4. Re:movies don't have to worry as much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The movie industry doesn't have to worry so much as the music industry for several reasons, mainly because they know not to gouge their customers.

      ...he said while munching on a bucket of $8 popcorn (two bucks more for extra "yellow topping") and sipping from a paper cup of $5 Mountain Dew.

    5. Re:movies don't have to worry as much by yerricde · · Score: 1

      That was a coke, not a Coke. Besides, the movie theater chain in my town does not serve Coca-Cola products.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
  80. Flawed Logic by Kaya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not correct to assume that because many files stolen via P2P are leaked by insiders, movie stealing will go away if these leaks stop. It's likely that the best quality movies propagate very quickly over P2P while poorer ones do not - which only means that once these leaks are plugged, the next highest quality version will become the most popular.

    1. Re:Flawed Logic by Hassman · · Score: 1

      No, but it is correct to assume that it will reduce the overall amount of stealing.

      I would never watch a movied filmed off the screen of a move theater.

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    2. Re:Flawed Logic by Kaya · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking mainly about movies widely available on DVD. I don't think that the movie industry is losing many sales to people who would rather forgo the (IMHO impressive) technical and social theatre experience to watch the free version on their PCs, alone. DVD rips, on the other hand, will still kill them even if a high quality source is not available.

  81. Re:you said 'Cox" . hehe by rifter · · Score: 2, Funny

    Q:Whaddaya call Cox cable subsribers?

    A: ahhh, you all know the answer!

    I dunno aout you, but I would call them CoxSuckers. :)

  82. Me Too! by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, I've been doing alot of research on this topic too. I've been downloading movies online ... but just to check out the quality to see if it was an insider job.

    --

    "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
  83. Samir Gupta is a TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The worst part is not enough people know he's a troll, so when I down-mod him I usually get marked Unfair.

  84. MPAA Suing AT&T Labs? by toupsie · · Score: 1
    If AT&T labs downloaded hundreds of movies from P2P networks and admits in it public wouldn't it be ripe for a lawsuit by the MPAA? If the RIAA will go after the allowance of a pudgy, 12 year-old school girl, you would think that AT&T would be deep pockets and an excellent target for a lawsuit.

    Or could this mean that if you download more than 100 movies from P2P networks and say, "It's research, Man!", it's ok...

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  85. Jesus H. Christ by kentrel · · Score: 1, Troll

    'Our conclusion is that the distributors really need to take a hard look at their own internal processes and look at how they can stop the insider leaks of their movies before taking measures that might hamstring consumers' technologies and rights.'"

    Oh give me a break..


    Stop looking for ways to justify piracy... That is the subtext of that quote after all. It's not the movie industry's fault or problem that someone makes a movie available for download. There are thousands of people involved in the production of one movie.


    It's impossible to keep track of it througout the entire process. IT'S THE FAULT OF THE CRIMINALS WHO DOWNLOAD IT.


    It's high time focus was directed towards the thieves who consistently steal movies and music. Especially those idiotic ones who try to justify it by treating the "Industry" as "The Establishment" that needs to be taken down... There are hundreds and thousands of ordinary people, like you and me(well maybe you), who depend on movie and music sales for their source of income


    Piracy is killing the industry.. As a computer scientist I know that there is no technological solution. As a long time friend of a few struggling actors, camera men, and working-to-be-directors I know that it's their jobs which are being threatened, and in one case already affected. The "Establishment" will only be taken down after every single regular Joe Average has lost their jobs... so give it up


    Like any criminal, I despise pirates and I am glad the RIAA have taken action, though it's too little too late I'm afraid. I hope every single one of you who regularly steals movies and music will be prosecuted with the full arm of the law, and shamed in front of your families.. just like the low life thieves who shoplift from record stores... for that is exactly what you are.

  86. This just in: security usually a social problem by ianscot · · Score: 1
    Maybe this counts as astonishing in the Orwellian, counter-truth world of the MPAA, where piratical 13-year-olds are able to conjure complete clean copies of pre-release movies because they're just, you know, so darned malevolently evil? Did they think those copies were the result of undetected exploits by hackers, or something?

