Slashdot Mirror


MPAA Calls for Ban on Screeners

neoThoth writes "The MPAA is calling for a ban on all screeners for awards ceremonies. They state piracy as the rationale for killing of this tradition of the industry. It's interesting how this is never mentioned in their cries for tougher piracy laws. It's own members are the main source of piracy. 'The Directors, Writers and Screen Actors Guild all get screeners, as does the Golden Globe-selecting Hollywood Foreign Press Association and various critics' groups.'" Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

442 comments

  1. X-mas for pirates... no more? by mr.henry · · Score: 5, Funny

    Man, this is weak. I always look forward Academy screener time. I get to toss out my old, crappy telesync SVCDs and replace them with pristine DVD-Rs.

    1. Re:X-mas for pirates... no more? by yerricde · · Score: 1

      If you really want to pirate Pirates of the Caribbean, you can always wait for the public DVD release and rent, rip, burn.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    2. Re:X-mas for pirates... no more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, always wanted to spend six hours making a DVD to save $4.

    3. Re:X-mas for pirates... no more? by slaker · · Score: 1

      DVD Shrink can reencode or reauthor a DVD in like 25 minutes on a decent PC. 15 minutes to burn at 4x on a $.70 disc.

      Net cost to me: $1.50 for the rental, $.70 for the disc. Amortizing the DVD burner over, say, 100 discs, call that $2...

      Wow. $3.20 and an hour's time.

      I guess I'll use the other 5 hours to do five more discs.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    4. Re:X-mas for pirates... no more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wow. $3.20 and an hour's time.

      Your time isn't worth anything? An hour of my time is worth a hell of a lot more than a couple of DVDs.

    5. Re:X-mas for pirates... no more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, dipshit, you can do other things while you burn the DVD. You don't have to stare at it for an hour.

    6. Re:X-mas for pirates... no more? by Igmuth · · Score: 1

      15 minutes at 4x? Hmm.. I always thought that 1x was the speed required to play the movie....

    7. Re:X-mas for pirates... no more? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      1X for DVD is 10 Mbps, the maximum transfer rate possible in the DVD-Video specification. A movie will generally be encoded using variable bit-rate encoding, with the bitrate ranging from 1-10Mbps depending on the transfer and how complex the scene is. Thus, when copying the raw data stream, 1X actually ends up being faster than real-time for a movie, 2X ends up being faster than 2X real-time, etc. The lower the bitrate of the transfer, the faster the copying will be compared to real time.

      The reason the designation "1X" is used is because 10Mbps is the slowest speed a DVD-ROM reader can be and still be able to play any DVD-Video stream successfully.

    8. Re:X-mas for pirates... no more? by slaker · · Score: 1

      Yeah. If I was watching it, and not recording it, that might be an issue.
      The speed at which data is transferred to the disc is absolutely irrelevant to speed at which it's played back.

      The CDs I burn at 52x play back just fine, too.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    9. Re:X-mas for pirates... no more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      already got the screener two weeks ago off emule

    10. Re:X-mas for pirates... no more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you can masturbate for example, like I do on parent post right now ...

      ha ... ha ... ha .... .. .. .. CUM!

  2. As much as I hate the MPAA, by Frederique+Coq-Bloqu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they should have the right to influence something like this at a private function like the Oscars. This doesn't strike me as provocative or unscrupulous in and of itself.

    1. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by jmccay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the executives & stars didn't make so much, they wouldn't need to charge so much--which would lead to less piracy. Piracy increases as with cost of the product increases while the quality of the product stays the same or declines.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    2. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by startled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But why bother? The studio mailing out the tapes is the studio whose movie gets illegally distributed. There's no need for an MPAA recommendation; if a studio thinks its movies are being distributed by screeners, they can stop mailing them out, or take whatever other measures they deem appropriate.

    3. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and also on that line, maybe if politicians earned more money they would stop smuggling drugs in and laundering profits through Swiss bank accounts.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    4. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by EvilAlien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Piracy may very well increase as you describe, but piracy also happens regardless of cost escalation. Piracy happens become the product/work/whatever isn't free in the first place, and some people would rather thieve it than buy it.

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    5. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Piracy happens become the product/work/whatever isn't free in the first place, and some people would rather thieve it than buy it.

      Come on man, Slashdotters dont like people telling them how it is! See what happens when you tell the truth?!

    6. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that a movie that gets sent out as a screener has an advantage over movies that don't when it comes to oscar time. Therefore, a major studio isn't likely to stop sending out screeners if the other studios are still sending them.

      Then their is the concern that if somehow screeners are banned entirely that would put the indie films at a major disadvantage due to the difficulty of getting to one of their limited screenings.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    7. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by Xuli · · Score: 1

      Perhaps... but, to your point, there is definitely a lot more bang for buck in what you're getting these days on a DVD than what you're getting on a CD. I thought that a really well thought-out argument on this was presented in this piece which was posted here a little while back.

      I think that making the "they're paid too much and that's why I hate them and their high prices" argument is slightly more nebulous here than, say, on the RIAA side of the house. Also, in the RIAA example, you're still talking about bloated overhead and other out-of-control costs as the root evil.

      Of course, this is all IMO, but you knew that 'cause this is Slashdot ;)

      --
      "I'm disrespectful to dirt! Can you see I am serious?"
    8. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by blincoln · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the executives & stars didn't make so much, they wouldn't need to charge so much

      Yes, it must kill people to have to pay 15 whole dollars for a DVD, especially since the MPAA is sitting next to them with a handgun demanding that they buy as many as possible.

      Film fans should be *incredibly* happy with the prices of DVDs. Movies from a decade or two ago can generally be had for about $10. That's less than seeing a full-price show in a lot of theatres now, and yet some people expect to pay even less?

      Expecting to get media for free or cheap is (IMO) the geek equivalent of panhandling. If you are someone who gets irritated when a homeless person asks for spare change, how can you not expect the film and music industries to feel the same way when you suggest that they sell DVDs and CDs for $5 (or whatever) or that they shouldn't pursue people who bootleg them?

      At least the homeless person *might* be spending the spare change on something that's actually necessary to live, like food.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    9. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      I'd rather see all Oscar voters reqired to sign a statement saying that they have seen all of the nominated movies in each category they wish to vote for at their own expense.

    10. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the MPAA is trying to fix the problem internally, rather than delaring open war on their customers.

    11. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by jmccay · · Score: 1

      There will always be some who will steal because they want something, but more people find it easier to steal as those conditions I mentioned in the previous post change.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    12. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they have the right to do something like this. The whole point is that they have been taking a lot of people that are just working for their own dirty members.

    13. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Um, if I only make mininum wage (or hell, $10 or $15 an hour), and a CD costs $20 (or $16, but it's been a while since that's been the case), then it takes you four hours (or more, after taxes, or somewhat less, if you make more...) to earn enough to purchase a CD. That's about half a day's work for an album of music that lasts for roughly 40 minutes, and maybe has one or two songs. Even if it takes two hours to find the CD, I'm saving my time and money. It has nothing to do with getting something for 'free' but for less. I buy indie CDs at shows all the time, but they only costs 3 - 5 bucks.

      For a movie, it's pretty much the same way, except you're less likely to watch it as many times as you'll listen to a CD - unless it's a damned good film, ala The Boondock Saints, The Matrix or Office Space, etc. (YMMV).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    14. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by WatertonMan · · Score: 1
      piracy also happens regardless of cost escalation. Piracy happens become the product/work/whatever isn't free in the first place, and some people would rather thieve it than buy it.

      This is true to a point. The issue is, however, how much revenue is lost. With most movie rips done sufficiently after theatrical release all that is lost is a $.99 rental. Most people who buy probably want the DVD and right now DVD-R and other formats can't hold a whole movie. Further the hassle is such that it just isn't worth it if you can rent it for a dollar.

      The music industry is different. First off they are vastly overpriced. Secondly they were working on a model that already banned rentals, by and large. Finally people actually want to listen to songs dozens, if not hundreds of times. Few people want to do this with movies. Which is why most of us rent movies. Even people with large DVD collections typically have less than 50. Compare this with how many songs they listen to with any regularity.

      So, while "cheapscates" will always be here, all the MPAA has to do is lower the price sufficient and then make it simply more convenient to rent/purchase than download.

      I suspect, however, that within 10 years time that theatres will become a kind of rental center. I just can't see them being able to keep up this "watch the movie and then watch the DVD 4 months later." Just as Hollywood had to move towards simultaneous releases they'll end up unifying the TV/Theatre/DVD releases. (IMO)

    15. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Piracy happens become the product/work/whatever isn't free in the first place, and some people would rather thieve it than buy it."

      Correction: Piracy happens when something is unreasonably priced and there's an audience for it. Piracy isn't a big issue here in the USA. The price is a little on the high side, but still affordable. DVD retailers are making money quite comfortably. Now, go somewhere with a lower cost of living, and piracy is rampant.

      Piracy is an extension of supply and demand, though the MPAA or RIAA will never admit to that.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    16. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by NoisyParker · · Score: 1

      Film fans should be *incredibly* happy with the prices of DVDs. Movies from a decade or two ago can generally be had for about $10. That's less than seeing a full-price show in a lot of theatres now, and yet some people expect to pay even less?

      People can, I hope you will concede, expect whatever they please.

      Anyway, just based on looking around at my friend's buying habits, I haven't seen any lessening of DVD purchases because of our having access to screeners. It is kewl to have a copy of a movie while it is still running in the theatre, and it satisfies the jones while you are waiting for a real release. But when the real release finally comes out, with the extras and without the occasional "for your consideration" scroll-by, the ones that bought DVDs before we had screeners still pick it up and the ones that didn't still don't.

      So, I've seen CD buying habits change a lot, but not movie buying. They are two different kinds of products... the last thing the MPAA needs to do is to look to the RIAA for strategies.

    17. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by EvilAlien · · Score: 1
      OMFG you earn so much respect for putting The Boondock Saints and Office space in your "damned good film" list.

      Anyways, back on topic... I very rarely buy a CD without hearing it first, and being pretty damn sure that there are more than 2 good songs. Of course, this means I don't buy top 40 pop garbage. Every once and awhile I gamble on an artist... like when I grabbed Peach's cd Giving Birth to a Stone because it featured Tool's bassist Justin Chancellor, and kinda liked Tool's covers of a couple of their songs. Unfortunately, I don't really care for the disk. Oh well...

      I'm not buying many cds at all anymore because of the RIAA's rediculous antics. Hopefully the artists who are in positions of power will help reverse the tide.

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    18. Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by jkia · · Score: 1

      The difference is -- to GO to the movies I have to pay $8 for me, $8 for the wife, $15 for the babysitter = >$30 for a movie only. I can dl this film and watch on DVD-RW and see if I even want to purchase it. I buy more DVD at full retail than anyone else that I know. I wouldn't dl say "Breakfast Club" (a 10 year old movie ?older now?) because I'd rather pay $9 and not have to worry with all the hassle -- and I will be watching it enough that I would rather have a pressed disc. On the other hand, will ever want to watch Charlie's Angels II again ? Once is probably enough, so DL, watch, and dispose.....

  3. Don't forget. by GMontag · · Score: 4, Funny

    Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

    Don't forget the Best Boy!

    1. Re:Don't forget. by HexRei · · Score: 1

      and of course stan winston! i think he does effects for every single movie in existence now.

    2. Re:Don't forget. by CGP314 · · Score: 0

      The and the poor worst boy.

    3. Re:Don't forget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a "best boy" for anyway? Manwhoring on the set??

    4. Re:Don't forget. by VCAGuy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, it doesn't really hurt the sound/video/light/CGI/FX/whatever crews [i.e. the celeried/salaried workers]--they get paid regardless...it's the people who's pay is a percentage that see less money. And why not? If they were stupid enough to go for a job offer with a percent sign...well, you know. ;-)

      Disclaimer: I'm a lighting tech with a low opinion of directors, actors, acresses, and PR people...

      --
      Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
      A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
    5. Re:Don't forget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked in that biz for 17 years, I can tell you it's all whoring.

    6. Re:Don't forget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreement. It's typical hollywood bullshit by the over the line crowd to take advantage of the under the line peons, once again.

    7. Re:Don't forget. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they get paid regardless

      If the film is less successful, the chances of that producer making another picture goes down. Widespread infringement of motion pictures (which hasn't happened yet, but is on the near horizon) would reduce the total number of Hollywood films.

      Fewer sound/video/light crews will be needed. Some of those people will be completely unemployed, the rest will scramble for lower wages than they got before.

      So yes, in the short term of a single movie's profitability, the lowly techs get a fixed wage while big names are on percentage points. But after a few years, the salaries of the "little people" will be cut down to match.

    8. Re:Don't forget. by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Best Boy: Assistant Chief Lighting Technician
      Gaffer: Chief Lighting Technician

      Source: IMDB Glossary

    9. Re:Don't forget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are jobs created by the music industry. I hear all the time how if those of us in the technology industry don't have a valid business model that we shouldn't bitch about losing jobs. The entertainment industry is no different.

    10. Re:Don't forget. by dreamquick · · Score: 1

      I don't think the sorts of movies which feature a "best boy" show clips at award shows ... they're normally the sort of flick that ends up on PPV adult channels. :)

      - Tony

    11. Re:Don't forget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I want to know is how do you become a Foley artist? What a cool job, but I never see job listings for them. And what kind of qualifications do I need? :-)

    12. Re:Don't forget. by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      Don't forget the Best Boy!

      In all seriousness though, do these people really get hurt by movie piracy? I would imagine they get a salary and not a percentage of the movie revenues. Why would they care if somebody pirated the movie? By the time it's hit the screeners he's moved on to another job. It's not like people are going to stop making movies because of piracy, so who does it hurt besides rich movie executives and actors pulling in a percentage of revenue?

    13. Re:Don't forget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would reduce the total number of Hollywood films.

      With the quality of a lot of the movies put out these days, would that really be a bad thing?

    14. Re:Don't forget. by GMontag · · Score: 1

      As another pointed out, apparently assuming that we are sticking with the same skilled employee remaining in the same industry, if the volume of movies made is reduced then the volume of movie work is reduced resulting in lowered salaries and raised unemployment with those skilled enough to do the work due to lower demand.

    15. Re:Don't forget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? All the people who used to go around lighting the old-fashioned gas street lamps were put out of business by the inventionof electricity.

    16. Re:Don't forget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that was probably rhetorical, but.. yes, it would be actually. The problem is that once piracy occurs in such a large scale as with music, the industry itself can no longer take the very few risks it does take. So in other words there will not be any more American Beauty, Fight Club, Matrix (first one) or just about any movie that you could consider a "good" movie. The thing all of the three movies listed have in common is that they were all risks for the producers and movie studios involved. Without the ability to take risks, large movie studios and producers must rely on well known directors, actors, and your typical, predictable, Hollywood script. The many formula movies which ALWAYS bring in a certain, guaranteed, amount help pay for the movies which might COMPLETELY fail to turn a profit. Get enough 30-40 million dollar movies that don't produce any income and your business will hit a brick wall faster than the death of Enron.

    17. Re:Don't forget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I tend to think the same thing whenever I see a techie crying about what happened to all his stock options and employee profit sharing plans.

    18. Re:Don't forget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to our world: the IT job market.

    19. Re:Don't forget. by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Actually, it doesn't really hurt the sound/video/light/CGI/FX/whatever crews [i.e. the celeried/salaried workers]--they get paid regardless..."

      He's right. You can't blame the 100 million dollar cost of making a movie on piracy. When movie companies have to scale back their budget to 10 million dollars because they aren't making enough money back, then they can use that line with me.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  4. MPAA, eh? by GodLogiK · · Score: 0

    them mpaa types never were too bright eh? what is it with the prevalence of stupidity today? cripes

  5. The forgotten by l810c · · Score: 5, Funny
    Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

    You forgot the fluffers

    1. Re:The forgotten by CodeMunch · · Score: 0
      You forgot the fluffers

      And even more important, the Stunt Cack!!!

    2. Re:The forgotten by Brainboy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Meh, fluffers suck anyways.

      --
      Just a guy with an opinion
    3. Re:The forgotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      You forgot the fluffers

      Yea, those guys are always getting the shaft.

    4. Re:The forgotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there are any unemployed fluffers in my area, I might be able to find them some part time work.

    5. Re:The forgotten by G27+Radio · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just think of all those poor camera ops, grips, makeup artists, and fluffers that had to return their paychecks due to movie piracy.

    6. Re:The forgotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you sooooooooooooooo missed the joke it is too funny.

    7. Re:The forgotten by hughk · · Score: 1

      No, the fluffers in conventional cinema for the director and producer don 't get paid so they won't be affected - they just call it a career move!

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    8. Re:The forgotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As sad as it may be, viagra is quickly replacing the fluffer.

    9. Re:The forgotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The good ones do, anyway.

  6. Easier solution by Night+Goat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't see why the MPAA just doesn't make slight, but easily noticeable differences between each screener. Maybe have a numeric code flash quickly onto the screen occasionally. Like what they do if there's a spy but they don't know who, they give out fake information and see which fake info the enemy acts on. If a certain coded screener gets pirated, then the MPAA knows who to send the lawsuit to.
    I can't see David Letterman actually going and PAYING to see all the crap movies that his guests make!

    1. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      I've seen tracking numbers on screeners before, but usually the group who releases it smudges a couple numbers out before uploading it -- so the ID can't be traced back to anyone.

      Also, I think there are literally thousands of Academy screeners sent. It would be a real bitch to do.

    2. Re:Easier solution by fervent_raptus · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what they do. Every 5 minutes or so they flash "THIS DVD IS FOR SCREENING PURPOSES ONLY". It doesn't leave the screen for 30-60 seconds.

    3. Re:Easier solution by Neph · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Something like that might work, but not quite as obvious as what you're describing -- the hypothetical pirate would merely have to edit the movie by blacking out the code, and poof, it's untraceable again.

      However, I could see something subtler -- some sort of complex steganography, fractional-second differences in the length of certain scenes (credit roll time?) etc. etc. Could be done...

    4. Re:Easier solution by Exiler · · Score: 1

      But that's generally the same for every screener. The grandparent was suggesting an unique randomized code for each, so that the MPAA would know who the rat was, not just that there was one.

      --
      Banaaaana!
    5. Re:Easier solution by e5z8652 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Didn't they do exactly that with The Hulk?

      It was released early & they knew exactly who to go after.

      www.4law.co.il (pdf)

      --

      null sig

    6. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they already do, just the rippers blur them out
      heh where there is a will there is a way

    7. Re:Easier solution by EvanED · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The credit roll time could be a very possible option; with other things you take the chance of losing the stenography with the compression.

    8. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ..or, people just digitally rip the tape and blur out the unique number when it pops onto the screen?

      Or, just cut the credits?

      Really now, any solution has to be so complex that it either renders the movie unwatchable, is defeated easily digitally, or doesn't work.

    9. Re:Easier solution by seibed · · Score: 1

      why bother... you'd go through all of the effort just to have someone say it was stolen.

    10. Re:Easier solution by EvanED · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What if studios didn't tell people what they were doing until they had a few people snagged? Any particular technique wouldn't last long, but there would usually be something they could do. Maybe change the scene the names at the beginning appear with. There are enough things that could be done that many people could be ferrited out.

    11. Re:Easier solution by dapuk · · Score: 3, Informative
      This has already been done - by using dark dots in a specific pattern on some frames....

      See here and here

      Though that site seems a bit dead right now - so just have a look at google

    12. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am a pirate. I've seen steganography in action, admittedly in a different field, but I've seen it, and have the desire to obviously protect the privacy of my sources at all costs, as have virtually all groups. I have little experience of movie piracy directly, but I know a few people and I know exactly how they'd handle this.

      Always get more than one source. Compare. More than two would be good too. This goes double if it's an analog source, because you could work between them and get a better quality.

      Any per-source steganography will be noticed, and any steganography that wouldn't be noticed by multiple sources wouldn't narrow down the source hunt.

      Additionally, you need to be aware that some sources are BEFORE any such steganography would be added. Ever considered the possibility that the guys who'd put the steganography in are, in fact, the guys who work as group and pro sources, getting paid more for that than their day job?

      Besides, this will merely lead to a shift from DVD screeners to the even more incredible phenomenon of the telecine. Done correctly, this can be better than retail DVD quality in some cases. Once a film is out there are thousand of copies of it. Two or three digitally sampled masters from actual analog film reels, and you could remove film grain as well as steganography, leading to better compression. All you need is unrestricted access to a couple of movie theaters. I wouldn't be surprised to learn of groups whose members not only work in movie theaters as projectionists, but actually fucking own them.

      The movie industry doesn't have much to fear from piracy compared to the music industry. They aren't quite as jaded, they aren't quite as crap, they don't have quite as much control as they think they have, and much more importantly they really aren't anywhere near as overpriced. And there is significant value added in seeing a good projection at a cinema vs. even a really good quality telecine/DVD-rip, and they make the serious money from concessions anyway. They'll still be around, and they'll still be busy.

