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.'"
Most Movies On P2P From Insiders?
Should say: from the duh dept. Umkay?
(fp)
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Google access and a new scientist story on the same thing.
[insiders putting] movies online before theatrical release [..]
Hopefully someone working on Duke Nukem Forever is reading
Trolling is a art,
So while the MPAA is responding quickly to detected threats, they aren't seeking to estort money like the RIAA.
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?
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
I wondered how that copy of Gigli could got onto Kazaa, seeing that nobody has seen it in theatres.
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.
In other news fire is hot to touch.
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
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!
redundant statement.
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
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 --
'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
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.
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>
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
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?
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
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?
... 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.
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
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.
This text brought to you by an insider at the New York Times.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
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.
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?
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
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.
"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