    Oddly, the objection that copies could kill sales may be right in this case -- because movies are mostly not worth it, and if we get more than a spoon-fed preview we aren't going to pony up $30 for, oh, Daredevil. My DVD collection's maybe 50 movies, but I'd still pay to see Dr. Strangelove in a crowd again, once in a while. Movies you love, you see a few times. Movies that are mediocre, well, free copies just expose the shoddy product.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  87. mod parent up! by ed.han · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    this is dead-on.

    ed

  88. Sssh... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Don't reveal that the researches manage to create a "job" leeching P2P nets. They can even claim educational use if someone complains.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  89. Its pronounced... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its "Gig-Lee", not "Gig-uh-lee".

    Learn how to speak in the language of Stupid, as practiced by B-Aff and J-Lo.

    1. Re:Its pronounced... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Awffuck, optionally Awfful, to you.

  90. alt.binaries.dvd?? by skitzophile · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What I want to know is with all the P2P talk, how come you never here anything about newsgroups?

    I personally find them much more inviting. Plus you know someone isn't going to log off and, as in my case, I top out my bandwidth.

  91. Re: cliches by Jerf · · Score: 1

    In a world... where a man...

    Actually, to be fair, I've been to four or five movies this year, and I was listening for this and other cliches. I only heard one in the 20 or 30 previews, and it was done self-referentially. (Don't remember what for.)

    Granted, that's not a whole lot of movies and they were all in the action genre (the only genre I care to see in theatres because the sound and video slaughter anything I can muster in my apartment) so it's far from a statistically rigorous sample, but I think they're actually not using the cliches anymore. It's only a matter of time before new ones develop, but let's give credit where credit's due.

  92. MPAA/RIAA can't convince their own people .... by pirhana · · Score: 1

    MPAA/RIAA can't convince their own people to stop "piracy". Then how do they expect millions of people to stop it?

  93. Re:So internal leaks are _not_ copyright violation by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    The GPS issue is fixed now as well, IIRC.

  94. unbelievable findings! by alienhazard · · Score: 1

    in other news, the egg comes before the chicken.

    --
    > "I allege that SCO is full of it" -Linus
  95. It's a secret. by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

    "Shh! Shut up!"

  96. Poor conclusion. by intekk.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As if insider leaks are anything new...

    Our conclusion is that the distributors really need to take a hard look at their own internal processes and look at how they can stop the insider leaks of their movies before taking measures that might hamstring consumers' technologies and rights.

    Who cares about insider leaks? If 100,000 copies of a movie are distributed for free ahead of release, the distributors will be 10 times more concerned about the fact that they're not getting paid than the fact that the movie was leaked ahead of it's release. Whether a movie is leaked, bootleged, or copied from legit media, the distributors are screwed if 100,000 people get their hands on it for free.

    What would really require the distributors to "take a hard look at their own internal processes" would be if someone discovered a loaded Kazaa node on one of their networks.

  97. Old rant about unsustainable models... by Halo- · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is that the film industry has lost sight of what they "sell". At the simpliest level, they are selling: a story projected on a huge screen, sound better than you have at home, and a decent seating environment. No foreseeable technology is going to allow the general public to have the "big screen" experience at home in the near future. Therefore, the movie industry has something of unique value.

    The problem is that as that by expanding into the home market, they gave up a lot of their uniqueness. When the cost of creating a copy of a movie for home use was high, they could make money because they could do it cheaply. However, as the cost to distribute lower quality formats falls, the "value" the studios offer to home users pluments.

    Now, I'm certainly not denying the studio's invested a lot of capital and "own" the movie, but think of it like this: I go see a famous comedian in a club, and remember/write down all his jokes. I can go tell those jokes to my friends, or type them up and email them across the internet. Chances are, even though they are still funny, they are much better when you see the actual comedian perform them.

    There is a reason film and music companies are called "media" companies. The idea is that they provide the "medium" which conveys content to end-users. Medium used to be expensive, now it's cheap. Their business model is broken, they spend tons on content and are trying to profit of the medium.

    1. Re:Old rant about unsustainable models... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > At the simpliest level, they are selling: a story projected on a huge screen, sound better than you have at home, and a decent seating environment.

      Bwuaha. Sorry, but no. Home Theater has advanced a ton since the 1990's, pal.

      I'll take my 42" plasma over a grainy film ANY day.