      Meanwhile the music industry is caught trying to do the same thing, but frankly, the problem is it just sucks. Concerts ain't so good, and are WAY overpriced, and hard to run, and irregular, and get massive rushes of people, whereas cinema screenings are small and can happen in several places at once. Music industry really doesn't have an easy way out of this. The movie industry, by comparison, has it made.

      Note that the first people to get something out will probably fail to do this. The first releasers are at very high risk, as they traditionally rush and race to be first. Most people wait for the ones with a marginally greater eye for quality and detail (Centropy et al), and those are the ones who will survive stego. Weed out the crap groups, that's what I say!

    13. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The Hulk was an unfinished movie. The SFX were unfinished and left out in some cases. It was easy to track down the source, because of which SFX hadn't been done yet. That isn't a stego technique that would work in a finished movie, but a possible example. Of course the group in question didn't give a shit about the integrity of their source, or protecting them, they just wanted to look cool and rel a workprint. That is a known risk of releasing a workprint, and EVERY group knows it, and stays well clear until the anonymity cloud is much larger and they can obtain multiple copies so they can protect their sources!

    14. Re:Easier solution by Zarquon · · Score: 1

      Because you then have to remaster _each_ dvd, and have to burn each one, not press it. Money.

      --
      "'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
    15. Re:Easier solution by digidave · · Score: 1

      If the movie studios are really losing the kind of money they claim, then a few extra bucks for this wouldn't be a big deal.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    16. Re:Easier solution by ticklemeozmo · · Score: 1

      MPAA Exec: We need to stop piracy.
      Lackey: Sir, if you don't mind. I happen to know a community which will solve this for us.
      Exec: Go on...
      Lackey: For free
      Exec: Go on...
      Lackey: Well, you see, I've been following them for some years now, and they are so full of themselves, that well, if you suggest a bad idea, and they hate us, they will boast in about our grand ignorance and say "Why didn't you do it this way?" Then, we can take their way, and use it against them.

      --
      When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
    17. Re:Easier solution by doormat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yea, they do.. its called dots... they use a series of dots in various frames throughout the movie to track where the copies come from. Of course the warez groups are on to this, and photoshop the frames that contain the dots to remove or alter them to protect their suppliers...

      --
      The Doormat

      If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    18. Re:Easier solution by ajayvb · · Score: 1

      Obscurity hasn't worked very well, ever. Be it cryptography, or be it this issue. Maybe they'll snag a few people, but it won't be long before people make out what is going on and break whatever new tools they put out.

    19. Re:Easier solution by Animats · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he'd have to go to that little theater in Malibu which doesn't let celebrities in free. (If they did, revenue would be way down.)

    20. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well. i'm not a pirate but i view thier works quite often
      and you are corect in they will find a way aroung it, or what i have seen is they just cut a few frams out. i have seen several movies missing scenes and the resoning behind it was because ther were only in certain versions or there was somehting wrong with the frames (the dots or something)
      i have also seem where they take these dots or whatever and duplicate them in several diferent ways makeing thier system non-efective.

      these people are not entirly stupid, wich i guess is one reason why they are taking a hard look at the problem.

    21. Re:Easier solution by athorshak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Two or three digitally sampled masters from actual analog film reels, and you could remove film grain as well as steganography, leading to better compression

      while I agree with the rest of your post, you should NOT be trying to remove film grain. Grain is an intentional part of the image. Different film stocks are chosen for different films and scenes specifically for their grain structure. On film where this is obvous to even a casual viewer is Minority Report. Speilberg gave this film an intetionally overexposed and extremely grainy look. You should NEVER try to remove grain from a film image.

    22. Re:Easier solution by bigfatlamer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't see David Letterman actually going and PAYING to see all the crap movies that his guests make!

      And he wouldn't have to. SAG, Director's Guild, etc. members and other eligible Oscar voters get into see films nominated for awards for free in the time leading up to the voting. This is why so many candidate films are re-released (at least in NYC and LA) so that they have more chances to be seen by voters just before they vote.

      --
      There's one thing computing teaches you, and that's that there's no point to remembering everything.
      --Doug Copland
    23. Re:Easier solution by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      What about watermarking? Are they going to recode the entire movie to get rid of it? Hm. I guess they would.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    24. Re:Easier solution by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1
      Very interesting stuff... only on /. would you get an insider's opinion on the group scene:)

      You're right in saying that the MPAA has less to lose than the RIAA, mainly because "pop" movies are way better than pop music. People still go to movie theatres for the "experience," whereas the experience of listening to a CD can be easily duplicated whether the CD is legit or pirated.

      However, I'm getting really ticked off at those "Stop Piracy" ads at the beginning of movies lately. I've paid my cash, so why am I being told not to pirate!?! Every time I see it, I usually loudly whisper, "Okay, that's done, now let's get this video camera set up!" It usually cracks up the people sitting around me.

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    25. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why even bother? Not like they're the ones who did the encoding and put up the torrent files.

    26. Re:Easier solution by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with watermarking (Like this) is that it increases the production cost hugely.

      Every movie released would have to be seperately encoded. If they just added the mark to some area (say right at the beginning of the disk) where there is no data, and hence no need to encode a seperate value into the data, then it could easily be stripped out by a pirate.

      There are a lot of people who would be using this tech already, if there was a cheap/easy way to do it. Still might be cool to put a non-unique mark in the data you're sending out to the screeners to make sure that's where your leaks are coming from. I think it's just as likely that some guy down in the rendering room is just quietly burning himself a copy to take home with him.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    27. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      telecine transfers are no longer safe because of cap codes.

    28. Re:Easier solution by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

      It would seem that a solution even easier would be to just put a big red bar through the middle of the picture. These are supposed to be screener copies, not for public showing, so why not deface them so that they are so ugly that no one who is not supposed to have them would even want them?

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    29. Re:Easier solution by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I can't see David Letterman actually going and PAYING to see all the crap movies that his guests make!

      Huh? Why not? AFIAK, it's not as if he's got money problems.

      Heck, maybe it is paid for under the show's budget, he might even get free tickets from the movie's promoters. For movies on home video, rentals can be pretty cheap.

    30. Re:Easier solution by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      A re-encode to XivD or something could destroy such things unless the watermarking is really persistant. Kinda like how poor traditional watermarking would probably work on audio tracks since they're usually compressed to mp3's.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    31. Re:Easier solution by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can live with the anti-piracy message (although I agree it is superfluous and irritating): what is really pissing me off is the number of commercials I am subjected to. The last time I went to a theater was about two months ago, I paid NINE DOLLARs and was forced to sit through FORTY MINUTES of COMMERCIALS! I don't mind a few movie trailers: those are okay since I get some value out of knowing what upcoming films to keep an eye out for. For that matter, I miss the cartoons they used to show decades ago. But all the theaters around me now have commercials: local ads (user car dealers, insurance companies, etc.) as well as national brands like Coke or Pepsi, and sometimes they are so cheap it's just a SLIDE SHOW! Absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn't defend the movie industry too much ... their "experience" is becoming nearly as diluted and unimpressive as the average CD or concert. All they're doing by this foolishness is convincing me that I might as well just wait for the film to come out on satellite and watch it at home: at least I've already paid for it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    32. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the Incredible Flop?

      I wouldn't watch that movie even if someone gave me a free copy. :)

    33. Re:Easier solution by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

      This is why congress will mandate the use of DRM. It won't necessarily prevent you from playing a pirated movie, but it will alert you if you try to play a movie with the stenography removed.
      This removes one of the legal barriers to prosecution because it will be hard to argue that you didn't know the movie was pirated.

      -a

    34. Re:Easier solution by Dunkirk · · Score: 1

      Your post really gives me insight into the differences in the problems that the MPAA and the RIAA face. With a movie, you sit down and _watch_ it. It's an experience. This is what the MPAA is selling, and, for a good movie, it's compelling. The RIAA, on the other hand, is selling background noise, for the most part. Seriously, music is the stuff that we put on to enhance what's _really_ happening, whether that's driving, coding, or having sex or whatever. (SELF-AGGRANDIZING JERKS INSERT JOKE HERE.) The thing about the way we enjoy music is that we want it to be _convenient_, not _dramatic_. When the RIAA finally realizes that their product is NOT fundamentally the same as the MPAA's, and accepts the premise by which we wish to use it, I think their profits will reach levels even they have only dreamed about. ("I don't know, kid. I can _imagine_ an awful lot.")

      --
      Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
    35. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it could easily be stripped out by a pirate.

      One cannot remove what one does now know about.

      LEt's take one simple example- you're watching a movie, and the sceen takes place outdoors. In the background, over the main characters shoulder, a convertable drives by.

      What color hair does the woman in the passenger seat have?

      You see, it would be possible to shift a couple-dozen pixels in a few frames, and have a version of the film tracable to one specific source. You could go further and have the convertable be red, blue, yellow, etc. As long as it is a minor (but noticable, if you know what to look for) change, 99.9% of rippers will overlook it.

      It could be the exact text of a sign the Hero walks by, or the presence/absence of a dandilion on a lawn. Or, a combination of things.

      So, screener #1 gets a Blue tulip in the garden in the background, and screener #2 gets a red tulip. If the ripped copy has a red tulip, guess who's getting sued?

    36. Re:Easier solution by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Really now, any solution has to be so complex that it either renders the movie unwatchable, is defeated easily digitally, or doesn't work.

      It'd be a bitch to implement, but you could change the order of the people in the credits.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    37. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just do some color-compositing with the extras...

      "Ah, this is the copy with the girl in the RED sweater, the BROWN dog on the corner, and the GREEN billboard in the background in the scene where the heroine dies. This must be Bill's copy. Someone go hire someone to go kill Bill."

    38. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say the most I've ever seen beyond the movie's start time was maybe 20 minutes of fluff. But these were previews. Sure they show commercials for people who show up early, but if you don't want to see them, show up on time...or late. I can usually count on the actuall movie starting no earlier than 10 minutes after it's scheduled time.

    39. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      umm.. there insn't any laws yet about watching pirated movies or listening to pireted songs. the criminal act is the making them availible - distributing them.

      unless they pass some other laws in the process there won't be any proscuting for it. (some staters might have these laws but not mine.)

    40. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I agree with many of your points but this one. The movie industy has little to fear of piracy? While this is most certainly true for box office release (as no piracy can compete with a cinema experience) it most definitely hurts their post-box office DVD/VHS release sales. These sales have become as big, if not bigger in some instances than the original theatrical release. While piracy of a film may/may not hurt the actual box office release, if it were to become as rampant as music piracy it most certainly would destroy their sales of DVD's.
      No more blockbuster, no more Best Buy movie section ect...
      So yes, piracy will not destroy the film industry, much as it won't destroy the recording industry, but it will deprive some as*hole of billions of dollars and thus "MUST BE STOPPED!"

    41. Re:Easier solution by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I agree that a subtle change in the film would be both effective, and untracable. I said that above. A digital watermark doesn't even have to be so blatant as something that could actually be SEEN...It could be something that could only be found by a programmer who already knows what he's looking for.

      This would be fine if you only had to make 2 copies. But they need hundreds, and they'd all have to be unique. And, in a digital format, it's not a simple matter of clipping in another piece of film. The whole piece has to be re-rendered...or at least re-encoded. This will be HUGELY EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING.

      If they want to do it, fine, but I doubt that would be their first option. Much cheaper to make people go to the theater. They're really only providing these copies as a courtesy.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    42. Re:Easier solution by Speare · · Score: 1

      If you took two or three samples from different to-the-theater reels, and cross-correlated those, you would be removing the grain from the DUPLICATION process, not the grain from the original from-camera film.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    43. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm.... Now that would make it a bit hard to make a fair judgement on whether the movie is Oscar-worthy or not, don't you think???

    44. Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because people watching pirated screeners in Windows Media Player on their 15-inch monitors care so much about quality and maintaining the artistic integrity of the work.

  7. You know... by c0dedude · · Score: 3, Funny

    And, while they're at it, why don't they just stop making movies all togather! That way, there'd be no piracy! Or not have awards! Or not release DVDs or VHS! Wouldn't that be great? And you can't trust theater bootlegs either, so no theaters!

    --
    Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    1. Re:You know... by macemoneta · · Score: 1
      " And, while they're at it, why don't they just stop making movies all togather!"


      I thought they already did.

      --

      Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

    2. Re:You know... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Yes... Or don't delay the movie releases for so damn long time for other countries... At least that's *my* reason I sometimes download movies...

      You know something is very wrong when you can get a DVD-quality screener from the internet before it has had its premiere in your country. :-P

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:You know... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Or not release DVDs or VHS!

      I don't think there is anything the MPAA would like better... Just imagine, every time you wanted to watch a movie, you have to pay a theatre... Every single time. Movies could go on making loads of money for decades, instead of just once.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, while they're at it, why don't they just stop making movies all togather!

      This is not as absurd as it first seems. According to the numbers on www.boxofficemojo.com (would someone tell me how to put URL names as actual links in a Slashdot message?), it seems likely that Hollywood could implode in five to ten years.
      Every year the average price of producing a movie goes up. In the past ten years, the average price per film has more than doubled while the actual number of admissions sold has risen only about 20-30 percent. Because the standard movie admission price has risen at the same level or more than the average price per film, the gross receipts for Hollywood's annual film product have doubled (or in that range) also.
      However, the number of really expensive films that bring back a level of profit apropos to their risk (i.e. a $100 million dollar movie that brings in at least $150 million in domestic ticket sales, $100 million in overseas sales, and at least $30 million in VHS/DVD sales and rentals) is falling.
      This summer (beginning of May to the end of August) the top twenty blockbuster films did not bring in a large amount of profit because their costs of production and promotion were so high. Only about four titles did really well:
      The Pirates movie with Johnny Depp,
      the movie where Jim Carrey plays God,
      The second Matrix movie,
      Steven Job's animated fish story,
      plus one or two others that slip my mind now.
      All of the other big expensive films '...underperformed'. Eventually they will make money, but it will take time.
      For a $100 million movie, time is expensive because the studio or the producer has to pay the interest on the $100 million (if it was arranged in loans) or in the opportunity cost if the studio put up the funds. The opportunity cost would be the profit on four $25 million films that brought in $150 million total over the summer vs. one $100 million film that brought in $150 million over the summer.
      At first glance it appears to be the same amount, but four profitable smaller films in the long run (say five years) will bring in lots of more money than one huge film that does mediocre box office.

      Anyway, Hollywood could implode within a five to ten years because noone will finance small films (less than $20 million), only the huge ones.
      If the current audience stops going to films or cuts back because 'they seen it all already', or, if the interest rates shoot up (which they will, given the new enormous government deficits), or if the economy continues to tank (which is possible given the expected rise in interest rates), and movie budgets continue to balloon, then the constant growth of movie revenues seen in the 1990's to the present will stop.
      Couple the decrease in the amount of money spent on entertainment with a crop of "Gigli"'s and you have a classical receipe for an industry implosion.
      This happened several times before to Hollywood, most recently in the late 1960's (really boring films and the novelty of the counterculture blew out the profits of the studios) and in the early 1950's (the spread of television and the Paramount decision forcing the studios to divest the theatres).
      They've always bounced back. But the era of really big, really dumb films may be coming to an end.

      Thank you,
      Simonetta

    5. Re:You know... by holt · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. Many movies make as much or more money on the VHS/DVD sales/rentals as they do in the theatre. You do realize that personal home video hasn't been around forever, right? It isn't like they left movies in the theatre forever before the VCR. They fought VHS/beta back in the early 80s and when they lost, they finally realized how much money could be made.

  8. do they honestly think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any pirates would want to watch such crap as the Oscars, etc.? Who gives a shit? If they want to ban screeners, that's their own affair. Meanwhile, life goes on...

    1. Re:do they honestly think... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      The problem is that many of the high quality pirated copies of movies have been pirated from Oscar and other screeners, not that the award shows themselves have anything to do with the pirating.

  9. Makes Sense by focitrixilous+P · · Score: 2, Informative

    Their fight against piracy should begin at home. You can't sue people randomly if your own members are copying the stuff you send them. When the start sueing people, I will feel ever so slightly less annoyed with them.

    --
    SAILING MISHAP
    1. Re:Makes Sense by nomadic · · Score: 1

      So you felt better when the RIAA started to sue people?

    2. Re:Makes Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? The RIAA is already suing people... were they suing companies before, or did I miss the memo?

  10. here we go.... by neilb78 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one welcome our MPAA non-screening overloards.

    --
    © 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    1. Re:here we go.... by smg_mrBlonde · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia Screeners Ban calls from the MPAA.

  11. Not only actors? by caranha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

    Whithout entering the merit of piracy itself, isn't this argument a fallacy? Aren't only high-profile actors/diretors/etc rewarded a percentage of the movie income, while all the others receive the same no matter what?

    Don't want to enter the issue "but piracing will make movies spend less money" (which I doubt, based on current trend), but I got curious by this part.

    --
    No sig yet. Bear with it.

    1. Re:Not only actors? by p00ya · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Aren't only high-profile actors/diretors/etc rewarded a percentage of the movie income, while all the others receive the same no matter what?
      but piracing will make movies spend less money
      Some (overly?)simple economics:

      people pirating movies makes it harder for the producers to earn money (less revenue because people aren't paying to watch the movies). So in order to retain their profits, they must cut costs. One of the ways they can do this is to pay their employees (actors and non-actors) less. If piracy is affecting the industry as a whole, then since there are no higher paying jobs to go to (within the industry), these employees are going to have to accept lower wages.


      Perhaps the current trends (to spend more money on better effects etc) are actually reflective of a need to get audiences to come to theatres (to get a better experience than they'd get with their home 5.1 surround and 17" monitor).

    2. Re:Not only actors? by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Perhaps the current trends (to spend more money on better effects etc) are actually reflective of a need to get audiences to come to theatres (to get a better experience than they'd get with their home 5.1 surround and 17" monitor)."

      Or perhaps they could simply start making better movies that rely on story, acting, direction and other such old fashioned notions?

      Just a thought.

      I think I'll spend the afternoon rewatching Harvey, To Have and Have Not and Dr. Strangelove.

      KFG

    3. Re:Not only actors? by SWPadnos · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

      ...

      Don't want to enter the issue "but piracing will make movies spend less money" (which I doubt, based on current trend), but I got curious by this part.

      This is the only argument that can possibly support the original statement. Only the people at the top level get any residuals - everyone else works for a daily wage and that's it. In fact, most people are working as subcontractors hired for the duration of the project (or their part in it). The grips, production assistants, special effects people, camera assistants, caterers, craft services, drivers, extras ... are all essentially self-employed. The unions help by providing health insurance and pension plans, and collective bargaining.

      So, the only way that the "bottom of the pack" people get affected is if the industry as a whole goes into a slump because of piracy.

      --
      - The Sigless Wonder
    4. Re:Not only actors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those in the union have no worries. They're protected.

      This wouldn't affect those not in the union. They get paid shit.

    5. Re:Not only actors? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or perhaps they could simply start making better movies that rely on story, acting, direction and other such old fashioned notions?

      Which reduces the need for elaborate staging and effects.
      Which reduces the amount of support staff needed for complex shots. Which brings us back to the idea of hurting "camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers".

    6. Re:Not only actors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, most readers of slashdot are Americans, and therefore somewhat extreme libertarians (don't start a debate about the two parties please, they're both way too "liberal*").

      So it doesn't matter that the people (ie 99,999% of the employees) get paid the same, the only thing that matters is the executives and shareholders (ie 0.001%) get potentially less. (yes, potentially, read all the arguments here sometime).

      Because of the potential for lower income of 0.001% of the population, countries get invaded, people get thrown in jail, patents get enforced WAY too strict, and in obviously ridiculous ways, ...

      But it's the American way(tm)

      * a liberal party is a party that wants to restrict a lot of priveleges for the already priveledged. If you use libaral in it's true meaning, you have a socialist party (think about this, according to the "liberal" party only the rich deserve an education (pay for it themselves, well basically the american educational system), and according to a socialist system everyone gets equal rights to an education (somewhat like most European systems)

    7. Re:Not only actors? by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      Whithout entering the merit of piracy itself, isn't this argument a fallacy? Aren't only high-profile actors/diretors/etc rewarded a percentage of the movie income, while all the others receive the same no matter what?

      It seems quite straightforward to me. Either piracy reduces movie receipts or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it doesn't hurt actors OR crew. If it does, then it reduces the amount of money available to the movie industry which, in the long run, can only mean either fewer movies or cheaper movies. Does it seem logical to you that if the industry lost 10% of its profits that actors and executives would take the hit themselves and not pass any of it along to the lowly crew members?

