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.'"
Google access and a new scientist story on the same thing.
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?
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.
>> Hopefully someone working on Duke Nukem /. today..
>> Forever [3drealms.com] is reading
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
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.
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!
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
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!
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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