      My home sound system, DOES sound better then the theater. Furthermore, if it's too loud or soft, I can control the volume.

      Decent seating environment? I'll take my home any day of the week. No fucking noisy kids who won't STFU, cellphones, parents, sticky floors, and a hundred other reasons why the movie theater environment SUCKS.

      Lastly, the home movie is on MY schedule, and I don't have to pay $8 to see it !

      > Therefore, the movie industry has something of unique value.

      Sorry, but not in my books, or most of the other people in the Plasma forum on AVSforum.com

    2. Re:Old rant about unsustainable models... by Halo- · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay... I know...feeding the trolls.

      42" plasma =~ $4000
      Decent Home Theater =~ $2000

      So, we're talking 6 grand before you get into the incidentals. That's not exactly mass-market pricing. And I'm sure if you live in an apartment, your neighbors will love the rumbling bass and subsonics...

    3. Re:Old rant about unsustainable models... by PMuse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is that the film industry has lost sight of what they "sell".

      AT&T, on the other hand, may have their eyes fixed directly on what they sell. They sell bandwidth.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    4. Re:Old rant about unsustainable models... by eam · · Score: 1

      > No fucking noisy kids who won't STFU

      Yeah, but how does a home theater help when the noisy kids live in the same house?

    5. Re:Old rant about unsustainable models... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ..feeding the trolls.

      Always the guilable who respond to them

      > 42" plasma =~ $4000

      Um, no. I paid $3300 from Visual Apex 6 months ago. And it's down to $2800 now for a 42PWD

      Do some research instead of name-calling, please.

      > And I'm sure if you live in an apartment, your neighbors will love the rumbling bass and subsonics...

      I *gasp* asked my neighbors, when the best time to watch movies were. Most said, they don't care.

      In the past 6 months, the upstairs neighbor has only asked me once, to turn it down. They are are usually gone Friday nite, and Saturday, anyways, so I get to watch at full volume on those days. =P

      The rest of the time, you DON'T need to watch a movie at full volume anywas to enjoy it.

      _Michaelangelo_

  98. deep linking is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linking directly to the archive version of the site could be construed as deep linking, and as such could result in legal problems for slashdot.

    Yes, we all agree that deep linking should not be illegal. But that doesn't change the history of legal disputes over this issue.

    $0.02

  99. Upcoming News Story by serutan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Look for it soon:

    MPAA Sues AT&T Researcher for Piracy

    "Ms. Cranor has blatantly flaunted her piratical activities, publicly bragging that she downloaded nearly 200 movies from P2P file sharing networks," said an MPAA spokesperson, who added that the MPAA will seek $620 million in damages.

  100. What really happens... by doublem · · Score: 1

    ..Is people download the movie, see what shiat it is and don't bother paying to see it.

    I read an article a while back where a movie exec was blaming text messaging for spreading negative views about a movie faster than it used to spread by word of mouth alone.

    The faster people learn what crap a film is, the less money it makes, and since Hollywood has clearly decided that quality is a dirty word (Gigli) anything that cuts into the "All they know about the film is they hype" phase can be the difference between making and losing money on a flick.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  101. These people are in a money driven business... by iceT · · Score: 1

    "...distributors really need to take a hard look at their own internal processes and look at how they can stop the insider leaks of their movies before taking measures that might hamstring consumers' technologies and rights."

    Hmmm.. let's see... spend millions of dollars a year on security for our own processes and suppliers... OR pay a couple lobbyists and maybe a lawyer or two to get the government to block any or all methods where people could share this effectively...

    Gee... it's a hard decision... Millions per year... vs. a couple lobbyists and a couple of lawyers...

    Wait... let me think...

    I'll get it... just a sec...

    --
    -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
  102. Matrix Reloaded... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well, I don't know if it's just advance screeners getting perfect dumps...

    But I know in the case of the MR that floated around KAZAA in May it was a camcorder job. And it was an industry screening, and an inside job.

    The shot was badly composed, the image was flickering, and the sound was echo-y.

    Before you chalk it up as what it might appear to be, think back... Where was an advance screening of Reloaded where the audience was dead silent? No coughs, no applause, no food chewing, burping, etc.?

    NOBODY getting up to go potty...