      Now please do not read this as saying that piracy DOES reduce movie profits. I don't know. But if it does, it will (in the long run) hurt people from the top to bottom of the industry for the same reason that problems at a tech company also hurt the janitors and office managers who would have supported the programmers.

    8. Re:Not only actors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Good movies cost less and will put the special effects people out of work? Cry me a fucking river, and get the fuck out of my theatre.

    9. Re:Not only actors? by kfg · · Score: 1

      To put it less crudely than the AC, being a vegetarian may hurt beef farmers, but a jury has already rejected the idea that this creates some sort of liability.

      In any case, how many best boys, camera men, stunt men, stunt coordinators, makeup artists, costumers et al does Pixar employ? How about extras?

      Some of my best friends are extras. Think of their children.

      Herein lies the reason the studios like elaborate effects. Live action is messy, expensive, requires more people at higher risk and defies micromanagement.

      Now then, I have fairly recently, as these things go, spent money on Harvery, Dr. Strangelove and To Have and Have Not, and am about to spend even more money on THAHN (it's finally coming out on DVD in November), showing that such movies are better long term investments and help the entire distribution chain for decades at a time, right down to the kid at your local mall.

      When Dr. S showed up at a local theater a few years ago I went to see it, even though I own a DVD, just to see Slim ride the big Brahma 20 feet high

      Haven't spent a dime on The Mummy Returns. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent. Not at this or any other juncture.

      Driven is right out.

      Bought Le Mans, Grand Prix and Winning though; and I'll go see them in the theater again if anyone wants to make me happy.

      What this new movie coming out? I can't even remember the name. The one with the whip that you can tell is cheesy CGI on the TV ad.

      I'll go see Dr. Indy Jones again, maybe even buy it.

      I have nothing against effects, but their purpose is to add something to the script, acting, camera work and direction, not stand in their place.

      The Fifth Element was visually stunning and told a story. Time Bandits is a masterpiece that couldn't have told the story without the effects. Blade Runner, Hidden Something Crouching Some other Thing,

      Hell, even Pixar knows that it's the story that counts and even Luxor Jr. told one.

      Studios use big effects these days not to draw people into the theaters. They use big effects because the people who decide what to use lack any ideas. They're exectutives, not film makers.

      And they're not even very good executives.

      KFG

    10. Re:Not only actors? by chibimagic · · Score: 1

      Oh no, now they only get paid $10 million per movie instead of $11 million. What will all those poor starving actors do?

    11. Re:Not only actors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those not getting a percentage of the picture's profits, for the most part, already *are* getting paid less.

      Producers who get less money per film need to make more films, not fewer, in order to pillage the world for their profits. Same with actors and actresses.

  12. the collateral damage never ends by fermion · · Score: 1, Funny

    Remember, restricted the importation of controlled substances into this country not only hurt foreign growers, but also domestic transportation workers, retail level sales person, and the fine medical workers that help the O.D. victim recover to 50% of his mental capacity.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  13. Oh? Just awards? by Exiler · · Score: 1

    Will this affect the screeners video stores recieve? The pirates will still get the movies in DVD quality format before they're released, it may just take a few more weeks.

    --
    Banaaaana!
  14. Not in a million years... by JayBlalock · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Being able to stick "200X ACADEMY AWARD WINNER!" on your DVD package moves too many units for any studio to do ANYTHING to handicap themselves in the Awards race. The MPAA might push for this. The studios might even "agree." But they'll get the screeners out anyway. Paranoia will rule the day - no one will actually expect anyone else to abide by the agreement, so they'll all break it.

    It's foolish that they're even TALKING about this. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that this means the movie industry's own people are the ones bootlegging movies. "If the people who make the movies are putting them out there, then how's it wrong for me to download?" (rhetorical, exampliary question) Bad, bad, BAD move.

    --
    Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    1. Re:Not in a million years... by Murdock037 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're on to something, but I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding in general with a bunch of the posts.

      What the MPAA wants to stop is Oscar screeners. These are DVDs and tapes sent to Academy members of movies that are eligible for Oscars. It's a way to get somebody to see your movie, without making them go to the theater.

      (Screeners are a mixed blessing. Smaller movies benefit from them, because they are often shut out of the multiplex too quickly or may just work better on a smaller screen, such as Moulin Rouge or even The Pianist; they also serve to remind Academy members of the movies that aren't still in theaters in December and January, when the voting is done. On the other hand, home viewing dilutes the power of some movies, such as Lord of the Rings or Saving Private Ryan. Screeners are generally blamed for Shakespeare in Love winning out over Saving Private Ryan a few years ago, for the reasons I've listed.)

      The problem is this: there are politics involved. It may not be fair, for example, that Seabiscuit will be on DVD at your local Blockbuster by the end of the year, and so Academy viewers will be able to watch that at home, but not anything that was released after summer or so. That's an unfair advantage.

      And there's the question of whether or not screeners really prevent piracy anyways. A telesync is usually out before the movie's even in theaters, of course, and the selling of individual screener discs can be curtailed by putting a serial number on them and monitoring eBay.

      The MPAA is somewhat like OPEC. You've got a coalition with similar interests but conflicts within the organization, and none of the members are hesitant to bend the rules for their own gain, if they can get away with it. And Oscar is more than enough motivation.

      For some decent discussion of this, check out David Poland's Hot Button in the last week, particularly this column.

    2. Re:Not in a million years... by JayBlalock · · Score: 1
      Well, the Oscars have NEVER been fair. We all know, the closer a movie comes out to Oscar time, the better the chances it has. Any movie released from around Jan to April, no matter how terrific, has virtually no chance of winning an Oscar because it'll be forgotten by the time ballots come out, DVD or not. (yes, I know there are a few exceptions, but on the whole early-year releases are the awards graveyard)

      And, of course, the ultimate thing to declare from all this is that piracy CANNOT be prevented. All it takes is one copy leaking out. Which is why it would be wiser, on the whole, to look at dealing with the problem under the assumption that a movie WILL leak, rather than going to great lengths on the unlikely attempt to stop it from ever leaking.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    3. Re:Not in a million years... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like the studios (motion picture and, in particular, music) need to learn a little Taguchi Method. They really don't seem to have a mental handle on what their real problems are: it is very difficult to resolve any negative situation when you cannot, at the very least, properly define it. This explains why their efforts to "solve" their problem (insufficient growth rate to satisfy stockholders) have been largely unsuccessful.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Not in a million years... by DannyO152 · · Score: 1

      At the risk of overthinking this, maybe the bottom-line motivation (or the gentleman's agreement) is to not waste the marketing potential of an Oscar (there's a trademark there folks) on movies that have played out in theatres. Movies released in the spring (as if a good movie comes out then) or summer are almost uniformly out of the theatres by Christmas. It is also a poorly kept secret that big studios are resentful of the consistent award winning ways of people like Miramax (who are owned by a big studio -- there's got to be some reason they call this La-La Land), so there's another feint within a feint for others to consider.

      It's all so weird this year any way, Oscars (there's that TM again) are at the end of February to get into sweeps or to dilute the attention paid to the Golden Globes or to shorten the self-aggrandizing "for your consideration" promotional period or maybe to see if we can watch the celebs dash through the rain and make a muddy red carpet. See you at Hollywood and Highland!

  15. IANAL by careysb · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but what does IANAL stand for?

    1. Re:IANAL by c0dedude · · Score: 1, Informative

      I am not a lawyer. I just attach it to my sig incase i forget to put it in the post. It prevents you from getting sued for giving out legal advice, even if you aren't.

      --
      Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    2. Re:IANAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intra-anal.

    3. Re:IANAL by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

      It makes you sound arrogant to think that anybody would actually mistake you for a lawyer.

    4. Re:IANAL by shepd · · Score: 1

      >It makes you sound arrogant to think that anybody would actually mistake you for a lawyer.

      Yeah,

      shepd, esq.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    5. Re:IANAL by DoorFrame · · Score: 1

      Also, I don't know if a acronym as ridiculous as IANAL will really stand up as a defense in court.

    6. Re:IANAL by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

      Your honor, but you see, I put an 'I ANAL' in my .sig on /. so he has no right to sue me!

      --

      Liberty.

    7. Re:IANAL by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      As long as you aren't pretending to be a lawyer you shouldn't have anything to worry about. If IANAL was saving you.. You'd also have to put I Am Not A Judge, I Am Not A Government Official, I Am Not An Expert On This Law, etc,.

    8. Re:IANAL by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Because as SCO and Microsoft and countless video game lawsuits have proven, no idiot could possibly be a lawyer, or vice versa.

    9. Re:IANAL by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      >> I ANAL

      Please cease and desist in posting my license plate on /.

    10. Re:IANAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Tarzan, i Anal.

    11. Re:IANAL by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      You Tarzan, i Anal.

      Anil Prasad?
      Hey, aren't you supposed to be trolling a.m.p.?

      *Never* contradict Anil...

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  16. Or maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting


    crappy leaked watermarked screeners add hype to a film making the desire and street buzz even greater with hundreds of kids promoting it and spreading good words making the film a "must see"

    or

    of course they might oppose it if the movie sucks as they need to rip off /decieve the public to try and reclaim the money they pissed away paying the likes of J-lo and other shite actors 15million $ for 20min of crappy dialog that even a TV serial company would laugh at, are some actors worth 1000's of dollars a second while the Grip/soundman/operators get 200$ a DAY if they are lucky

    1. Re:Or maybe by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      while the Grip/soundman/operators get 200$ a DAY if they are lucky

      Gee, poor them. Maybe the MPAA needs to realize that, to the kids that're doing a large part of the downloading and spreading - high-school and college aged - $200/day is an ungodly amount of money. They're never going to feel sorry for someone that's getting paid even at that level.

    2. Re:Or maybe by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Gee, poor them. Maybe the MPAA needs to realize that, to the kids that're doing a large part of the downloading and spreading - high-school and college aged - $200/day is an ungodly amount of money. They're never going to feel sorry for someone that's getting paid even at that level.

      And the economy sucks so bad even after they graduate they're going to find that $200/day is STILL an ungodly amount of money by their standards.

    3. Re:Or maybe by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      Then they'll sign that first apartment lease right after filing their first REAL 1040 and realize that $200/day is almost, but not quite, enough to support one lower-middle-class person and one ten-year-old car with no savings.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    4. Re:Or maybe by CommieOverlord · · Score: 1

      $52000 a year isn't a lot?

      I make ~$40K Canadian. That's more than enough to support myself. Big apartment, big tv, fancy speakers, reasonably expensive hobbies, nights on the town. And that's about half of $52K US.

      If you can't support one person on $52K I think you need to re-evaluate your lifestyle.

    5. Re:Or maybe by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Umm, no. I don't know where you live, but I can support myself very comfortably on perhaps $1000 a month. $2000/month rents and such are not common in most of the country.

    6. Re:Or maybe by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Umm, no. I don't know where you live, but I can support myself very comfortably on perhaps $1000 a month. $2000/month rents and such are not common in most of the country.

      In big cities, they are.

      $1000 a month would mean living very frugally in Seattle, and living well outside the main part of the city. It would buy you a cardboard box in an alley in San Francisco.

      Not coincidentally, big cities are also where it's easiest to find higher-paying jobs.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    7. Re:Or maybe by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      $52000 a year isn't a lot?

      Nope. After taxes, it's about $35,000. After housing, it's about $23,000 (and that's being really generous.) After food, it's $17,000. Car repairs, gas, insurance, it's $12,000. Utilities: $9,000. And so on.

      As I said, it'll almost support one lower-middle-class person and a ten-year-old car with no savings.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    8. Re:Or maybe by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      Where did I say $2000 a month rent?

      $52,000 a year is moderate to low income. It is not enough to support a middle-class family without recurring money problems and no savings.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    9. Re:Or maybe by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Where did I say $2000 a month rent?

      You didn't specifically say that, but it would have to be in that high range somewhere to even come close to supporting your original claim.

      $52,000 a year is moderate to low income. It is not enough to support a middle-class family without recurring money problems and no savings.

      You didn't say anything about supporting a family in your original post, you said it would not be enough to support "one lower-middle-class person and one ten-year-old car with no savings.", which is what I take issue with.

      I'm a 4th year college student, with a 14-year old car. Now granted, i'm not paying back my student loans yet at the moment, but currently, $200/day would wipe out my share of the rent in around 2-3 days, the monthly power+gas+phone+cable+vehicle fuel in another day, and whatever's left could be used for anything else.

      All that said, i'm not exactly out in the boonies either, being 20 mins from Rochester and about twice that from Buffalo. You'd be suprised what you can find if you're willing to accept a commute a bit longer than 10 or 15 minutes- i'm in a waterfront apartment for only $600/month+utilities and splitting that with someone, even.

    10. Re:Or maybe by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Already responded to you below, but I just noticed this post with some actual numbers, so i'll go over this too.

      Nope. After taxes, it's about $35,000. After housing, it's about $23,000

      As i've already said twice, you're crazy if you're alone and paying $2000 or even $1000/month as you claim here. Get a girl/boyfriend, find a college student for a roommate, something.

      After food, it's $17,000

      Good god, $500/month for food? Living alone? I'm sorry, but if you or someone you know is really spending that much, they're idiots. I can go nuts at the store, get $130 worth of food, and be set for almost a month- with 2 people.

      Learn to cook, and don't get takeout food every night.

      Car repairs, gas, insurance, it's $12,000

      This is the only part that's on, I think.

      Utilities: $9,000

      Again, this is insane, working out to ~$250/month. Unless you're in a giant-size place with bad insulation, and running the heater or AC 24/7, that's just not going to happen, especially with a person living alone.

    11. Re:Or maybe by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      You didn't specifically say that, but it would have to be in that high range somewhere to even come close to supporting your original claim.

      $35,000 to $23,000 is $1000 a month, which isn't enough to rent an apartment within 100 miles of a $52K job.

      $200/day would wipe out my share of the rent in around 2-3 days, the monthly power+gas+phone+cable+vehicle fuel in another day, and whatever's left could be used for anything else.

      Your share of the rent. Having roommates is an extraordinary arrangement. People should be able to afford housing without organizing a committee to pay for it.

      i'm in a waterfront apartment for only $600/month+utilities and splitting that with someone, even.

      Your expenses are not yet significant, and $600 a month around here wouldn't buy storage. I know what the expenses are, having paid them for 12 years. It costs $70 a month just to run a small refrigerator (brand new, energy saver and all that). A trip to the store for a half dozen items is $20 to $30, enough for perhaps two days.

      One bedroom apartments are $1250. Two bedrooms: $1700. $2000 move-ins with 12 month leases are the rule, not the exception. And don't forget the sparkling credit. One smudge on that report and the door slams and they keep the $225 application fee.

      Again, the fact is that $52,000 is almost, but not enough, to support one lower-middle-class person. This is not open to debate. The numbers just don't add up.

      Acceptable income is everything independently paid: housing, food, clothing, utilities, furniture, insurance (auto, health), transportation (payments, repairs, gas) and taxes, PLUS the ability to save at least 10% a year. You're looking at $70K minimum. $80K would be comfortable.

      However, here's the other fun part: about the time a person starts saving 10% a year, job go bye-bye and their credit rating, savings, rental history and career go straight into the shitpipe, and they get to start over in their mid-30s, probably making $52,000 and just not quite being able to keep that one bill a month from going 30 days overdue.

      Because there ain't no reliable $80K jobs anymore.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    12. Re:Or maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $1000 a month, which isn't enough to rent an apartment within 100 miles of a $52K job

      Bullshit. I live IN New York City, in a 1 bedroom apartment. $725/mo. 1 block to the subway ar busses. There are _plenty_ of $52k/year jobs in New York.

      Your share of the rent. Having roommates is an extraordinary arrangement. People should be able to afford housing without organizing a committee to pay for it.

      So, you don't have a BF/GF?

      $600 a month around here wouldn't buy storage.

      The whole world is not where you are. You can't generalize from your specific circumstances.

      A trip to the store for a half dozen items is $20 to $30, enough for perhaps two days.


      Damn. That's an average of $5 per item. You can get a loaf of bread for only a buck (or two, if you go for a fancy name-brand) in NYC. Ground beef is a buck a pound, on sale. Milk is $3/gal.

      WTF do you live?

      $52,000 is almost, but not enough, to support one lower-middle-class person

      I guess you define "lower-middle-class" differently then I (and the rest of the world) do. Heck, I support myself, my GF, a 2-yo baby (and one last one on the way) on about $35,000/year. In NYC.

    13. Re:Or maybe by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      I guess you define "lower-middle-class" differently then I (and the rest of the world) do.

      This is getting repetitive:

      Acceptable income is everything independently paid: housing, food, clothing, utilities, furniture, insurance (auto, health), transportation (payments, repairs, gas) and taxes, PLUS the ability to save at least 10% a year. You're looking at $70K minimum. $80K would be comfortable.

      If you can do all that on $35K a year, then great. It cannot be done here. Period.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    14. Re:Or maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acceptable income is everything independently paid: housing, food, clothing, utilities, furniture, insurance (auto, health), transportation (payments, repairs, gas) and taxes, PLUS the ability to save at least 10% a year.

      And, I have all that. On $35,000 a year. In the middle of New York Freaking City (one of the more expensive places to live in the US). Where are you that things are so expensive?

    15. Re:Or maybe by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      And, I have all that. On $35,000 a year.

      I'd say one of two things: either that's really unlikely (the insurance and savings alone would run to almost 20% of your gross income), or you're a financial genius.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    16. Re:Or maybe by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Where do you live, exactly? You keep pulling out all these numbers, but as far as I can see, you haven't actually said what location has such high living costs.

    17. Re:Or maybe by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Your share of the rent. Having roommates is an extraordinary arrangement. People should be able to afford housing without organizing a committee to pay for it.

      I'll define more specifically for you- I pay my half of the rent, and my girlfriend pays the other half.

      I almost feel dirty resorting to the cliche, but maybe having a boy/girfriend (or even normal friends) is too much to ask of most people around here.

      Your expenses are not yet significant, and $600 a month around here wouldn't buy storage.
      I know what the expenses are, having paid them for 12 years. It costs $70 a month just to run a small refrigerator (brand new, energy saver and all that).


      I feel sad for you...Again, my monthly power+gas bill during the summer has been around $80 during the summer (~$130 in the winter), and that's supporting...*looks around*...2 computers, 2 monitors(one a 20-inch non-flat panel), a TV, a Gamecube, DVD player, a (not new) full-size fridge/freezer, cooking on an electric stove, an ancient dishwasher, garbage disposal, central AC/heating, hot water when needed, and several light fixtures.

      Maybe you should consider moving somewhere that doesn't have such high energy costs. Wherever you are, it's not at all typical, I can assure you of that.

      A trip to the store for a half dozen items is $20 to $30, enough for perhaps two days.

      What do you buy, exactly? $20-30 for two days of food is just silly, unless you're cooking for a special occasion or something.

      For example, I could get a loaf of bread, some lunchmeat, a couple bags of chips, a block of cheese, some pasta(3 pounds), sauce(a gigantic 4lb jar), fruit, and some candy for desert at the local store for maybe $14 or $15.

      Even if you can afford to pay high prices, that's money that could be used elsewhere for the 10% saving figure you keep quoting.

      One bedroom apartments are $1250. Two bedrooms: $1700. $2000 move-ins with 12 month leases are the rule, not the exception. And don't forget the sparkling credit. One smudge on that report and the door slams and they keep the $225 application fee.

      Once again, I almost feel bad for you, but wherever you're living is most decidedly not typical. Take a look at some online apartment listings for places outside your area or in other parts of the country, and you'll see what I mean. In my own area, $1250/month would get me rent on a 3-bedroom townhouse, with money to spare, even.

    18. Re:Or maybe by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      What difference does it make? Are you going to argue about the numbers because you know more about it even though you don't live there?

      The numbers are accurate. The facts are accurate. It is impossible to support one person and pay all the necessary costs on $52,000 a year. If someone can subsist for a while, great, but that's not going to get them any closer to a home, a family, college funds for the kids, retirement, etc.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    19. Re:Or maybe by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      I almost feel dirty resorting to the cliche, but maybe having a boy/girfriend (or even normal friends) is too much to ask of most people around here.

      Yes, of course. Someone says $52K isn't enough, therefore they don't have a boyfriend/girlfriend. Makes sense.

      I have to work 12 hour days, so finding a girlfriend at this point would not only be difficult, but pointless because I wouldn't be able to spend any time with her.

      I work 12 hour days because I, like thousands of others, got screwed out of my career a few years ago.

      I shouldn't have to connect the dots, and I'm sick and tired of having to pay double price for the benefit of the doubt.

      I could get a loaf of bread, some lunchmeat, a couple bags of chips, a block of cheese,

      That's ($1.50 + $2.50 + $4 + $3) $11 right there.

      Once again, I almost feel bad for you, but wherever you're living is most decidedly not typical.

      Maybe not, but it's the reality. The problem is exacerbated by the impossibly bleak employment situation.

      What's really tragic is that I'm among the more fortunate.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    20. Re:Or maybe by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course. Someone says $52K isn't enough, therefore they don't have a boyfriend/girlfriend. Makes sense.

      Not exactly. You said Having roommates is an extraordinary arrangement. People should be able to afford housing without organizing a committee to pay for it.. Hence my statement. "organizing a committee" to help pay living costs is not an extraordinary thing.

      Everyone I know lives with roommates to share the costs. My parents did the same thing. All their friends had roommates during college as well. Horror of horrors, some of them still do. They share the costs, and they can get a nicer place than they could have alone.

      I'd like to add also that I could live like a king on $52K a year right now, even if I had nobody else to live with, and even if I was making a car payment and paying back my student loans already. Which leads into...

      I have to work 12 hour days, so finding a girlfriend at this point would not only be difficult, but pointless because I wouldn't be able to spend any time with her.

      I work 12 hour days because I, like thousands of others, got screwed out of my career a few years ago.


      First of all, i'm sorry that you don't have time for a girlfriend, but that wasn't my original point to begin with, and in the end, ya just do what you gotta do. This goes back to the whole possibility of relocating issue- if you moved somewhere with a lower cost of living, maybe you wouldn't have to work 12-hour days just to pay the bills. I'm guessing you're very resistant to the idea, though, so we'll leave it at that.

      That's ($1.50 + $2.50 + $4 + $3) $11 right there.

      See, this is where most of the argument has come from. You seem to be automatically assuming that I messed up, and those prices are what i'm really paying.

      In my case, it's(+ 8% NY sales tax): $0.99(bread)+$3(lunchmeat)+$2(chips)+$1.79(1/2 lb. block of cheddar)= ~$8, give or take because of tax and daily specials. I assure you that, yes, those prices really are correct, and no, I am not a thief or financial wizard.

      Maybe not, but it's the reality. The problem is exacerbated by the impossibly bleak employment situation.

      I will say I agree with you there, somewhat. I'm an IT major, and looking at full-time co-op opportunities listed for the winter so far, there's....4.

    21. Re:Or maybe by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      What difference does it make?

      I'm just curious, really. I've told you what area I live in, so you can at least know i'm not just pulling numbers outta my ass. If you want to have a civilized and pertinent discussion about something, it's generally a good idea for all concerned to have accurate information.

      Are you going to argue about the numbers because you know more about it even though you don't live there?

      The numbers are accurate. The facts are accurate. It is impossible to support one person and pay all the necessary costs on $52,000 a year.

      Again...Not everyone lives where you do. Blanket statements are bad. If I could get that through your head, I would be a happy man.

      The only thing I would argue is that yes, it is possible to support yourself on $52K a year, just not (apparently) where you live.

  17. not quite . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    not true:
    Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.
    The crew is paid by the hour, rates established by union contract. The crew does not share in profits or residuals. Whether a picture is a hit or a dog, it makes no difference; once the picture is in the can, that is the end of the crew's involvement.

    This is not to condone piracy, but how dare the moguls drag in the very folks whom they the moguls abuse the most. Claiming that piracy hurts the crew is a cynical lie.

    1. Re:not quite . . . by 5strangers · · Score: 1

      Actually, we crew members do beneift from residuals. The health and pension funds of the local unions involved in making the movie are partially funded by residuals from any given movie based on its gross sales.

    2. Re:not quite . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare they? Where have you been since "Birth of a Nation"? That's what they do.

  18. Remember, piracy hurts X by Chromal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I never really got how piracy hurt X. There's a large segment of pirating acts that occur largely because the pirates aren't going to purchase something. If they aren't going to buy it, or they aren't going to buy it but still pirate it-- either way, the net income is exactly the same. If consumers can afford something, won't they typically go out of their way to own it? A DVD or CD album is always nicer to have on your shelf than a DVD-R or CD-R copy, after all.

    1. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by HexRei · · Score: 1

      the "damage" that X suffers in the case of a pirate who couldn't/wouldn't have bought the product anyway is simply the loss of the right to control who gets to experience that bit of media.
      Gosh, I'm getting all teary-eyed just thinking about all the starving movie studios like Paramount and Universal being deprived of this all-important right.

    2. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by geggibus · · Score: 1

      If piracy went down and people started to buying those things.. other industries will fall since people only have so much money...

    3. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a large segment of pirating acts that occur largely because the pirates aren't going to purchase something.

      Neither you nor the MPAA has proven that either way, last time I checked. The MPAA (and RIAA and BSA) likes to say that they lose revenue, whereas copyright infringers justify their behaviour by saying they wouldn't pay for the crappy movie/game/software/music anyhow.

      I call BS on both those statements. I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle...

      --
      Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
    4. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by Chromal · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you make a fair point. The piracy advocates and the media owners are going to be at two extremes. Somewhere in the middle is the typical consumer who buys stuff but will accept recommendations from friends with copies included.

    5. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by nomadic · · Score: 1

      If consumers can afford something, won't they typically go out of their way to own it?

      No. Experience has shown that consumers usually won't go out of their way to do anything; they'll pick the quickest, cheapest way to get what they want.

      It's ambiguous how much piracy is hurting them here, but if you go overseas to places where the vast majority of movies/software/music is pirated, you can definitely see what the MPAA/Microsoft/RIAA is afraid of happening here.

    6. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by Fancia · · Score: 1

      That's starting to change in some places, however; in Taiwan, for instance, pirate copies are actually becoming less and less common, while legit goods, including licensed versions of foreign goods, are springing up at good prices. For an example, I bought the legit Taiwanese soundtrack to the anime film The Cat Returns recently; I paid much less than the Japanese soundtrack, and the local Taiwanese price is, to my knowledge, less than CDs tend to be over here. And, to boot, the packaging was much nicer than American or Japanese CDs. The same thing is happening with DVDs, where legit Taiwanese DVDs are popping up at very reasonable prices and pirated DVDs are disappearing. Hopefully, American record labels will catch on to this and combat piracy the way it's being proven to work.

      --

      Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
    7. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by llamaluvr · · Score: 1

      whereas copyright infringers justify their behaviour by saying they wouldn't pay for the crappy movie/game/software/music anyhow

      If it's not worth seeing/playing anyway, why do they download it?

      What level of quality to do moves/games/music/software have to achieve for pirates to say, "Okay, they're good enough to buy now. We'll stop pirating"?

      (This argument isn't against you, since apparently you don't believe that most pirates actually pirate for that reason.)

      --
      Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
    8. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to chime in my own 2 cents, I'm a 20-year old student, I don't have a large quantity of disposable income.

      I download games from the internet to try them out since the demos released are normally non-representative of the actual product, and some games don't even have demos.

      I was recently dissapointed when I bought GTA: Vice City, I was expecting GTA3 with improvements, it wasn't what I got at all, instead I got a slower running game with (imho) worse mechanics, and since I bought based on brand recognition, I felt disappointed and wished I'd downloaded a copy before I bought, since it was NOT worth my money.

      Now on the other hand, I bought Tron 2.0 based not on the demo (which didn't provide any meaningful gameplay sample), but on my experiences with a pirated copy, I played about 1/3rd of the single player game and realized that this game rocks, at which point I went out and bought the game.

      Most of my more recent software purchases are based on this sort of evaluation, there are some exceptions, when I feel that 'I have to buy this game' based either on past experiences with the series (ie, Homeworld 2), or if the concept seems to be really remarkable (ie, Total Annihilation), but for games that I'm not sure of, I will (most of the time) DL before I buy since I don't have the cash to waste, and you can't return software most of the time anymore.

      And that's just my 2 cents.

    9. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by The_Steel_General · · Score: 1
      It's all about price discrimination.

      It costs $9 to see a movie (once) in a cineplex, $20 to get it on DVD legally and watch it many times, $5 to rent it for a relatively short period. There are various tradeoffs in quality of experience and price and reusability.

      Or you can pay some low but not-quite-zero amount to get a pirate copy -- assuming that your time is worth something, you'll have to pay for a blank DVD at least, the person who copied it is skimming from you in some fashion, etc. Plus the risk of being caught, which carries potential penalties including loss of the pirated copy, loss of the equipment used to pirate, fines, and jail time. How "potential" all of these are depends what the law says, resources spent on enforcement, your role in the process, etc.

      Which just means that the number of "pirating acts that occur largely because the pirates aren't going to purchase something" isn't fixed, but depends on the cost of piracy versus the cost of a legitimate purchase. Furthermore, the Net Income depends on the number of people willing to purchase a product that returns money to the copyright holder. How the prices and costs are adjusted and interact affect the net income, and I daresay that the net income changes significantly based on simple alterations.

      Figuring the optimal (i.e. highest net income) point isn't easy, though, and no doubt the copyright holders work on it. Increase movie prices and the theaters lose money, tempting them to allow pirates to copy from new prints. Drop DVD prices and you might make a little less money, but the pirates have a harder time selling. Increasing legal pressure on pirates requires government interaction (e.g. getting the FBI to close down professional pirates) which means spending money on political clout -- and that's money not spent on marketing that hot new film that may make enough money to finance next year's films, on which they'll hire costumers, grips, makeup folks, caterers, etc.

      However you look at it, though, pirating pulls money out of the industry by reducing the value of its products. Does it put money back in by building up a customer base among those who wouldn't normally purchase the product? Does it cost more than, say, heavy-handed ads that imply its customers are criminals, or wholesale price reductions that decrease per-unit income but increase net? After all's said and done, does the industry have more money to spend on films because of piracy, or less? Well, that's the question, but it's not unreasonable to say "less," which is all they are doing.

      (Unlike, say, the BSA, which pushes the BS level by calculating that EVERY pirated copy is a full-price sales loss...)

      TSG

    10. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by blincoln · · Score: 1

      What level of quality to do moves/games/music/software have to achieve for pirates to say, "Okay, they're good enough to buy now. We'll stop pirating"?

      Shh, they get defensive when you ask that.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    11. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by jefftp · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I think the RIAA is seeing just how cracking down on piracy isn't helping their bottom line.

      Not only are people not buying their CDs because the price is too high, they're also not getting the free promotion of materials that P2P file sharing was supplying.

      As long as radio monopolies like ClearChannel exist to homogenize what music is promoted, and as long as there is no alternative channels to hear new music, music sales will continue to decline.

      Piracy is the only competition to copyrighted works. I think most people in the western world would agree that competition makes better products at better prices and monopolies lead to lesser products at higher prices.

      I wouldn't bother with pirating movies because buying them for $19 doesn't seem that expensive. I can't say the same for a $17 CD with one song I want.

      All of this is anecdotal, of course, but time will tell if Copyright owners wisen up and stop abusing their monopolies.

    12. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I tend to lean toward the latter argument, myself. Looking at my own spending habits, when Compact Discs first came out (early eighties, if I remember aright) I thought they were great and in my ignorance bought a bunch of them. After some time passed, I realized that they really weren't a very good deal, and like most products that I don't need, and that are a poor value, I stopped buying them. I haven't bought one since 1989 or thereabouts, predating the whole file-sharing phenomenon by several years. So, yes, I have downloaded some music, but I can guarantee you that the music companies didn't lose a single penny. Sure, there are CDs published that have music on them that I might like, but given the way CDs are packaged (one or two "good" tracks and a dozen filler tracks) at $16-20 apiece, I don't give them any money. This has nothing to do with file sharing, whatsoever.

      The RIAA would like us to believe that this issue is very simple: black vs. white, free vs. not-free. They are one hundred percent wrong in this, and their (apparent) complete lack of understanding is very telling. The success of Napster should have told them that they were way Way WAY out of line in terms of their product quality and pricing. Consumers sent a pellucidly clear message to the music companies with their massive utilization of Napster, and the ongoing rise of peer-to-peer. That message has largely been ignored by the industry in its efforts to maintain the status-quo-ante.

      The runaway success of Apple's limited iTunes service tells me that people are more than willing to pay for what they get: its just that being cost-conscious they would like to receive some value for their purchases. The RIAA needs to tell its constituents (the music studios) that they need to offer better value. BMG's recent drop in Disc prices is a step in the right direction. Personally, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with an $18 CD if it had more than six minutes of worthwhile material on it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    13. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree with your post. Yes, ClearChannel is a headache. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the reduction in variety that ClearChannel (and the music industry as a whole) has imposed upon us in the last twenty years is a major part of their problem. People want variety, they want new stimulation, whether that be a new movie, a new CD, a new video game ... change is the name of the game.

      The reason a lot of people use peer-to-peer is that they just want something different, or perhaps an older piece that is no longer available through any legitimate channel. In any event, you won't hear much of anything outside the mainstream (i.e., what ClearChannel and the music companies decide is mainstream) anymore. The more I think about, the more I believe that Napster's success was in large part due to a desire for something more, something new. And I might add that "new" might have been performed back in 1962, but you never heard it because the industry wouldn't let you.

      Let me add that the RIAA has no bottom line, as such, being only a trade group. Their expenses are provided for by the major studio corporations. It remains to be seen if those companies continue to receive any real value from the RIAA, and continue to fund them at the same levels.

      Copyright owners will never "wise up". They have new powers, thanks to the entertainment industry and willing (read: bought & paid for) members of Congress. They see no reason not to use those powers, so it is up to Congress to wise up and fix the mess they created. And if they don't ... well, it's time to think very carefully before casting one's vote. Not that it matters if it's a Diebold voting machine but at least we can say we tried.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    14. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by llamaluvr · · Score: 1

      Dude, sorry, but if you're income situation is that desperate, you probably shouldn't be buying video games to begin with.

      The manufacturer has a right to not provide you with a free copy to try as much as you like before you decide whether or not to buy. It's their product; they have that right. If you don't like it, the best statement you can make is to not buy the product.

      I'm also a 20 year old college student. I don't pirate games, music, software, or movies. I only buy what I can reasonably disern is good (through reviews, etc.), and if I get burned, well, I don't cry about it. As long as their product meets what is guarenteed, I can't complain; I bought a game that I thought I would have liked, but didn't, and I should've done my homework. After all, it's not like they can guarentee that I'll like it.

      --
      Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
    15. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I bought Morrowind twice. After entering the seventieth room where the table has been set for dinner, treasured possessions are tucked away behind a bed, or a thirty-page short story lies on the table, it's hard to say "this is just bits on a disc, not a labour of love." Zelda: WW? Metroid Prime? Ico? Never.

      Unreal Tournament, on the other hand... heck, that's just sneaking into someone's swimming pool when they're away on a long weekend. It sort of exists there whether I walk in or not, and I don't want to buy the house. If I were deeply involved in Unreal Tournament, though, I'd buy one, if only to vote for the company.

    16. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by AllenChristopher · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, an isn't a person. The accountants at the RIAA probably see your logic, while the lawyers are tearing off on their own gig. They are, after all, there to advance the group's interests through law, not sit on their hands. Part of that job is deciding when it isn't wise to sue, but when a man owns a good hammer, every job starts to look like a job for a hammer.

    17. Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's not worth seeing/playing anyway, why do they download it?


      Because it's not worth seeing at the price that is set.

      The ONE good song on a CD is not worth the $15-$20 the CD costs. But it might be worth the 15-20 cents the bandwidth to DL it costs. (Besides, they usually play the thing to DEATH on the radio anyway. SO what does it matter if I listen to it on the radio (FREE!) or listen to it on my computer (FREE!)?)

      The latest movie may not be worth the $10 per ticket (Plus another $10 for a bag of popcorn and a Coke! No outside food permitted, remember!) But it's worth tying up my DSL line overnight for.

      What level of quality to do moves/games/music/software have to achieve for pirates to say, "Okay, they're good enough to buy now. We'll stop pirating"?

      The price must match the value. The thing must not be over-priced.

      WHat that means in quantifiable terms, is undefinable. Each person has a limit, and what meets my limit may not meet yours.

  19. How about banning awards instead? by k98sven · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I mean, does anyone really give a damn about the Oscars?

    It's the industry celebrating itself in a annual act of masturbation on national TV.

    If you disagree, please explain why Kevin Costner has a "Best Director" award but not Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock or Akira Kurosawa?

    1. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on !!! and while we are at it. Wong Kar-Wai for In the mood for love or Chungking Express, Takeshi Kitano for Dolls or Hanabi.
      Don't get me started on european directors.

    2. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I little extreamly well made movie called Dances with Wolves

    3. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like Dances With Arrows

    4. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya I hate the way they always go around calling each other geniuses. No a god damn actor is NOT a genius. Steven Speilburg is not a genius. The producer of lord of the rings is not a genius. Genius this, genius that.

      Isaac Newton was a genius. Charles Darwin was a genius. Karl Marx was a genius.

      Ron Howard is NOT a genius.

    5. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Ron Howard is NOT a genius.

      But he's got hair like one!

    6. Re:How about banning awards instead? by archen · · Score: 1

      There are different types of genius, of which being an artistic genius is one. There is more to intelligence then just the sciences and philosophy. Does anyone in Hollywood qualify as a genius? I'd say probably not, but that's a matter of opinion - and as the parent said the oscars are all about the entertainment industry jerking itself off so they'll say whatever they want.

    7. Re:How about banning awards instead? by kfg · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily think that parent poster was suggesting that Dances with Wolves wasn't worthy of kudos, but that his named directors have made many, many Dances with Wolves between them.

      KFG

    8. Re:How about banning awards instead? by skribe · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Hitchcock never won because he was up against other 'greats': Billy Wilder (The Apartment & The Lost Weekend), John Ford (The Grapes of Wrath), Elia Kazan (On the Waterfront) and Leo McCarey (Going My Way).

      Likewise Kubrick lost out to Milos Forman (One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest); William Friedkin (French Connection); Carol Reed (Oliver); and George Cukor (My Fair Lady).

      Kurosawa lost out primarily because he was Japanese, but also because his solitary directorial nomination was up against Sydney Pollack's Out of Africa.

      Costner may have been up against supremely qualified directors (Scorsese and Coppola) but it was IMHO hardly their best work (Goodfellas and Godfather III respectively).

      To summarise, Costner had a weaker field than either Kubrick or Hitchcock. As far as Kurosawa is concerned IIRC there's only ever been one non-english language winner of Best Director/Best Film (Vita e bella, La). It sucks but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

      skribe

      --
      Blog
    9. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eugh Chungking Express is so average and over-rated.

    10. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Enonu · · Score: 5, Funny

      I fear the day I have to play you Trivial Pursuit.

    11. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Does anyone in Hollywood qualify as a genius?

      The technical definition of "genius" is actually a rather low bar. Fully 2% of humans qualify for it.

    12. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly there are some geniuses in the film industry. A great movie can be as important as a classic literary work. But when you see the oscars they are all kissing each others ass like they are all so marvelous. Oh I'd like to thank so and so hes such a genius and thanks to so and so a true genius for his insights, blah blah blah, it's just a tad annoying. Are there geniuses making films, ya i suppose but they are just as rare as geniuses anywhere else.

    13. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, I believe all of the latter three should have received Oscars.

      I also think Costner deserved one.

      Shut the fuck up, you bastards - The Postman and Waterworld were *great* movies. Panned by the critics and the world, of course. You know why? Because they didn't fit into the tiny little mold of Hollycrap Dungbusters.

      (I mean, for the love of Bob, Waterworld had imitation *Spam*! How great is that?!)

      Erm, right, enough ranting on underappreciated actors/directors.

      I certainly agree that Oscars are quite worthless, and quite masturbatory. They're the equivalent of Linus, ESR and Stallman getting together to give Stallman an Open Sourcey.

      I actually stopped watching 'em a year or two ago.. It was a tribute to the 'best movie soundtracks' or some such. Half of them (or more) were John Williams tunes (IMO, he's so overrated it ain't funny), and of course, John Williams was conducting. *snicker*

      Way to give tribute to yourself, man.

    14. Re:How about banning awards instead? by psavo · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is that the only names I recognize from those you mention are Hitchcock, Kubrick and Kurosawa. From the rest only name of movie is sort-of recognisable.

      There should be some award given many years after, for those movies that stand the time.

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    15. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      English dictionaries have no such definition.

      I think you get your "technical definition" from one particular elitist "society" of people who score highly on IQ exams.

      The true meaning of genius has nothing to do with passing exams, quizzes or puzzles. Usually the people most caught up in "proving" themselves smart by taking a bunch of tests and quizzes tend to be rather mediocre intellectually.

    16. Re:How about banning awards instead? by fermion · · Score: 1
      Awards are very important. The Oscar's in particular provide a few hours of cheap advertising. The studios make a couple movies a year that are barely good enough to get nominated to get the cheap publicity. Also, winning the occasional awards increases the cheap publicity and make the studio looks like it can make quality movies.