  103. not really by _avs_007 · · Score: 1

    They turned off the part that added error. But the third stream is still encrypted. It is this third stream that allows the reciever to calculate and compensate for the distortion caused by the earth's atmosphere...

  104. Oh the irony by bluepinstripe · · Score: 2, Funny

    How it must hurt to bite the hand that feeds you -- especially when that hand is yours.

  105. Who is Really Liable? by IPlawerinthehouse · · Score: 1

    The P2P companies should still be liable, absent a contract from the main distributor granting the P2Ps rights to diplay the movies before the theatrical release date. It's much easier to monitor the obvious infringers and seek injunctive relief against them then it would be to find the untrustworthy insider. Moreover, there would be no infringement from leaks if there were no illegal venues seeking illegal rights and access to the movies.

  106. Hook me up... by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

    Where are you getting $5 DVDs?

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    1. Re:Hook me up... by rifter · · Score: 1

      Where are you getting $5 DVDs?

      WalMart has $5 DVDs. Though on the net there are several Columbia House type deals where you can get like 10 DVDs for a penny (or something) and then promise and swear to buy more at a discounted rate.

  107. They already have a solution by digitalgimpus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is what they decided:

    Each advanced copy of a video has a digitalwatermark. Each is invidiual. It's on the entire screen, and somewhat vague (your eyes will overlook it unless you stare at it, kind of like a magic eye).

    If they see a leaked copy online... they can trace it back to exactly who was in charge of that copy (the watermark is often initials or a code for the individual).

    So far, tests of this have been very successful, nobody wants that liability on their hands. They get access to one of these tapes, nobody wants to put them online. Since they are essentially signed.

    There are several other techniques used widely in the industry. This is the big one.

    It's a mild watermark. Your eyes tend to look beyond it at the picture (kind of like a bugscreen on a window).

    Now the individual (previewer, editor etc.) makes it a business to keep it secure. Even screenshots.

  108. Not Surprised (insider speaking) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We had one of our films end up as a Bitorrent file.

    It was listed as a "screener" but was obviously not captured in a theater.

    Funny thing, as I downloaded it I was helping distribute it.

    Oh, the irony...

    (a little bit of me was proud that the film was in demand by people willing to share their bandwidth and take the time to fetch it, and burn it to VCD to watch at such poor quality. This film is not a Hollywood block buster, its just a little NZ art house film, Fingers crossed they will buy the DVD when it comes out so that they can really enjoy it as it was meant to be)

    1. Re:Not Surprised (insider speaking) by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I downloaded TV episodes for shows I'd missed until I realized that someone encoding the shows had an HDTV receiver and I could download the shows at a much higher quality than my TV would normally allow, and then watch them on my computer screen.

      One of the comments the person running the BitTorrent tracker in question makes is that the DVDs of said show are now at least a full season behind the actual show and people wanting to catch up on a show they missed in the first season(s) still can't buy them.

      I intend to purchase the DVDs of said (unnamed) show once they're available as I'm a huge fan, of course, and I've offered to loan my VCDs to friends to get them interested in watching the show this season as well.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  109. Plausible, but odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "MPAA should stop its own leaks [rather than persecuting file traders]" line is very common on Slashdot, but it makes about as much sense as a kangaroo wearing purple underwear.

    The fact is, the movie industry has always relied on distributing its films to cinemas. If some manager at Wehrenberg Theatres decides to stay late with his video camera and make a good quality rip of "Look Who's Talking 3", there's not a damn thing that Sony can do about it.

    (Not unless digital projection catches on, at which point DRM would become a real option.)

    So although I think you're right that AT&T has its own interests at heart, nevertheless, I do wish that they could've come up with a better line --- the tired old line that they are using gets posted in slashdot comments at least a hundred times a week.

  110. Rough job... downloading movies by bigmouth_strikes · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The researchers examined 285 movies from P2P networks and used the quality of the file to determine whether it was some guy with a video camera or not."

    Sounds like hard work, all those hours downloading and watching movies... I wonder what they do on their spare time ? Maybe they go to meetings, fill out spreadsheets and wait tables.

    Reminds me of the Dilbert where Wally *almost* gets the job to "stress test the server by downloading high quality media files from the busiest servers on the 'net". "I was this close to making surfing porn my job" he says. Dilbert replies "I would've had to kill you."