      Near the end of the article it states that some conspiracy theorist think this is a way to get the independent out of the oscars. This is in fact a compelling reason. As the related article in the NYT states, most independents cannot afford the kind of pre-Oscar advertising campaign that the major studio put forth. The independents generaly do not put movies into wide release, and if fact often only do so if a movie gets a Oscar. These studios live and die by word of mouth, and therefore have little problems with the judges distributing their movies. The independent seem to respect the Oscar's for what it is: cheap advertisement.

      By banning the screeners, the big studios shift the advantage to themselves, and stand a good chance of winning more awards. Now, this may not sound like such a big deal. Who cares who wins. The concern is the quality of the films. The big studios currently have to make a few good films a year to compete with the independents. If this competition no longer exists, then what is to keep the majors producing good films.

      And if the independents no longer exist, and if the major no longer have to make a few extra good movies a year, what will this do for the workers. Fewer movies and fewer studios means fewer writers, actors, and other staff. We have seen that the consolidation in broadcast TV has lead to rise in shows that do not need writers, do not need sets, and only need a couple cameras. The consolidation in the movie industry could easily lead to the same thing. The studios are claiming a 1/2 of 1% loss due to screeners. Can they claim that thier ban will result in the loss of less workers?

      Not to mention a decline in the kind of intelligent sexuality and sensuality that the independents are just so good at. And BTW, though Costner is annoying, Thirteen Days was a damn fine movie.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    17. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Some people in Hollywood ARE geniuses. Perhaps not in science but in art they are. Unless you don't value art as worthy of anything (a weak proposition), some filmmakers should be considered as important as others. Nowadays, films can shape humans as much as books used to...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    18. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Dances with Wolves was a great film. It's too bad you don't see its greatness.

      Hitchcock should have won but I don't know why he didn't (perhaps his films were all genre films, which some people don't value). As far as Kubrick and Kurosawa are concerned, I really can't see them winning. Oscars are about MAINSTREAM films. Artistic films never win Oscars. As much as I love artistic films over mainstream ones, I have to admit that the mainstream awards like Oscars is more in line with the general population. For instance, hardly anyone (outside the hardcore movie fan base) has heard of Kubrick (who has zero awards). In contrast, they have heard of Spielberg (who has awards).

      That's the way things are...and I don't see it changing.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    19. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that says more about you than about the movies or directors.

    20. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...IIRC there's only ever been one non-english language winner of Best Director/Best Film (Vita e bella, La)

      NOTICE: NEW ACRONYM INTRODUCED TO INTERNET
      SYNOPSIS: The following acronym is now approved for unrestricted use on the Internet:

      IGRC = If Google Recalls Correctly

      This acronym supersedes IIRC (If I Remember Correctly) as human memory is no longer necessary for Internet debate activities.

      Thank you,
      The Management

    21. Re:How about banning awards instead? by k98sven · · Score: 1

      Although you have a point on Art flicks vs. mainstream, but you are incorrect in claiming that "hardly anyone" has heard of Kubrick. Perhaps you mean "hardly anyone outside your age group".

      Kubrick did have some great commerical success, most notably "Dr. Strangelove", "Spartacus", "2001" and "A clockwork orange".

      Not to mention Hitchcock, who was hugely succesful commercially, and a Hollywood director.

    22. Re:How about banning awards instead? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Goodfellas 'hardly his best work'?

      Still pisses on Dances With Wolves.

    23. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, an Academy Award is zero measure of absolute accomplishment. For example, of the four movies mentioned that Kubrick was up against, none are now considered superior to the films Kubrick lost with. I doubt any serious film students are studying "Out of Africa" shot for shot as they are Kurosawa's film.

      And your comment that "Goodfellas" is not one of Scorsese's best works is simply ludicrous.

    24. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't they have the Lifetime Achievement Award?

    25. Re:How about banning awards instead? by dlelash · · Score: 1

      Don't feel too bad. "Life Is Beautiful" won Oscars for Best Actor, Foreign Film, and Score, not Best Picture or Director.

    26. Re:How about banning awards instead? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Nah ... just keep him away from Google while you're playing.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    27. Re:How about banning awards instead? by bishbah · · Score: 1

      I don't. La Vita e Bella won Best Actor (!) and Best Foreign Film, but not Best Picture or Best Director. But that just backs up the theory that non-English films are handicapped when it comes to Academy Awards.

      As far as the MPAA goes, I think they're correct to connect these screeners with piracy. But their proposal throws the baby out with the bathwater. When so much money rides on a ridiculous industry award, screeners help make the fight a little more fair. Especially for art house and foreign films that aren't widely screened.

      Rather than suggesting a ban, the MPAA should apply good old-fashioned peer pressure to stop insiders from eroding their own industry. But otherwise, they need to write it off as the cost of doing business.

    28. Re:How about banning awards instead? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Htichcock was popular.. no doubt about that... Kubrick was not. None of the films you listed were commercial successes. Even 2001:ASO, generally considered one of the top sci-fi films, was a bust by all accounts. Those films may have made money now (after VHS and DVD sales/rentals). But their theatrical run were hardly commercial successes...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    29. Re:How about banning awards instead? by smg_mrBlonde · · Score: 0

      WOW!... that's the first time i read something official from the Internet Management.
      Does the Anonymous Coward work for Bill Gates?

  20. Re:And the screener says what? by l810c · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    And for those of us who actually have sex with living, breathing *bipeds*

    Female ostrich?

  21. So now they have to fork over $10 by indros13 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So screeners will have to actually go to the theater to watch a movie instead of having a copy at home? [sarcasm] *sniff* [/sarcasm]


    It might give them some appreciation for jumping movie ticket prices. And don't even get me started on the $5 bucket beverage...

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    1. Re:So now they have to fork over $10 by Linux+Ate+My+Dog! · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. The MPAA is already doing screenings, every Sunday, for voting members, in a beautiful movie theatre with great sound. For free.

      I have been to one, the voting members are allowed to take a guest. The theatre was almost empty, and the people there were not likely to be dealing with screaming four year old ("So what does one wear to a matinee Academy screening," I asked my host, the Academy member.
      -- "A walker," his roommate yells from the kitchen. You get the picture.)

      Alas, on screen that afternoon was this Sharon Stone On Death Row flick, "Last Dance" or something. I spent the rest of the weekend watching his VHS tapes on the home theatre system -- the studios hadn't switched to DVDs yet.

  22. Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 2, Troll

    >Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, >but also camera operators, key grips, makeup >artists, and costumers.

    Why be sarcastic about this? Its the truth, isn't it? I thought this is WHAT Slashdot wanted---instead of suing people the MPAA is educating them on why they should buy a DVD instead of copy their friend's.

    First the general Slashdot position was "Don't shut down P2P, shut down the criminals." Then it was "Don't shut down the criminals, they don't know any better." Now it is "Don't educate people on WHY a movie costs 8 dollars".

    Seems to me Slashdot is becoming more and more a piracy advocacy board. Movies and music cost money. Sorry, that's the way life works. Not everything can use the open-source software model. It takes a tremendous amount of people and resources to make a money.

    Seems to me that educating people on why we need to contribute to movies is the best solution for everyone.

    Brian

    PS The Slashdot crowd is the FIRST ones to complain if a movie looks "cheap" or "fake".

    1. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know what bugs me? When people refer to a giant slashdot collective, as if everyone here thought the same things about every issue. Did you ever thing that perhaps it could have been different people posting whose opinion you're remembering, or even that you could simply be remembering the slant you want to remember from discussions with multiple viewpoints?

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    2. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Timmmm · · Score: 1

      $8 ?? Over here (UK) DVD's cost about 15

    3. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      Everyone does think the same, look at how anyone is treated here who says anything bad against the US or anything bad about Linux ... no matter how right they are.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    4. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by mugnyte · · Score: 1

      Actually, its not true. Movies are made by getting a whopper loan from the production source. This churns the machine, in the efforts of the producer/director/minions to stretch that out or focus it where need be.

      If the movie flops, which is a big difference from paying back that laon (remember, studios want interest and lots of it) then they become a little wary of things about that movie (the direction, the story, the competition, the actors). Perhaps they try something else.

      But we are miles, miles above the concept of them "not having enough money" to make a movie. The dollars we're talking about are in the 10's of millions for failure, and 100's of millions for success. Last time I checked, quality movies could be made for $1 million.

      This "stealing" bit is true, nobody should be running out with the goods to dump onto Kazza, but frankly everyone and their mother has realized that a movie is just a part of the entertainment. The "night out" concept is different that sitting in your living room. People in some way will always go to the cinema. If a movie was the ends itself, people wouldn't be building amazing home theaters. So, just getting the good isn't much of a win by itself.

      The funny bit about a movie is that the screenings are supposed to be private, the reviews "juicy" and then the release is a saturation of the market. Multiplexes can burn out a movie in one weekend, with multiple showings. And even if everyone sees a movie, it is no longer a blockbuster. Titanic cashed in because people saw it multiple times.

      I just don't get the hype. Hollywood is too smug about what they should be making.
      Stealing isn't the way to teach them a lesson, don't get me wrong, but they should stop this "money" whining.

      mug

    5. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Epistax · · Score: 1

      I find those commercials funny,the ones saying that pirating movies takes money away from stage hands, etc.

      Is it that hard to not pay 1 or 2 people on the set outragous amounts of money? I mean, going to the heart of it, it doesn't matter who is actually acting in a movie at all. as long as they do a good job. Take any good movie and put in mediocre actors. If it's bad then, we'll then it wasn't a good movie to begin with.
      You take these actors, and force them to baically play the same personality movie after movie. Movies are even made for specific actors. What the hell is going on?

      Here's how it works. Don't blow ~$100 million on actors don't blow ~$200 million on advertising. I'll pay $5 to see your movie if I find the plot interesting. If it turns out it was a great success, then the actors, crews get paid by how much of a success it was. You make a bad movie, you don't make $50 million for it.

      ... why do I hear my name being written onto the axis of evil list?

    6. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dozen or so 'Fans', two 'Friends', yet just about every inane post gets moderated 3 or better. What do you call that script?

    7. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Now it is "Don't educate people on WHY a movie costs 8 dollars".

      If they were really $8 I'd be all over buying them. You can't even see them in a decent theatre for $8 anymore (I pay $10 US per viewing)!

      Most movies cost $22 US nowadays (I did the conversion for you).

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    8. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You know what bugs me? When people refer to a giant slashdot collective ..."

      Yeah, everyone here does that.

    9. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Psychic+Burrito · · Score: 1

      Joe, he was referring to the fact that these comments were all part of an original story writeup. Yes people have different opinions, but there's a "slashdot slant" because the story writeups are most prominent and chosen by slashdot editors.

    10. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you pay 8 bucks for dvd's of new movies? id like to know where your getting em from, Hong Kong? oh yea. those arnt illigetimate copies, hell thats even worse, some one else is profiting off some one else work in that case, but getting it p2p at least no one is makeing money off it. Only if dvd's were 8 bucks for decent, and recent movies, id gladly pay em, but hear in the real world, your lucking to find em for 20 25 bucks. and, im sorry, its just doestn cost that much to make a dvd, no matter how you slice it, and further more, they most the money of box office sales, and company's the pay for the trailers just b4 you see in the theaters.

      == The titanic was built by proffesionals
      == the arc was built by amatures.
      == still havnet receid email w/ pass

    11. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what bugs me? When people refer to a giant slashdot collective, as if everyone here thought the same things about every issue.

      Maybe they were referring to the Slashdot editors?

    12. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing is more boring and ignorant than someone else lecturing others.

      Buying music/movies might be "the way life works" for YOU, but not for me and tons of others.

      Sorry, but THAT'S the way life works.

    13. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Yeah. When someone says something bad about Linux, he gets modded up as +5 Insightful. Posts that claim that people who complain about Linux get modded down, get modded up as +5 Insightful.

    14. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by dswensen · · Score: 1

      No, no, no, you don't understand. See, copyright infringement is not theft. When you steal a movie from the store, it's gone from the store! But when you download a movie from the Internet, that copy of the movie is still there in the store! So, you see, if you download a copy of a movie onto your HD and watch it instead of purchasing a copy, it's the same as if you had actually purchased it! So you see, no one loses money if you never actually pay for anything... um... something.

      Er... that's the argument I hear all the time, anyway.

    15. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean how they get moderated up by poeple like you?

    16. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I don't have mod points. I can't decide whether it would be funnier to mod you up or down.

    17. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 1

      >You know what bugs me? When people refer to a >giant slashdot collective, as if everyone here >thought the same things about every issue.

      I admit my comments are a generalization, but I believe it is a fair one based on the editorial decisions of the Slashdot staff plus the vast majority of the comments. Sure there are a few voices of reason in the comments but I read Slashdot regularly and I have NEVER seen a story presenting the other side of piracy---namely that if everyone pirated then we wouldn't have music, movies, or games. And if you look at the comments in articles like this there is a high bias (esp in the +4 and +5 articles) in favor of the pirates.

    18. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with various child posters - the whole of Slashdot ain't a borg collective.

      I for one welcome our MPAA overlords. Indeed, I just picked up four DVDs the other day. Under $10 a pop.

      Some Costner, a Lambert film, and Space Balls. Well, naturally, one would think the underappreciated Costner and Lambert would be relatively cheap, but Space Balls? That was a shocker.

      Here's a question, though, and not directly related to the MPAA.. If I can buy *tons* of movies for $14 or less (usually less).. Why the hell is a season of Babylon 5 at $70? Star Trek at $100?

      At least Stargate is only $50 per season. :P

      And here's another one.. Why is a disc from an anime series $20 or more?

      Frankly, I don't see the MPAA as some evil organization. When films first come out on DVD, they tend to be at their highest value, usually in the $18-20 range. A few months later, all but a few tend to sit at $12-16, and they continue dropping from there. I like that.

      CDs don't drop like that. TV and Anime DVDs don't drop like that. But strangely, movies do. Could it be that the MPAA isn't the evil bastard organization that Slashdot editors would have us imagine it as?

      Well, I don't doubt that they're somewhat evil - everyone's 'somewhat' evil. But you know, they just don't piss me off like the RIAA or certain other corporations/organizations do. Indeed, they make me happy as a customer. (You don't see the RIAA opening up places where you can rent their products! ;))

    19. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generalizations are for people too scared or lazy to name names.

    20. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by _xeno_ · · Score: 1
      Except that he wasn't talking about Slashdot readers, he was refering to Slashdot editors who set the tone for the forum.

      CowboyNeal said "[r]emember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers," in the writeup. Now I'm not 100% sure he was being sacrastic, it's hard be completely sure, but given the general Slashdot editor theme, I expect it was meant as a sarcastic remark mocking the MPAA ads about how piracy hurts the little guy.

      Slashdot editors started out by complaining in the writeups (the non-italized part) by complaining that the RIAA/MPAA shouldn't go after the enabling technology (DeCSS, Napster, etc.) but should instead go after the infringers themselves.

      And then they did.

      Then Slashdot editors started ridiculing that for several reasons, one of which was suggesting that Windows users are too stupid to realize they're sharing what they download to the world or that what they're doing is wrong.

      Now the MPAA starts a publicity campaign to try and educate people that downloading movies is illegal. And the Slashdot editors mock that argument, too, by suggesting that the people the MPAA lists as victims aren't being hurt as badly as suggested.

      I think the reality is that the Slashdot editors are too far into the Open Source mantra that "information wants to be free" (ignoring the other part of that quote, "information wants to be expensive") and believe that downloading is morally acceptable. They don't come out and state that, though, and instead suggest intermediate stances that they keep backing down from once the MPAA/RIAA starts that stance.

      So what have Slashdot readers been saying about the issue? Everything from "downloading is morally reprehensible" to "downloading should be encouraged." Some readers have doubtlessly been doing the "don't do that, do this!" backwards dance that "Brian_Ellenberger" complained about. But the Slashdot editors themselves have continously backed down to even more extreme stances, suggesting that they really believe that piracy isn't a real problem. And, honestly, I wish they'd just say that and be done with it. Some people have been saying just that - they don't believe piracy is the threat various industries say it is. But the editors keep changing their position, and that's what the complaint was really about - people who keep changing what they claim they believe so that it is always out of line with the actions of the MPAA/RIAA.

      It's really quite annoying to watch.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    21. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Well that only proofs that people like you can't stand being told the truth. What's even more funny is that it's you people who complain about that "Linux zealots" can't stand the truth.

    22. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, that also bugs me. I am in full and total agreement with your statement/viewpoint.

      user #16212

    23. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      ...and of course you're modded down as a troll for telling people something they don't want to hear.

      Seriously, the mass of Slashdot readers who feel like they're entitled to all the media they can get their hands on whether they can pay for it or not really grate on my nerves.

      On the one hand, so many of you expect media to be super-cheap (or free) and that "they shouldn't pay their workers so much," and on the other the same people freak out when tech jobs are exported to India for the same reason.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    24. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by pod · · Score: 1
      It takes a tremendous amount of people and resources to make a money.

      Well well, that's a revealing slip. Maybe they shouldn't be making money, they should be making movies enough people want to (pay to) see.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    25. Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Just for my reference, when you use the term "piracy" are you referring to a. gentlemen with cutlasses and gold doubloons, b. organized crime rings that distribute copyrighted materials for illegal sale, or c. homeowners that use the Internet to download music? From the legal, moral, and financial perspectives there are enormous differences between the latter two (the former are mostly all dead.)

      Both the movie and music people are going after real pirates: those that commit copyright infringement on a massive scale for profit. I've not read anyone on Slashdot, editor or otherwise, that has tried to make excuses for those operations, or to claim that their crimes don't affect copyright holders. In fact, when these criminal gangs have been apprehended and put out of business, their accounts are frozen and their sales records have been analyzed. In that case, one can make a more definitive claim that "legitimate sales were lost due to rampant piracy" because people actually paid for the pirated product. And under the law, the term "pirate" is correctly applied in that context.

      With file-sharing the issue is not so clear. Yes it is copyright infringement. Yes, in an ideal world people shouldn't do it. No, it is not "piracy." Current copyright law (which makes for a very interesting read, that is, if you enjoy reading encrypted Swahili and have plenty of aspirin on hand) really doesn't consider simple "copyright infringement" to be much of a crime when carried out on the level of most Gnutella or Kazaa users. Yes, when certain rather large limits set on financial gain are exceeded copyright infringement can go from a civil to a criminal matter (as with the organized pirate operations mentioned above) but really doesn't apply to what your "typical" file sharer does. Granted, in past eras it was not possible for individuals to commit acts of copyright infringement so conveniently and globally, but until the law is changed it's just not that heinous.

      There is a reason that the RIAA is filing lawsuits en-masse and then settling out of court with their frightened victims. The reason is that ... they couldn't win any of those cases. It's just not enough of a crime to be above the government's radar.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  23. This isn't about piracy, but quality by osguru · · Score: 1

    Back in 1983 when my parents got me Return Of The Jedi off the bootleg dealers in NYC, the quality was garbage.

    Those same people are still on the Broadway, Queens Blvd, FlatBush ave, etc... selling bootleg copies everyday.

    Alls the MPAA is pissed off about is that now I can get really really good DVD quality bootlegs - without having to leave my house.

    If the MPAA/RIAA is going to bitch, moan, cry, and then sue - it mind as well be equal opportunity. Just going after the file sharing folk is like me using nmap looking for netbus boxes and calling myself a hacker.

    Its an easy kill, no different than a script kiddie.

  24. other screeners by sdibb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The other screeners are the ones that work at the local movie theater.

    Before every movie is played in the theater, the projectionist has to build it and *someone* has to watch every single movie before it's played to make sure the reels aren't put on backwards or in the wrong order or something like that. Anyone who's worked at the movie theater knows what late Thursday nights are like.

  25. Canary Trap by overshoot · · Score: 2, Informative

    Someone needs to give these idiots a clue or two. With only a trivial effort in steganography they could "watermark" each copy uniquely. That way if if some reviewer leaked his copy they'd have evidence to nail him to the wall.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Canary Trap by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Informative

      They do, ive seen a divx of Bowling for Columbine that includes a warning to that extent. Maybe soon they'll stick that in all films and make sure you enter your name and address at the store so it can be tied to your dvds unique number - it would have to be pretty rugged tho - able to with-stand divx-ing and resizing and anything else rippers could think of, even then people would just do it outside america.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:Canary Trap by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

      While this would prove where the film was SENT, it wouldn't prove that the reviewer pirated it. I'm sure it passes through other hands on the way to the reviewer.

      They COULD use it as a black list though. "We sent you a movie, and someone close to you pirated it. While this isn't enough to sue you, we aren't going to risk sending you anymore movies. Sucks for your reviewing career"

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    3. Re:Canary Trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one word: COMPRESSION

    4. Re:Canary Trap by evilviper · · Score: 1
      With only a trivial effort in steganography

      Stenography would be useless, unless you expect everyone to be distributing bit-for-bit copies. If it's something that's ending up on Gnutella, it's been re-encoded to MPEG-4, which means any superflous information has been removed.

      What they would need to do, is watermark the video, in some simple way that wouldn't be removed by low-bitrate encoding, croping, or other common modifications.

      However, that would not only lower the quality, but anything of the sort would increase production prices exponentially, since you have a unique image for each disc, instead of a single image for all discs.

      That way if if some reviewer leaked his copy they'd have evidence to nail him to the wall.

      No, they'd have evidence that his copy was involved, not necessarily him. He just needs to say that he threw his copy in the trash, and he's off the hook, unless there is enough other information to implicate him.

      Besides that, the last thing any studio wants to do is to piss-off the people they send screeners too. They are going out of their way for good reason; they want positive reviews from these people.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  26. Do we still purchase the DVD?! by fervent_raptus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the MPAA is totally overacting. How many geeks out there are actually going to substitute a DivX for the cinimatic experience of going to a movie theater?

    Personally, I know people who had access to the LOTR DVD screener rip, and downloaded it, but waited to watch it until after the movie came out.

    They then proceeded to watch the movie in theaters 3 or 4 times before ever playing the DivX file.

    It wasn't until the period between the movie leaving theaters and coming out on DVD that the DivX file came in handy.

    These friends not only purchased the regular version DVD when it came out, but also the extended version DVD.

    IMO, if the MPAA want's to stop the popularity of DVD Screener rips, they should release the movie in DVD the same week it comes to theaters.

    1. Re:Do we still purchase the DVD?! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right, of course. But it is an article of faith among the entertainment cartel that 1 copied file == 1 lost sale. Just as the RIAA is unwilling to consider the idea that file-sharing might actually help sales of good music (people do go out and buy albums after hearing a couple of good MP3's off those albums; but the albums they buy are more likely to be from obscure bands rather than whatever insipid Top 40 pap is currently getting all the advertising bucks) the MPAA is unwilling to consider the idea that a movie made to be seen in the the theater (as the LOTR films definitely are) might, if first seen on a pirated DVD, actually help draw people into the theater to see it. This is not a rational cost-benefit analysis on their part; it's a matter of paranoid ideology. The long, sad history of how paranoid ideologues react when confronted by sweet reason does nothing to convince me that they'll change their minds any time soon.

      Actually, it's not just the entertainment industry that think this way. How many times do we hear M$ et al. claiming "Software piracy cost us $XX billion in lost sales last year," as though everyone who burned a copy of an Office CD would otherwise have gone out and bought the damn thing for full price? At least in the software industry it's a little wink-wink nudge-nudge, though; e.g., Adobe knows full well that all the Photoshop copies out there are training the next generation of Adobe customers. But the entertainment folks are dead serious in their wacko worldview.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Do we still purchase the DVD?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the MPAA is totally overacting. How many geeks out there are actually going to substitute a DivX for the cinimatic experience of going to a movie theater?

      I will. I have a chipped Xbox going to a 54" television and 1000 watt 5.1 surround sound system. Granted, its not the same quality as a theatre, but it gets the job done. All I'm missing now are the annoying loud little kids and lady who brings her baby in to breastfeed and continually kick the back of my seat.

    3. Re:Do we still purchase the DVD?! by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Most serious pirates are not like that. The ones I've known do things like fill entire 500 CD binders with bootleg Playstation and Dreamcast games, or build terabyte RAID arrays to hold the DivX films and mp3s that they refuse to buy the original CDs and DVDs for.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    4. Re:Do we still purchase the DVD?! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I dunno if there is an acceptable dose of reasoning on either side.

      I know full well that a full copy doesn't equal a full lost sale, but then, I really don't understand the claim of people downloading it to see if it is good before going to the theaters. Why do people go to the theaters if you've already seen it?

    5. Re:Do we still purchase the DVD?! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1
      I know full well that a full copy doesn't equal a full lost sale, but then, I really don't understand the claim of people downloading it to see if it is good before going to the theaters. Why do people go to the theaters if you've already seen it?
      Because there are some movies -- actually a lot of movies -- that are more enjoyable in the theater than on TV. Big, SFX-filled sci-fi movies, of course. Gorgeously done fantasies like LOTR. Landscape-heavy Westerns and road movies. Action movies. Period pieces. And, for that matter, even "serious" stuff (using the definition of "serious" that says: no spaceships, no magic, not set in the future or more than a century in the past, no car chases, and weapons are seen rarely if at all) that relies on good cinematography.

      In short, any movie that's worth making as a movie at all.

      Come on, haven't you ever seen a movie in the theater more than once? Or seen a movie on TV and thought, "Damn, I wish I hadn't missed this when it was in the theater?" Or watched a movie on TV that you liked when you saw it in the theater and thought, "There's something missing here, seeing it on the small screen?" Seeing movies in the theater is simply a different experience from watching them at home, no matter how nice your TV.
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    6. Re:Do we still purchase the DVD?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all your mising now is a good quality dvd playback device, holy shit tyhe xbox is LOW LOW END quality.

  27. Remember... by wozster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The auto industry doesn't just hurt the "Horse and Buggy" industry, it also hurts the wooden wheel maker.

    1. Re:Remember... by TWooster · · Score: 1

      Honestly, bullshit.

      I assume your comment was in jest, but it got rated +5 (insightful of all damn things), for no real reason.

      No, you cannot compare piracy to the advent of the auto industry. Piracy is not a reasonable way to run an economy. If all of a sudden EVERYONE started pirating movies the economy would take a huge friggin' nosedive. No more movies, studios, employees, no more tabloids, half the shows on television (being Extra, ET, Inside Edition or what have you) would drop off the face of the earth, and generally the world would be a better place. But even so, the economy would suck more than it does now.

      Jesus...

    2. Re:Remember... by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy if you know the facts. Sorry to be pedantic.

      A standard practice for cars of the early part of this century (upto the forties in some cases), was the manufacturer to produce a rolling chassis with all the mechanicals and to have a coach builder to construct the a body. These often were old companies that used to make horsedrawn carriges.

      Also heavy spoked wooden wheels were very often used through the twenties atleast, these often made third pary wheel manufactures (often the ones that used to make horsedrawn wheels).

      A classic example is Holden, which is now the australia division of GM. It started as a coach builder manufacture of horse drawn carriages, it then made car bodies for imported cars which came in as rolling chassis. Then in the fifties could see they had to change tack and introduced their own car and became a manufacturer. To be eventually acquired by GM.

      The skills used in horse drawn carriage building were used extensively by the early automobile industry.

  28. Selling DVDs and videos... by Whomever · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Doesn't selling DVDs and videos contribute to piracy as well? I mean, if the pirates couldn't buy the DVDs or videos in the first place, it would be harder to copy them. I think they should ban the sale of DVDs ;) And while their at it, the practice of renting them contributes to a ton of piracy. Therefore, Blockbuster and it's smaller competitors should be banned from renting DVDs or videos to consumers.

    --


    ----------
    perl -e 'print(pack("H*","646176652e7761676e657240676d6169 6c2e636f6d0a"));'
    1. Re:Selling DVDs and videos... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't selling DVDs and videos contribute to piracy as well? I mean, if the pirates couldn't buy the DVDs or videos in the first place, it would be harder to copy them. I think they should ban the sale of DVDs ;)

      *flawed logic*
      While they are at it, they might as well just not release the movie at all since that contributes to piracy!
      */flawed logic*

    2. Re:Selling DVDs and videos... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Doesn't selling DVDs and videos contribute to piracy as well?

      The important difference is that some screener DVDs are sent out months before public rental starts. Grabbing a screener could give the infringers a 75-day head start.

      And, such a head-start is one of the most potentially costly scenarios for the studios. Film profits are somewhat front-loaded. A huge chunk comes in the first weekend in theaters. Another large chunk in the first month of rentals and week of sales.

      "Piracy" isn't quite so damaging if it happens after the big selling opportunities of the initial release. But if infringing copies are already widespread on a premiere day (the so-called "zero-day rip"), sales could be noticably slashed.

  29. I agree by Krunch · · Score: 1

    Screeners sux, the resulting movie usually looks (and sounds !) really bad. I prefear waiting some weeks/months for the DVD rip to be availiable.

    --
    No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
    1. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VHS screeners may suck, but DVD screeners are almost identical to the final DVD releases. And they usually show up around the academy awards, for some strange reason...

    2. Re:I agree by KronicD · · Score: 1

      Good sir, i beleive you are thinking of a TeleSync (cinema rip), rather than a Screener (preview dvd sent out to certain individuals, some of whom are illegally distributing it). More often than not screeners are available before the shitty telesyncs of which you speak.

      --
      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
    3. Re:I agree by Krunch · · Score: 1

      My bad. In French the word "screener" is usually used to speak about TeleSync. Thus the confusion.

      --
      No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
  30. Not true by 1+(smarterThanYou) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers. Actually based on how the movie industry operates...these people were all compensated before the release of the movie. They work in a union and most of them don't do anything on the set anyways....they are just the backup in case the head guy takes an extra coffee break. The only people really getting screwed are the ones that distribute and produce the movies. Distributors make a good percentage of theater profits, having to take care of the end of producing additional prints of the film and then securing contracts with theaters to show them. Producers also make a percentage of ticket sales, but also make a percentage on every DVD/VHS/Any-Future-Media purchase. Theaters make a very small percentage, if at all, and obviously make their money off the concessions. Distributors and Theaters will re-negotiate their deals based on how the movie does during the opening weekend. What is also BS is that typically more than half of the proceeds from movie tickets is made on opening weekend. So in the time it would take a person to video tape it and distribute it, if this person isn't an insider at the movie theater or at the studio/distribution house, it would only affect subsequent weekends which are much less important. Long story short, it doesn't affect any of those people, just the people who are taking a percentage of the profits from DVD sales, i.e. Production Company, Distribution Company, Investors, (sometimes actors).

    1. Re:Not true by 5strangers · · Score: 1

      "They work in a union and most of them don't do anything on the set anyways....they are just the backup in case the head guy takes an extra coffee break." This level of ignorance indicates that you obviously have never been on a set and have no idea about what goes on during the 15-16 hour days that we work for months at a time.

    2. Re:Not true by 1+(smarterThanYou) · · Score: 1

      it was a joke. calm down. I'm well aware that the amount of work that takes place behind the scenes of a movie is larger than people suggest...and the union workers that put it all together don't get enough credit as it is, despite having to deal with directors that can up and change the plan for the day at the drop of a hat...not to mention you have to get it all in while the light is the same. But humor is the spice of life.

  31. About Time by waynelorentz · · Score: 1

    It's about time the movie industry looked inward for the root of its problem. And while they're taking on awards screeners, how about the reviewers? Even before a movie hits the big screen, the movie companies send out DVD and VHS copies of the film to TV, radio, and newspaper critics around the country. A lot of the pirated films you see on the street are perfectly normal, except every 20 minutes or so a banner appears at the bottom of the screen, "This presentation intended for review purposes only" or some such.

    Internet pirates? If you're looking for pirates, check your own back door.

  32. Re:rise against the editors of slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hardly, most of the "in" crowd (rolls eyes) read ./ in a different format. Sucks for the people that have $$$ to read ./ but good for us. It's kinda like having a good game of tiger woods golf and having a squad of Q3 players rocket their way through your hole without the slightest bit of disturbance.

    I gave up on the liberal modding trend years ago, writing it off as the typical "target big numbers to circumvent something useful" trend which has followed *proactive* liberals for the last 20 years. ./ kicks ass.

  33. Self-destructing DVDs? by Mundocani · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this is a good use for those self-destructing DVDs that Hollywood seems so interested in deploying. It wouldn't really stop the piracy completely, but it'd make it a lot more difficult since they'd only have a couple of days to attempt the copy after viewing the movie.

  34. This is rubbish. by Krapangor · · Score: 1
    They just don't want to give the movies to the critics before the start because they fear that the critics will be bad.
    Remember how the RIAA blamed critics for the commercial failure of some of the lastest wanna-bee-blockbusters ?
    Well that the answer.
    Instead of increasing the quality of the movies they just want to shut up all critics.
    I predict in some years critics will get unfair competition and commercial damages lawsuits for writing negative reviews and the Oscar commitee will be forced to give Oscars to the most expensive movies just to promote them.

    And all this just they want to milk out a maximum of money of the customers instead of concentrating of making good movies unlike the sucking Matrix sequel.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
  35. Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Move all Hollywood production to an island, and give all participants a number and liberal doses of psychotropic drugs. Make said island an impregnable fortress through the use of big white balloons as security. Piracy problems will end quicker than you can say, "I'm not a number! I am a free man!"

  36. Made-up language by g0at · · Score: 1

    Where do they come up with these terms, anyway? "Screener"? I had to begin reading the article to understand that it meant a copy of a movie on DVD, like the common person calls, uh, a "movie".

    "Pre-release" or "restricted print" would get the idea across to any layperson, without having to invent new language.

    The phrase "to screen a film" has always bothered me too. It makes me envision a group of censors sitting around a table examining the flick for banned content.

    I think I'm going to go and headphones some music now.

    -ben

    1. Re:Made-up language by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      My favorite is how commercial somehow evolved into trailer. Suddenly making me sit through fifteen minutes of commercials for brain dead action films, and romantic comedies, neither of which I'd want to watch, is a feature instead of an inconvenience.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    2. Re:Made-up language by g0at · · Score: 1

      Actually, you've conjured two other interesting points I'd like to comment on. :)

      1. Calling an advertisement a "commercial" is something else that has always bothered me. "Commercial" is an adjective, meaning something to do with commerce. True, ads are commercial in nature, but why not just call them what they are? A little less euphemistic.

      2. Yeah, why are trailers called trailers anyway? They don't trail behind anything; in fact, they lead. (Actually, I think I know the answer to that... back in the good old days, these teasers actually did follow the feature presentation, I believe. Then, the studios got obstinate and greedy.)

      -ben

    3. Re:Made-up language by spitzak · · Score: 1

      "Trailers" once upon a time were put after the movie, that's why they were called that. Of course they were commercials, but they had that name to distinguish them from print ads or radio commercials or billboards.

      Showing a film you made to a bunch of invited guests has long been called "screening" the film. Thus a DVD made especially for this purpose (showing it to an invited guest) is called a "screener".

  37. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The camera men, special effects artists, costume designers, etc. get paid the same salary no matter if the movie flops or is a big hit.

    Piracy really doesn't effect them at all.

    The only people piracy really hurts are the people who own the movie studios...

  38. Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tend to agree, the movies I have seen were all screeners. Saved me the $5 for the rental before I bought. I do like their movies.

  39. Remember the MPAA not only hurts by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    Remember the MPAA not only hurts the constitution, but also common sense, research, education, the courts, and millions of trees.

  40. are you sure? by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

    Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers. In the long run...okay maybe if they start making less movies but most of these people are paid their sum up front and don't earn any royalties off of the movie so piracy is not directly affecting them. Perhaps this is why they are quick to give a pre-released pirated copy away. ...and I really doubt less movies are going to be made. hollywood doesn't seem to be suffering.

  41. Serial? Try cereal! by yerricde · · Score: 1

    20min of crappy dialog that even a TV serial company would laugh at

    Worse yet, 20 minutes of crappy dialog that even the writers in a breakfast cereal company would laugh at. The writing in The Adventures of Uncle Toucan is better than the writing in some of the $#!+ that disgraces big screens in the U.S. nowadays.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  42. Type of disposable dvd by Loconut1389 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder if theyll ever create a kind of disc that the media breaks down as the laser passes over it. Aka, one time read or maybe two or three times read.

    1. Re:Type of disposable dvd by cyt0plas · · Score: 1
      --
      Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
    2. Re:Type of disposable dvd by dicepackage · · Score: 1

      Circuit City did this with the DivX dvds and it was a big failure

    3. Re:Type of disposable dvd by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      this is not the same as the disney mechanism which had some other decay type right? some kind of coating i think that becomes opaque after opening?

    4. Re:Type of disposable dvd by Cpyder · · Score: 1
      Uhm.. what would be stopping the pirates to copy it before watching?

      One somewhat expensive way they can distribute their players is glue them in portable dvd viewers and distribute those.

      Epic Records did it with the latest Pearl Jam and Tori Amos records: they distributed discmans with the cd glued in.

  43. Piracy may increase layoffs by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Whether a picture is a hit or a dog, it makes no difference; once the picture is in the can, that is the end of the crew's involvement.

    But if more movies are distributed unlawfully, the major studios will invest in production of fewer movies, which means fewer "involvements" for the crew.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Piracy may increase layoffs by JayBlalock · · Score: 1
      But if more movies are distributed unlawfully, the major studios will invest in production of fewer movies, which means fewer "involvements" for the crew.

      Five words: Do you ACTUALLY believe that?

      The worst this would accomplish is that studios might stop blowing $200 million on $5 scripts in hopes of tricking the people into seeing them through a ($50 mil) ad campaign.

      Simple economics. If there is something out there hurting your profit margin, and there's nothing you can do to stop it, you find ways to lower your production costs. I'll give you a hint as to what's NOT a major aspect of those costs - all of the blue-collar guys are a TINY FRACTION of what the movie costs. You could probably hire every Grip and Rigger in Hollywood at Union scale and still not equal a Tom Cruise payday.

      It could, in fact, produce the opposite effect. H'wood quits making so many unjustifiably huge wannabe summer blockbusters, and uses the money to produce MORE mid-budget films. (you assume you're going to lose X% of your profits to piracy. Whatever X is, the smaller the budget on the film, the easier it is, overall, to turn a profit. Ergo, the huge films are hurt FAR more by piracy than the mid- to low-budget ones. Conclusion: quit making $200mil pictures (at least half of which are guaranteed to lost money, often in the tens of millions), focus more on films which can more easily turn a profit.)

      But, of course, it would be naughty to point out that market pressures can lead to greater overall productivity, wouldn't it?

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    2. Re:Piracy may increase layoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the REAL outcome of a less profitable movie industry (at least in terms of single investements) is that the investors and banks that producers court when making these films are less likely to give any money at all for ANYTHING since the profit is not likely to be there. So the size of the industry will shrink, and many of these stable union jobs will go the way of the dodo.

      Of course, the remainder will probably do better, and the industry will grow along that path in the long run and increase in size, but that initial collapse is going to be a bitch for them.

  44. Oh yeah by MasTRE · · Score: 1

    Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

    Awww, the poor actors will make only $9.5 mil a movie instead of $10 mil next year. Awww, that breaks my heart.

    The "camera operators, key grips, makeup artists" are on salary. They either fire them when the movie industry goes bust (yeah, right), or they are paid their salary. They don't make more money if the movie makes more money, they are not partners - they are replaceable employees. That's why Hollywood is full of ass-kissers - they know they are replaceable and don't have any dignity - they will do anything to keep their position (doggy-style).

    And it hurts me, being part of the "and customers?" No it doesn't. Not even this move will. I'll stop wasting my time watching crap Hollywood fare with production values adjusted for the lowest common denominator.

    --
    Must-not-watch TV!
    1. Re:Oh yeah by Disco+Stew · · Score: 0

      "...makeup artists, and cOstUmers."

      --
    2. Re:Oh yeah by MasTRE · · Score: 1

      My bad - ignore last paragraph from my OR ;)

      --
      Must-not-watch TV!
  45. Good job by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    I for one support the MPAA on this totally - its bloody annoying downloading a whole divx and then watching it only to find text like "This film is property of (somestudio) and is for awards purposes only" popping up on screen every 5 mins! Anything that will reduce these and let the good quality rips prosper is ok by me.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that those screeners are the ones with the most quality?? Typically, the award ones especially, they are on DVD, much better quality than those taken with a camera in a theatre.

    2. Re:Good job by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Yeah but i want the DVD rips that come after the cinema release

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  46. Before "Underworld" by psilosopher256 · · Score: 1

    I thought this would be an appropriate article to mention that, before the movie Underworld there was an industry sponsored commercial that asked us all to stop pirating movies. They used a few clips of an interview with a set designer, and he responded to the question of piracy by saying (I'm paraphrasing) "This doesn't really affect me, I get paid either way. Piracy only hurts the people at the top." Maybe they should have gotten someone else to comment. . .

    --
    ---Psilosopher
  47. You forgot one.... by lcde · · Score: 1

    Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

    .... and fluffers.

    --
    :%s/teh/the/g
  48. Inside Job by MisanthropicProggram · · Score: 1
    I knew it! All of the piracy is an inside job! I bet it's the same thing with music. The RIAA is just suing people to cover up the fact that THEY are the ones pirating the music. You see! The MPAA will start suing 12 year-old girls and grannies to cover up the fact that their members are the ones stealing. You'll see.

    I'm not paranoid, everyone IS out to get me!

    --

    There is no spoon or sig.

  49. So? by VargrX · · Score: 1
    Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.


    I'll care when the MPAA signature companies start to make making original films again, not rehashing stuff that's 20+ years old....