    --
    Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
  111. Need INTERNAL DRM FIRST! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
    The movie industry really needs to implement internal DRM for stuff in the pipe first! When it works well then they can try it on the rest fo us! After all, how many P2Ps are from internal screeners filming a movie pre-release? Also, how many leaks come from the off-shore DVD stamping houses that they use because it's cheaper. [you don't think they keep those movies canned only in the US do you!]

    of course, it doesn't look good to industry to say that the "theives" are in your own organization...so they must be outside it. Of course if the theives can get movies pre-release. then they are already bypassing any DRM in any consumer level products anyway.

  112. Halo 2 esta moriendo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    toda su basa

  113. But they are killing movie theatres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are absolutely correct that their main, secure channel for profits is the movie theatre. (Well, that, and selling way, way overpriced DVD's -- yes, folks, why don't you spend $30 on what cost us 25 CENTS to produce?)

    However, the movie theatres themselves are practically broke. They are making their money on concessions, pay their employees squat and are lucky to break even. Reels cost thousands and thousands of dollars, but many of them are bombs and it's the theatres who take the hit, not the studios. Theatres pray for blockbusters that will cover their costs.

    The movie studios are too greedy (old story) and their greed has helped cause the problems they perennially whine about (and blame on VCRs or pirates or France).

  114. Good movies aren't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As noted elsewhere in this thread, the popular movies aren't the problem. People downloading good movies (and this is not usually completely quick or easy--you have to want it) are generally also the people paying money to see it in the theatre, telling all their friends to watch it, buying the DVD or renting it multiple times.

    It's the crap movies that are the liability. If they get out early, only a few people need to see it and start telling all their friends that it's crap they should avoid. Then the studio is SCREWED.

    It's also bad for mediocre movies. I admit I've done this with some anime. Watched a rip, thought it was okay--but not good enough to, like, actually watch again or, heaven forbid, buy.

  115. $150M is irrelevant. by lrucker · · Score: 1
    The film cost Universal $150 million to make and distribute, but anyone with a fast Internet connection, a big hard drive and plenty of time could see it free.

    The amount it cost to make is irrelevant. Anyone willing to wait a year and put up with ads will get to see it free, too. People so eager to see a film that they'll watch it on their monitor will probably want to see it on the big screen - if it's good. What really hurt them were all those early reviews by the people who DL'd it and told their friends it sucked.

    The days when a bad movie can make a big chunk of its cost in the first weekend before anyone knows it sucks are gone. Compare the BO of Battlefield Earth to Gigli.

  116. wrong problem by alizard · · Score: 1
    The problem with pre-release for the industry is that real stinkers get trashed before release and nobody goes to see them before they hit the theaters.

    While they might be willing to lose a few megabucks on promoting their legal agenda, anybody who is willing to trash a movie's ability to at least make it's costs back in order to make a legal point is going to get his ass fired. You don't make friends in Hollywood by losing $50 or $100M of somebody else's money.

    The movie industry is just as evil as the record industry, but not nearly as stupid.

  117. Researchers... uh huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...the researchers reviewed 285 movies for quality...

    Uh huh... and I'm dating a big titted blonde bimbo right now...

    how come the researchers who downloaded the movies aren't getting busted?

    Can I call myself a researcher and escape prosecution?

  118. Re:you said 'Cox" . hehe by satanami69 · · Score: 1
    Wrong one..

    Q: What happened when the p2per got caught?


    A: He got his Cox cut off.

    --
    I really hate Dan Patrick.
  119. Re:So internal leaks are _not_ copyright violation by jswatz · · Score: 1

    That's the point -- where is the most effective point of control, if you believe you need to control the flow? It's a big industry, but it's an even bigger world...

    signed, the guy who wrote the article

    --
    "speaking only for myself since 1957"
  120. Why mod him down? by kcb93x · · Score: 1



    He's just speaking the fscking truth...jeez...

    Put yourself in the position of the RIAA/MPAA, in their current predicament. (Besides the point that you wouldn't get into that position)

    What would you do? Let it continue? If you don't like the laws, or the industry, then start making your own. That's the big problem with /.. People always say 'oh, if I were in control, I'd do things xxxxx way.' Well, fine. Then don't just bitch. Go out and fucking DO IT.

    Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean he's a troll. He's just showing the truth side of everything, explaining the point of why they are doing what they are doing. I personally don't agree with them either, but they *DO* have the right to protect that which is *theirs* under the current law.

    I agree with their end goal, to protect that which is theirs (notwithstanding want of DRM) even though I do not agree with their means. I think you guys should give everyone a chance, except for the obvious trolls. This is definitely not one of them.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  121. Re:So internal leaks are _not_ copyright violation by peachpuff · · Score: 1
    "Of course it is, if he knowingly misused copyrighted code. Even if your employee didn't tell him the code was stolen, the client has a responsibility to make sure he is operating within the bounds of the law. Ignorance of the law is rarely a successful defense."

    First, get the cliche straight: "Ignorance of the law" refers to people not knowing what's written in the law books.

    Copyright doesn't give you the right to block people from using the code. It only gives you the right to control the making and distribution of copies, though you can decide to only distribute it to people who pay you and agree to conditions.

    The client in this example has done nothing wrong, and has every reason to assume that the transfer of code is legitimate. When you buy something at the supermarket, do you call the owner and check that the cashier isn't ripping him off by pocketing the money?
    --
    -- . . ramblin' . . .
  122. digital watermark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If they watermarked the files, they could then trace from where a given copy was released into the wild. Just change the watermark for different 'insiders'. Hey, it's worked to find moles (spies) for ages.

  123. Yep, you pay alot more by MacFury · · Score: 1
    Lastly, the home movie is on MY schedule, and I don't have to pay $8 to see it

    Exactly true, you get to pay so much more! At $8 a ticket you could go to the movies every weekend for the next 7 years! Of course this is assuming you spend $3000 on a home theater system (easy to do)

    Besides, you don't get to meet anyone interesting sitting alone in your living room.

  124. A popular tv show became popular because of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a popular tv show - no names - became popular because the producers themselves produced widescreen versions (i.e. not what you see on tv) and posted them on the net widely and widely (irc, p2p, etc..).

    They made the show popular.

    Otherwise how come was X to view the show if the tv stations in X's country didn't show it yet (for some years to come as usually happens, outside of the US)?

    I can view a us show easily thks to the internet while otherwise I would have to wait for years. No thanks.

  125. Re:So internal leaks are _not_ copyright violation by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    though you can decide to only distribute it to people who pay you and agree to conditions.

    Which gives you the legal ability to control who uses the code. Otherwise copyright would be useless.

    And what is written in the law books says it is wrong to sell something if you don't have any legal rights to it. If an employee gives a client something for nothing, that should raise a red flag. If he sells the client something that isn't his, that should also raise a flag. The supermarket is a bad example: everything sold there goes through so many governmental and regulatory hoops that the odds of anything illegitimate being sold is very low. On the other hand (speaking as someone that worked as a consulting software engineer for two decades) the kind of software theft the previous poster mentioned is common, and is almost always with the knowledge of the customer who simply doesn't want to pay. I had a number of my systems treated in the same way: the people that bought it knew they were essentially purchasing a stolen product and they went ahead and did it anyway.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  126. it's JEE-lee by yerricde · · Score: 1

    To pronounce the Italian name "Gigli", say JEE-lee, which rhymes with Mr. McFeely.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  127. more like AFLAC by yerricde · · Score: 1

    More like Quackquack

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  128. Eliminating a few leaks by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Movie studios ship videos all over the planet to any media outlet that has a reviewer on staff

    Encode the movie with a visible watermark that mostly stays along the bottom of the picture but bounces up and down a few times at the intended chapter stops. This way, leaks can be traced and prosecuted.

    In the DVD production process, there would be multiple copies of the movie, at the subtitling studio, at the dubbing studio, at the scene selection encoding studio, and at the assembly point where all the extra stuff meets up with the dubbing and subtitling.

    Studios can eliminate leaks from at least three of those (subtitling, dubbing, and menu making) by 1. giving them DVD-R copies watermarked as above and 2. shipping the subtitler and the menu maker a low-quality encoding at half resolution and six frames per second. That's fast enough to see what's going on and synchronize it with the video and audio but not fast enough to pose as a substitute for the real thing.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  129. Not those dots by yerricde · · Score: 1

    These dots are not the reel-change indicators in the upper right corner of the picture.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?