    --
    Sometimes people just have to learn and adapt to change, it is one of the requirements of being a living thing.
  50. This is easy to fix. by nsayer · · Score: 1

    Damn near every channel on TV has one of those stupid logos in the bottom corner. Seems like it would be no problem at all to put a serial number down there. If all of the movies had their screeners numbered this way, then there'd be no way for the judges to 'punish' an individual film for doing it. The pirates would have to black out that corner (and maybe that number could move around from place to place). At best, it would discourage insiders from giving away copies, and at worst it would make the pirated editions look more obvious.

    1. Re:This is easy to fix. by cyt0plas · · Score: 1

      The pirates would have to black out that corner (and maybe that number could move around from place to place). At best, it would discourage insiders from giving away copies, and at worst it would make the pirated editions look more obvious.

      As opposed to the big scrolling. "This movie is for awards consideration only. If you paid money for this, please call 1-800-NO-COPYS" message? I have a filter that would blur that sucker right out (without looking too ugly) - people really just don't care.

      --
      Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
    2. Re:This is easy to fix. by shepd · · Score: 1
      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  51. Does this really hurt the industry? by nlh · · Score: 1

    Ok, maybe I'm being dense here, but does piracy of in-theater movies _really_ hurt the industry? I mean, are there really people out there who are downloading movies INSTEAD of going to theaters?

    I can certainly understand anti-piracy efforts aimed at curbing DVD-ripping -- that's combatting people who don't want to pay $15 or whatever to buy a DVD -- same kind of people who pirate software, me thinks.

    But are there really that many people who will download a current-run movie INSTEAD of going to see it in a theater? Again, I certainly understand the allure of "having" one of those movies on your home PC (I mean, it's so 3r33t), but the experience of seeing a movie on the big-screen -- in true quality, with real sound, etc. -- isn't replacable. And if people think it is, well, then they're idiots AND cheapskates.

    1. Re:Does this really hurt the industry? by cyt0plas · · Score: 1

      They don't have this problem so much with action flicks, but comedies and the like often are only worth seeing once, especially with the crap the MPAA is currently putting out. Think about it. If you downloaded a movie that was supposed to be "funny", and it was a total bomb, would you still pay the $6.50 (or $8.50 as the case may be) to go see it? Perhaps you might, but many people (myself included) wouldn't.

      --
      Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
  52. On the slight chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that you might impregnate a female and reproduce, I beg of you not to do so. Thanks.

  53. True story... by DaHat · · Score: 1

    I've got a friend who's family works in Hollywood... if you were to look at a shelf in their home near the TV you will see hundreds of DVD's, all studio screeners, the thing that has always amazed me is that they get these DVD's a week or two BEFORE the theatrical release of the film.

    It amazes me that the powers that be have not tried to crack down on the distribution of these movies.

  54. I didn't even want to go to the movies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking of Star Wars...

    I also had VHS bootlegs before file sharing came out. Why? Because I wanted to watch a movie I really enjoyed without having to go to the theater.

    They say its stealing anyway, but what does it say when I had a Star Wars bootleg - then later owned the Pan & Scan VHS tape, Pan & Scan Laserdisc, that other Laserdisc (RCA), the VHS Letter box edition, the DVD trilogy that will be released eventually, and the super duper 6 movie last release of all time until another format is absoulted edition?

    The MPAA doesn't give the people enough credit, I just don't want to sit in a movie theater listening to people cough, BS, have their girlfriend go "What was that?", on a substandard media.

    I would much rather pop the VCD screen in my home theater system, eat my popcorn uninterupted, and make out with my girlfriend without getting kicked out.

    1. Re:I didn't even want to go to the movies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortuately, most of the fight against the RIAA/MPAA is not with it's members, but with PR people seeing their industry in jeopardy (or at least seeing a noticeable decline). Might be useful to set up a behind the scenes meeting with tech companies and real employees of said members.

      Their latest move is reality tv for politics.

  55. Piracy is bad???? by naztafari · · Score: 1

    But didn't Johnny Depp makes tons of money and critical accliam for portraying piracy?

  56. Are they still calling for a ban on all VCRs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those things are killing the movie industry too.

  57. Let's Direct Our Efforts vs a More Important Enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Save that venom for the H1-B, the L-1, and the offshoring filth in India...

    You'll need all that extra negative energy when we dismember their curry-stinking corpses.

  58. Everybody seems to be forgetting one thing... by dnaboy · · Score: 1

    The MPAA is supposed to be protecting the interests of the film makers... Shouldn't the individual movie houses that produce the movies have the right to decide how their films get distributed, and furthermore, whether the risk of it showing up on Kazaa or on a street corner is in their best interst? This seems like a pretty clear cut instance of the tail waving the dog.

    1. Re:Everybody seems to be forgetting one thing... by JoeXB · · Score: 1

      > Shouldn't the individual movie houses that produce the > movies have the right to decide how their films get > distributed, and furthermore, What you are advocating is a Charlie Chaplin-style Communism! There are no "individual" movie "houses" !

  59. Hold on... by theycallmeB · · Score: 1

    Isn't this what everyone (mostly Slashdot keyboard pundits) has been saying they should do for months now? Namely making an effort to stop the flow of movies into the P2P channels. If they pull this off, there might actually be a noticeable drop in the number of high quality rips appearing before a movie is in the theaters. And the seems to be the biggest of the MPAA's pet peeves. At least with the video camera copies, one person had to actually buy a ticket.

    And it might even work.

  60. Seems kinda dumb by Unregistered · · Score: 1

    Once the movie is available for sale on DVD, it's gonna be pirated anyway. i dont' see what's the big deal about screeners. I admit that i downlaod screeners for movies that don't have a DVD yet. But it it's a good movie i still buy the dvd. Remember, DVD movies are better than rips. This isn't music after all.

  61. re:X-mas for pirates...Run on sentences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a Really good idea. It wont stop the telecine's and telesync's and cams, but this will get rid off very early release DVD's and downloaders will be stuck with crappy quality camcorded realeases til the dvd can be stolen and releaed early

  62. Do these people live in the dark ages? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    A few solutions:

    1. Give out the screener in some mass-produced player thats all encrypted and erases itself after a week. Open it or try anything funny and it wipes itself.

    2. Have actual screeners, you know, rent a theater.

    3. Watermark the crap out of them.

    I like the idea of a special DRM player. The MPAA can weigh the benefits of courting the vote of the academy members with the cost of the devices.

    1. Re:Do these people live in the dark ages? by happyhippy · · Score: 1
      1. If the screener doesnt come with its own screen, then what stops you from hooking up a video to its TV socket. If it does come with a screen, what stops you from pointing a camera at it and recording it? And the screen size will have to be huge, as having a movie played on a laptop sized screen will have an affect if someone likes it or not. Imagine trying to watch LOTR on a crappy laptop screen!

      2. There are how many films nominated each year? And hundreds of screeners. Try to work out the logicistics of that! And the screeners wont be able to review any of the movies at their leisure.

      3. Already listed above but compression destroys watermarks.

  63. Movies are too hard to Download by Bruha · · Score: 1

    I mean lets get real here.. a movie most times is over a gig in size and not many people can acheive the full download speed anyways. (I'm speaking from a p2p perspective and not 2 buddies with t3's at work passing them on)

    But I know many people who have bootlegs of movies and considering the 8 dollar plus snacks and quality/crowding issues at theatres nowdays it's a wonder nobody makes returns to the movie no matter how good it is..

    I've avoided opening nights on fridays and just have gone on a sunday or monday when it's not crowded and I can sit comfortably with the wife.

    Also they might want to look at these movies that they release that the preview was better than the movie. Such as the latest woody allen movie with christina ricci and the kid from american pie.. it was worthless.. I would of paid to see a slightly longer preview and been done with it instead of wasting 2 hours of my life watching what I thought was a boring movie.

    1. Re:Movies are too hard to Download by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      DivX rips are usually 700MB (designed to fit on a CD) and can be downloaded over 56Kb dialups if you leave them running, just like ordering a dvd over the net it takes a couple of days. Broadband can get them in a few hours. They are easily availiable on Kazaa and eDonky for example.

      Disclaimer: This post is not a legal confession, this is a legal confession: "nah nah nah nah can't touch this, nah nah nah nah hammer time!

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:Movies are too hard to Download by code_echelon · · Score: 1

      Never heard the argument that downloading a move is to hard from a slashdot reader before. From your first argument I don't know if you have ever used a P2P client but all you have to do is type in the name and double click on the file that you want. Its not hard in any way, most people will have the movie within a day or a few at most. Most movies that you would download are also not more than a gig in size, most are made to fit on one cd at around 700 MB, and they are encoded in Xvid or Divx format. Many computer users also have a video card that supports TV out so they can watch these movies over there television with very little noticeable difference over the real dvd. Except for extra scenes etc., but most people do not watch these anyways.

      "But I know many people who have bootlegs of movies and considering the 8 dollar plus snacks and quality/crowding issues at theatres nowdays it's a wonder nobody makes returns to the movie no matter how good it is.."

      This is definately more of an issue, I also know many people who due to the hassle of going to the movie, the high prices, the crowds and the seating would rather relax in the comfort of there own or a friends home and watch a movie. Sometimes a rented movie or sometimes a downloaded one.

      "Such as the latest woody allen movie with christina ricci and the kid from american pie.. it was worthless.. I would of paid to see a slightly longer preview and been done with it instead of wasting 2 hours of my life watching what I thought was a boring movie."

      Damn I also saw that movie and personally thought it was terrible. Many people today have been so dissapointed in the quality and originality of many movies today that they no longer have any desire to go to the theater and see the next revamp of something that was done twenty or thirty years ago.

  64. What difference does this make? by andy1307 · · Score: 1

    The actor with the English accent playing the retard will still win the Oscar, whether the MPAA actually watches the movie or not.

  65. Not Yet... by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 1

    At the same time, theaters owners have taken a stance against the long-held practice of providing free admittance to members of these guilds and associations.

    So until they stop that practice, viewers can go to the movies and still not pay. Although I guess they do have to pony up for popcorn.

    The article also mentions that studios will set up screenings sometimes too, which I'm sure are free

  66. solution? by anonymous+leprechaun · · Score: 1

    Why doesnt the MPAA buy out ALL "entertainment outlets" and need NOT screeners. employees have to take an oath against piracy.

  67. It doesn't hurt these people by scifience · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

    I'm not sure that it hurts anyone but the movie companies. The movies that are pirated are being made, and therefore, the people who help to make them are still getting paid for their work.

    The MPAA isn't going to say "we aren't going to make movies anymore because a few people pirate them." The majority of people are still going to go to the theater or buy the DVD if they want to see a movie. Nobody loses but the companies that make the movies. And even if, say, 50,000 people download a pirated movie instead of going to the theater, at $7 a ticket only $35,000 is lost, some of which goes to the theater. Movie pirating is not mainstream enough to be a major concern at the moment.

    1. Re:It doesn't hurt these people by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      7 x 50,000 != 35,000

      it's 350,000

      still not huge but at least a little more significant

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    2. Re:It doesn't hurt these people by scifience · · Score: 0

      That is what I meant to write. My bad :) $350,000 out of the $15 million made on opening weekend is not a HUGE loss. Yes, it is a loss, but my point is that it is not directly affecting the actors, writers, costume designers, etc.

  68. Re:IANAL (IMNAL?) by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
    If it's in your signature and you really want it to prevent lawsuits, then it would be best to spell it out:

    I am not a lawyer.

    Otherwise, you might have a hard time convincing the judge that someone dumb enough to take your legal advice is smart enough to know what the acronym stands for.

    Also, I prefer the contraction-modified version of this acronym: "IMNAL" because it doesn't sound as much like "I take it up the ass."

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  69. A couple of things about the MPAA's proposal by Thagg · · Score: 1

    Many actors, directors, and other talent have contracts that require the studios to send out screeners -- so that they have a chance in the Oscar competition. Not to cast aspersions on particular movies, but I don't think we would have gotten some of these films if it weren't for contractual obligations. I don't think the MPAA can abrogate these contracts post hoc, although they may not get written in the future.

    The other issue is that the Awards show has been moved up this year, to the point where screeners will probably have to be sent out well in advance of the theatrical release of films -- especially of films released in December targeted at the Academy nominating process.

    The biggest problem with the MPAA's proposal is that it won't work -- perhaps the quality of the pirated movies will go down somewhat without screeners, but there are so many ways of pirating films that it will still happen.

    There aren't all that many Academy members -- burning 6000 individually customized DVDs wouldn't be too hard. The other award-granting bodies are significantly smaller, still. And what could be more rewarding to somebody to get a customized DVD -- "This movie is for the private screening of Joe Member only". It sounds like a good business model to me, the business of making customized screeners.

    thad

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  70. Gaffers by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Funny
    Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

    Don't forget the Best Boy!

    And the gaffer!
    My personnal favourite:

    One entry found for gaffe.
    Main Entry: gaffe
    Pronunciation: 'gaf
    Function: noun
    Etymology: French, gaff, gaffe
    Date: 1909
    : a social or diplomatic blunder

    Oh, to be paid to make diplomatic blunders...
    : )
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Gaffers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean George W. Bush is a Gaffer?

      Suddenly I am reminded of the movie "Wag the Dog"

    2. Re:Gaffers by sharkey · · Score: 1
      Oh, to be paid to make diplomatic blunders...

      President Bush? Is that you?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  71. strange by mlong · · Score: 1

    I've seen a few screeners in my time (legally) and they always had big flashing titles all over the screen saying it was a screener, etc. If anyone duplicates it and distributes it then its pretty obvious where it came from. And its pretty painful to try to sit through a long tape with all that stuff on the screen. So I don't see what the issue is...perhaps they are trying ot make an issue out of nothing?

    --
    //m
  72. Why Pirate? by afinnie · · Score: 1

    If I pirate, it is because it is a way to have way more stuff than I would ever concievably purchase. There's no way I EVER purchase 800 albums or 150 movies. Thanks to the fact that the movie industry is NOT reacting completely like the RIAA (except for that whole DeCSS mess, which pisses me off), I actually go to see movies at the theater. And thanks to the lack of quality control amongst many divx encodings combined with the huge file size, I go to video stores and rent movies. Oh wait, this was about the whole "screener" thing. If they want to cut out the screeners, that's their right. It would certainly eliminate all the DVD rips that come out before the movie is released. I'm not that shameless of a pirate that I'm going to comlain that the movie industry can't deprive me of my right to have a dvd-quality illegal pre-release of whatever movie is out. I think they're just afriad that these pirated screeners cuts into movie theater profits. Which, I guess, is a perfectly valid worry. I just hope it results in lower theater prices; I'm tired of paying $7.50 to see a movie. And as far as I can tell, that's kind of at the low end of the spectrum.. Which would be why I wait until a movie comes out on DVD and is no longer a new release. Then I can watch it for $1/5 days thanks to my local video store, which is sorta back to my original point.

  73. More tha piracy by 56ksucks · · Score: 1

    Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

    You know what else hurts them more than piracy? Bad movies that no one wants to see! It's been several months since I've even had the desire to go see a movie.

    -----

    --

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

  74. They can dish it out, but they can't take it! by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    It's okay for them to rip consumers off, but it's not okay for consumers to rip them off?! How does THAT work?

    They complain about piracy, yadda yadda yadda, but then they have the nerve to re-release the same movie every year or so under a Specila Ultra Deluxe Edition or whatever.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  75. Lighten Up.... by BRock97 · · Score: 1

    Why be sarcastic about this?

    I believe that you are mixing things up. The sarcasm was centered on the commercial, not on the idea of what the MPAA is trying to teach. I, for one, appreciate the sarcasm. These commercials are stupid and treat the movie going audience as ignorant. I don't need to be reminded that thousands of people went into make the Lord of the Rings series and that these same people might have their bottom line hurt by movie piracy.

    First the general Slashdot position was "Don't shut down P2P, shut down the criminals." Then it was "Don't shut down the criminals, they don't know any better." Now it is "Don't educate people on WHY a movie costs 8 dollars".
    --snip--
    Seems to me Slashdot is becoming more and more a piracy advocacy board.


    Give me a break. If you would, please site articles that back up this ludicrous statement. I agree that Slashdot and its admins have an agenda, but your statement is definately not even close.

    Seems to me that educating people on why we need to contribute to movies is the best solution for everyone.

    Seems to me that treating people as if they were intelligent is the best solution for everyone.

    PS The Slashdot crowd is the FIRST ones to complain if a movie looks "cheap" or "fake".

    I take it, then, that Slashdot is your only source for news? I find that reviewers in the national papers are more likely to be critical like that in the days before a movie is release, well before the "Slashdot crowd" gets their hands on it. Your statement here makes absolutely no sense.

    --

    Bryan R.
    The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
  76. I don't watch US movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...no matter if they're screeners or whatever.. I think american movies SUCK!! Go someone and tell the MPAA about it.

  77. Little known fact... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the movie's a GOOD one, "pirated" copies that leak out before a movie is released actually INCREASE ticket sales. But if the movie's lame, then a leak will cause a "Don't bother!" word of mouth problem. I guess it is the latter issue the MPAA must be worried about, since lame movies are a growing percentage of all movies produced by MPAA members.

  78. Some of you people are REALLY DENSE! by alien999 · · Score: 1

    1. The problem is not people who are legitimate receivers of screeners who are pirating, it's what happens to the disc after that person watches it. They are borrowed, stolen, and some are pirated. Once the disc is in circulation, it's hard to control it. 2. You can't easily serialize these screeners. There are maybe 1500 to 2000 screeners of each movie. Do the math. 3.The problem with camcorders in theatres is not just the P2P channel, but the fact that pirated copy gets FTP'd out of the country where it shows up on VCDs in Asia or Europe. Especially in Europe this can destroy the legitimate opening week for the movie, since they get the movie a bit later than the US. And don't argue that they should open the movie simultaneously around the world. Not going to happen for a whole slew of reasons that frankly many of you wouldn't understand, like striking localized release prints, and localizing the marketing, doing the PR (actors can only give one interview at a time), honoring territorial commitments, etc. 4. The MPAA is a trade group that represents the studios' interest. Get it straight. 5. It is the sworn duty of entities like the MPAA and RIAA to protect their copyrights. That is one of the main reasons they exist. They will never knowingly relinquish copyright control. THAT"S WHY THEY EXIST!

  79. What's good for the goose... by OneFix · · Score: 1

    You know what...I actually have no problems with this move.

    What has the /. crowd been telling the RIAA??? "change your business model"...which isn't much more than "learn to deal with it"...well, they ARE doing something...and it's not pissing off/suing their customers.

    The way I see it, they've decided that the release of the early screener is hurting DeeVeeDee sales.

    So, they've went to the source...they are taking a hit in potential ratings/awards.

    I would personally rather see this than to see the MPAA start going after file sharing/end users like the RIAA has been.

    As for my movie purchasing, I'll still go see movies at the theater and I'll still buy DVDs.

    DVDs can generally be found for $10-$15 on the week of release (about the same price as new albums)...which have tons of extra content. And not only that, they are gradually putting all of their back catalog onto DVD (for cheap prices).

    1. Re:What's good for the goose... by forkboy · · Score: 1

      DVDs can generally be found for $10-$15 For any movie that is even remotely worth seeing, try $20. Either I'm shopping in the wrong place or you're grossly misinformed on the price of new DVDs.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    2. Re:What's good for the goose... by Nerd4News · · Score: 1

      "Either I'm shopping in the wrong place or you're grossly misinformed on the price of new DVDs."

      You're shopping in the wrong place. I just bought an armload of older titles at Walfart for $5.88. Granted, they weren't new releases but they were still movies I would enjoy owning and watching a few more times. Target always has their $10 & $15 racks which contain older stuff along with releases that are only a few months old. Some are surprisingly new. Best Buy has lots of sub $10 titles but you often have to dig around for them.

      As for new releases, those same 3 retailers usually have them for $15 or less during release week. The occasional title might go for $16.99 or $17.99 for a week before it jumps $5+ for a few months until it falls back down to that level again.

      I downloaded an Xvid DVD rip of Christine with the intent of rendering it to SVCD. That was until I found the DVD at Target for $10. I dumped the Xvid and bought the DVD. And, I gave up moderator points to respond to this thread. You can thank me later.

  80. shitty movies by portscan · · Score: 1
    There are some movies that are just junk, however I kind of want to see them. Some examples from this past year include:
    • Daredevil (another installment of the crappy comic book movies--but I'm a comic junkie, what can I say?)
    • Hulk (same)
    • T3 (sequel several years after the fact -- obviously just to make money)
    • Bad Boys 2 (same)
    Living in New York City, movies cost $10 and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay that much for prepackaged junk.

    Just as I continue to buy CDs which I think are worth the price charged for them, I still continue to go see movies I think will be worth my $10, but few movies fall into this category. It's simple market economics. The reason I don't go to the movies is that I don't want to shell out all that cash. The fact that I can still get ahold of these movies by other means is pretty irrelevant.
  81. Netflix Go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone, just get a DVD burner and a netflix account. Ignore the MPAA and their cries about piracy.

  82. This is about as insane as it gets. by Stumbles · · Score: 0
    Man the MPAA and RIAA has their heads so far up their arse it would take a D9 cat to pull it out.

    Now they are not satisfied with making as many of their customers criminals. They now accuse those people who make their products they sell of being criminals.

    Ok, so now the MPAA and RIAA are against those who give them money and those who make the things so other CAN give them their money.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
  83. pithy commentary by portscan · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's own members are the main source of piracy.

    So many things wrong with this. First of all, just becasue screeners are a source of piracy, does not mean they are the main source of piracy. Nowhere in the article does it say this, and having seen many "pirated" movies, I can say that very few of them have been screeners. Most seem to be ripped from DVDs or, to a lesser extent, VHS tapes.

    Second, the people who receive screeners are not really members of the MPAA. The MPAA is an industry group of major movie studios. The people who get screeners are members of the Academy and Writers, Directors, and Screen Actors Guilds. Yes, the people who leak screeners are technically part of the industry, but they are not members of the MPAA.

    Third, what does it matter if these people are in the movie industry? The MPAA has noticed a source of pirated movies over which it potentially has control and has attempted to close up this hole. Would you rather they went after you?
    1. Re:pithy commentary by nagora · · Score: 1
      Given how early most pirated DVD's are out it's hard to see that the MPAA's members couldn't be the main source, whether from screeners or, more likely, simply illicitly copied from the editing room or the master copies during duplication pre distribution.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  84. Hurts them worse than piracy? by eforhan · · Score: 1
    "Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers."
    What about crappy movies like Gigli, Charlie's Angles 2, and most recent Dana Carvey flicks?

    I'm not for pirating, but I'm certainly against going to the theater and being subject to watching some guy tell me how pirating won't hurt the stars and producers (much) but really hurts "Joe Blow".

    I half expect Sally Struthers to pop up and say, "Save the children!"
  85. Ho, hum... by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

    I don't watch Hollywood movies anyway.

    --
    Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    1. Re:Ho, hum... by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      Yeah man, Bollywood represent!

  86. morons reach out to greed/fear based execrable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok already. we've already tolled you we'd buy your stinking movIEs. we (that's most of US) will not, however, be held hostage to your monopolistic softwar gangster megalomaniacal p&c freak style behaviours, ever again.

    as the artists (the real vendors here) come to realize whois really paying for the mansions, they'll gladly accept customers' offers of +- 3$ +- per audio/vdo, or whatever's fair. there might end up being fewer phonIE billyonerror middlemen, but that might not be such a bad idea anyway.

    as y'all corepirate nazis are so darned prone to saying, 'we'll let the market decide'?

    the lights are coming up now. see you there?

  87. The Way It Really Works ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that everyone who receives these doesn't have time or, more often, doesn't bother watching them.

    I have both family and friends in the industry and it has never ceased to amaze me seeing the piles of what can be easily be considered as "promotional crap" piling up on and around television sets from Malibu to Beverly Hills. Irrespective of the obligations of Academy members, the tapes and DVDs in their slick packages are the functional equivalent of a free T-Shirt received at an office party.

    The irony in this, however, is inescapable. They're "copies" and not unlike copies made of music CDs distributed on P2P networks -- the "content producers" have everything to gain and nothing to lose. The cost of anything remotely promotional always gets expensed at tax time and the attendant lunches, dinners, wardrobes and limousines should provide some indication to the public that there's money to be made in having stuff thrown around for free.

    On a somewhat related note, I'm reminded of a bit of lawyering I was involved with some years ago. The deal concerned a stock offering being made by a company which was, at the time, in Chapter 11. Special exemptions from the SEC were needed (and eventually obtained) to allow the deal to proceed. What was more surprising than seeing a bankrupt company offer for sale shares of its stock, and more suprising than seeing people buying those shares, was seeing how many of those involved earn handsome bonuses or fees from their work. That said, I'll submit that the views and opinions of those on Slashdot championing the rights of entertainment companies to make money and decrying the modern threats to their business models is somewhere between ill-informed and naive. The rich and powerful always find a way to hold to on to maintain their wealth and control. Ask Daryl McBride.

    Back to the subject at hand ... personally, I hope that the Powers That Be in the movie industry refrain from screaming and suing people for imagined losses because their counterparts in other industries are starting to do the same.

  88. Get real jobs [Re:Slashdot really POs me sometime] by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

    So what if it hurts camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers? They're not going to get any sympathy from someone doing merchandizing after having been a programmer for 20 years.

    Let the whole of Big Media rot.

    --
    Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
  89. Damn right it leads to piracy! by phiwum · · Score: 1

    I have to agree with the MPAA on the claim that screeners lead to piracy. Back in June, I picked up a nice quality Two Towers DVD in China (for about $2). The only flaws were:

    (1) The English subtitles had nothing at all to do with the Two Towers or any other movie, I think. Though, they did repeat the words "sword" and "princess" regularly, they were utterly incoherent.

    (2) The navigation menu is from Lord of the Rings. The chapter titles and pictures give no clue where on the DVD the link takes you (which is never the beginning of a scene).

    (3) Every so often, you see a subtitle that this is a release for Oscar judges only and not intended for public viewing.

    This is considerably less annoying than that other DVD I have, which helpfully runs a subtitle every so often reading:

    "Sale or rental of this disc is ILLEGAL. If you have rented or
    purchased this disc, please call the MPAA at 1-800-NO-COPYS."

    Very effective, that. I'm sure I would've called, too, but 1-800 numbers don't work from the Netherlands.

    --
    Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
  90. Yeah, so? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers."

    The MPAA themselves are hurting them with heavy-handed tactics that make me boycott their products. Or am I somehow now a "bad person" because I'm not parting with my MPAA tax?

  91. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what the RIAA has to realize; ALL daily 0day albums are released from INSIDERS - i.e., workers in music stores, Dj's, Radio Stations, etc.

    Granted, stopping it will not stop music piracy, but it will eliminate these "Pre Releases" (a pre-release is a CD that is released in mp3 format on the net BEFORE it's released in stores, and sometimes this can be a significant amount of time '1-2+ months'). So yeah, the RIAA needs to realize this crap too.

  92. It's the highlight of my year when the screeners.. by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    ...arive. The problem is, the alternative is going to screenings paid for by the studios and these are almost invariably in LA. I hope they don't stop. And I certainly don't want them reverting to VHS. IMHO Anyone who judges the quality of a movie based on a VHS is wasting their vote.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  93. Agreed. It'll never work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if the studios try this, there are going to be lots and lots of exceptions made. They won't be able to refuse Star X, and then Star Y will feel slighted. So even if they were to make an earnest attempt, it would quickly disolve into the Hollywood perq system.

  94. It's == it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not the possessive /no grammar for you!

  95. Let them starve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did it occur to anyone, if everyone got their fair share of money then things would be MORE expensive?! Having some people starve become someone stole their royalties keeps food cheap. If you do away with piracy, the next think you go McD's value menu will start costing 1.99 and not 1.00!

  96. Working as an assistant cameraman by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

    I can tell you that piracy isn't so much hurting the trade, as is shooting gigs in Canada, Austrailia, and other bum fuck places where they get their crew for peanuts. That's the main threat for American cinema workers. Not Kazaa

    1. Re:Working as an assistant cameraman by code_echelon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "I can tell you that piracy isn't so much hurting the trade"

      Why can you tell us that, I know lots of people that don't go to the movies or rent movies as frequently due to the fact they can download it very quickly and easily. Seems like the MPAA also share this thought since they have done research on this and if it wasn't a problem they really would have no need to waste millions of there dollars on dealing with it.

      "as is shooting gigs in Canada, Austrailia, and other bum fuck places where they get their crew for peanuts."

      Funny both places that you mentioned have less poverty, and a higher minimum wage rate. The cost of the crew in Canada would possibly be cheaper currently only because of the exchange rate however the cost of the crew is not the cost that is eating away at there enormous budget. The reason they leave your country is due to the taxation and the cost of permits that they need to acquire from YOUR goverment in order to make there movies.

      Furthermore , don't blame other countries for the fact that most actors and actresses used in these movies(mostly Americans), have over priced themselves so much that in order for the studios to afford to make the movie, with a large name actor or actresses, they have to find other ways to cut costs. You can pay actors, actresses and athletes ridiculous amounts of money however you can't provide health care, employment and a place to live for so many of your own people.

      Also many dominant movie companies, most which are also American, are only concerned with there own selfish interest and the outcome of the movie and are not as concerned about the people in the United States who missed out on a camera man job. Most of these people are also from the United States so it is there own country that they are turning there back on, not the fault of Canada or Australia. Many movies are shot in other places in the world as they take place in other places in the world and it would better serve to advance the plot of the movie. The United States is also so highly dense with population that they cannot always just shoot a movie anywhere as they are effecting too many other people, moving to other countries is often very practical and the only way that the movie is going to be created as the director and producer would like.

      "That's the main threat for American cinema workers.Not Kazaa"

      Wrong again, the main threat for American cinema workers is currently the cost of your actors and the government in which you voted in. I love the United States and visit quite often but so many of you are quick to point the finger at someone else for your own internal problems and laziness(the only country in the world that you can possibly sue McDonalds because it is making you fat). Also why do you fell like you should not have to compete with the rest of the world. We are living in a free market system if you can not keep companies in your country then you must be doing something wrong and maybe you should look at that internally. You seem to love the free market system when you are on top of it, however seem to fear competition like no other.

      Anyways, thanks for coming out and trying to post something intelligent maybe next time you will get it somewhat near the truth.

    2. Re:Working as an assistant cameraman by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

      first of all, you seem to have a gripe with the people who are running the United States. Guess what? I have a gripe with them too. But if you are so cultured and wise to the ways of the world, you would recognize that a country's populace does not reflect those who run it. The current administration is absolutely crazy. And to argue that the populace elected them is another stretch of the imagination. Don't you recall hearing something of the America's 2000 election fiasco?

      Many movies are shot in other places in the world as they take place in other places in the world and it would better serve to advance the plot of the movie.

      You evidently have not worked in film. Producers don't give a damn to story in comparasin to the bottom line. If this producer can shave 10 percent of his budget by shooting in Canada, or Bulgaria, then he'll do it. It's the art departments job to make the locale look the part. And working with a better exchange rate, they'll have the resources to do it. And if they can get local personnel, and shave even more money, then that's what they'll do. In the end, its local US who boys who get screwed. And note, runaway production have been escalating for years, long before movie piracy became so common

      You can pay actors, actresses and athletes ridiculous amounts of money however you can't provide health care, employment and a place to live for so many of your own people.

      Funny, I never knew that the government ran the entertainment industry. Sure, the salaries are ludicrous, but those are private transactions. And yes, those salaries definitely hurt the bottom line. As for government spending, I'm all for universal health care and other basic human rights. Personally, I'd love to slash the military and put those resources to the people. But that's not gonna happen, especailly with business so embued into the system which plainy does suck.

      And I agree with you in regards to our own companies selling us out. Listen - I don't like the free market system. I never said I did. I don't like our manufacturing jobs being shipped out to other countries. Especially to places in China where sweatshops have become an artform. But i'm not running this country. Big business currently is doing it, and I have to live with the results of it.

      I suggest you stop believing your own predjudices about Americans, and start actually meeting them. Your post seems to hijack the topic at hand in an attempt to espouse your views of my people and country. Fine. That's your right. But if you took to the time to take your head out of your backside, you'd realize that you and I probably share a lot of views. But its so damn fun kick an American. Isn't it?

    3. Re:Working as an assistant cameraman by pod · · Score: 1

      Yeah, whatever. No matter where they are shooting, bit name stars and directors still make the same money. Maybe there's the problem?

      If someone gets paid USD50/hour shooting in the US, same job position will probably pay CDN50/hour shooting in Canada, and AUS50/hour shooting in Australia. The difference is in the exchange rate. This is applied to wages, equipment of all kinds, food, rent and permits, etc.

      You can't have it both ways. You can't complain that it is cheaper to make movies in Canada and Australia, and then come here on vacation because your dollar goes so much further in these 'bumfuck' countries.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    4. Re:Working as an assistant cameraman by code_echelon · · Score: 1

      "first of all, you seem to have a gripe with the people who are running the United States."

      I definately do not agree with many of the policies that the current administration of the United States hold, however I was mainly pointing out your blaming my country and Australia for the current situation in this industry. In your original post you did call Canada and Australia a bum fuck place.

      "Don't you recall hearing something of the America's 2000 election fiasco?"

      I do recall this very well however in the end he is still your current president and the person that leads your country into the world, at least for the moment.

      "You evidently have not worked in film. Producers don't give a damn to story in comparison to the bottom line."

      I do not work in film however I know people that do and they definately do search for location on more than cost alone. Serving the plot always has to be important as if the movie is not accurate to how it should be portrayed it most likely will not sell as well as they want, if this was not true they can definately find cheaper places than Canada and Australia to go and file a movie. Cost is a large factor of course as they want to cut costs to increase there bottomline but it is not the only one.

      "It's the art departments job to make the locale look the part." This is true but it is within reason so the locale does make in essence some difference. Especially in some of the new films today where they build large life like models of parts of the movie world, an example of this would be both the Lord of the Rings films.

      "Funny, I never knew that the government ran the entertainment industry."

      The point I was making was one about the greed of the actors and actresses, them being paid such large amounts of money does in the end hurt the people on the set thats making minimum wage. And I was not saying that this is only true in the United States, this is something that happens all over the world. "And I agree with you in regards to our own companies selling us out. Listen - I don't like the free market system. I never said I did. I don't like our manufacturing jobs being shipped out to other countries. Especially to places in China where sweatshops have become an artform. But i'm not running this country. Big business currently is doing it, and I have to live with the results of it."

      I agree with you here.

      "I suggest you stop believing your own predjudices about Americans, and start actually meeting them. Your post seems to hijack the topic at hand in an attempt to espouse your views of my people and country. Fine. That's your right. But if you took to the time to take your head out of your backside, you'd realize that you and I probably share a lot of views. But its so damn fun kick an American. Isn't it?"

      What prejudices about the Americans exactly are you talking about. I pointed out that some of you, not all(not even the majority) are quick to point the blame(blaming Canada and Australia for movies being shot elsewhere), to other countries when the system you are working with seems currently to be the problem. I was also not saying that our system is showing to be superior because I think it is clear we all are dealing with many of the same problems especially the United States and Canada.

      "But if you took to the time to take your head out of your backside, you'd realize that you and I probably share a lot of views."

      Never said we didn't share views I just don't agree with you on this one. I don't believe like you do that other countries such as Canada and Australia are resposible for why movie producers are deciding to shoot films in other countries. I also disagree on your original point about how Canada and Australia are "bum fuck places".

    5. Re:Working as an assistant cameraman by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

      Nationalism is an absurd concept. But in any case, I apologize for calling Austrailia a bum fuck place. It's not. Neither is Canada. That was gut reaction with no class. So here's to living in a sane world. Cheers.

    6. Re:Working as an assistant cameraman by code_echelon · · Score: 1

      No problem I have similar negative reactions to posts all the time. And in terms of the US and Canada I love both countries I just feel as if we are both being led in the wrong direction by our leaders. Thanks for the response, cheers.

    7. Re:Working as an assistant cameraman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw, are you guys gonna go kiss and make up now? The ass-sex is gonna be amazing.

  97. Brian Ellenberger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hardly knew her!

  98. Flea Markets!!! by adzoox · · Score: 1
    I was at a local Flea Market today - Terminator 3, Pirates Of The Carribean, and Underworld $8 at AT LEAST 5 different tables.

    What I wish is that they would let geeks serve community service time (if being punished criminally) by assisting officers at Flea Markets around the country stopping these piracy rings which are physical goods.

    To continue; I think a techie could also assist with knowing what electronics might be stolen as well.

    To top it off, I'd like to see some Latinos with food liscenses and visa checks from these markets too.

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  99. This is smart by Teahouse · · Score: 2, Informative

    They need to do this. I live in LA, and every friend I know in the MP Industry has loads of free movies they get from screeners. They often have them before it's released in theatres. You can't bitch about people bootlegging your material when you send out a buttload of copies before it's even released just to get votes for an awards show.

    It's good discipline on the part of the MPAA. They need a little.

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
  100. DivX did not self destruct by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

    I had a freind who worked a circuit city when the whole DivX thing had a chance to be hot. and it worked like this the DivX (not Divx which is a rather nice codec) was a normal DVD with a unique code imprented in its first few bytes. The DivX player would upon having a new DivX Dvd inserted call a central server to see if :
    A: This disk had never been viewed before.
    B: You had sent a certain amount of money to the company to make this disk permenatly available to you.
    If either of these were true it let you watch the disk. If not it brought up billing options to watch the disk.
    It was a clever system and if it could have gotten support from say blockbuster video could have been successful. Annoying and not supported by me but still success could have been had

    --
    I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  101. Require DVD release to qualify for Oscar by 74Carlton · · Score: 1

    They could just require a movie to be released on DVD before it qualifies for an Oscar. The delay between theatrical release and DVD release is about six months average now, right? And some go virtually straight to DVD.

  102. screeners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who is a programmer (read 'film programming', not 'computer programming') for a large film festival, I deal with screeners for films constantly.

    I also deal with the Academy, as we help satisfy the requirements for films to be nominated for academy awards, so I am familiar with the screener requirements of the academy itself.

    I would safely say that 99% of all screeners are on a low-fi VHS format. If you are not familiar with the generational quality between a digital format (such as DVDs, which are incredibly compressed to begin with) and VHS, you should know that the comparison is striking. VHS copies are instantly recognizable, and if you were to use a VHS screener to master a DVD, the quality difference would be noticable, not just in video, but in audio quality as well.

    If the Academy shortlists a film for consideration, the filmmaker has to submit 25 VHS's and 2 film prints to the Academy board. You could, in theory, master DVD's off of the film prints, but that would be fairly expensive and time consuming. It's possible that this is exactly what the black market is doing, but I would assume it would be easy to secure those 2 film prints, and make sure they didn't 'disappear' for several days to some clandistine film lab somewhere.

    If the MPAA wants to tighten the process, restricting VHS screeners is not the way to go. How else would programmers be able to select which films they will show? We certainly can't take the filmmaker's word on their films. This is a 'cart before the horse' issue as it's a format problem to begin with, not a burden by film programmers who are dealing with low-fi source material in the first place.

  103. Proofreaders? by yroJJory · · Score: 1

    Does E! Online not have any proofreaders? That article is nearly impossible to read. Jeez!

    --
    Jory
  104. Dots by Inda · · Score: 1

    Already being done with dots on a few frames of the movie.

    http://www.vcdquality.com/nfo.php?id=18919&show=te xt

    A screenshot is availible on the site too.

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  105. Wait?? WAIT???!!! by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If there's anything Hollywood fears more than piracy, it's the possibility that their audience might develop the ability to delay gratification.

    1. Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!! by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      hehehe Yeah. One movie that springs immediately to mind on the awards screener front was "Bowling for Columbine". The DVD screener was ripped and on the net a good 8 months before the DVD proper was released.

    2. Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!! by BeerSlurpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Significant movies I remember being available from screeners/internal sources are:

      sum of all fears: leaked about 3 weeks before theater opening

      matrix: leaked two weeks before theater opening, but with some of the soundtrack music not mixed in yet- neo and trinity talk in a quiet club for example with no rob zombie in the background

      lotr:tt- perfect DVD rip released the same week as it premiered in the theaters. Had little warnings saying "for academy awards consideration only" that popped up once ever 20 minutes below the letterboxing

      spiderman- leaked on dvd same time as it came out

      hulk- everyone knows about this one

      attack of the clones- perfect dvd rip the same week it showed in theaters

      There are like a billion others I cant even remember right now. Basically 90 percent of the high quality piracy is being supplied by the movie industry itself right now. I dont see how they can justify stiffer controls on us when their left and right hand are ignorant of one another.

    3. Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Significant movies I remember being available from screeners/internal sources are:

      sum of all fears
      matrix
      lotr:tt
      spiderman
      hulk
      attack of the clones

      There are like a billion others I cant even remember right now.

      I'm sorry, I thought you said 'significant'...

    4. Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was brilliant, man. Oh so true too. What if most people waited a couple of weeks after a DVD was released so they could find it used at the local wherehouse at half the price? Hollywood would have a shit fit.

    5. Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!! by Tony-A · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there's anything Hollywood fears more than piracy, it's the possibility that their audience might develop the ability to delay gratification.

      Dunno if they do, but they should.

      If I develop the ability to delay gratification, I also develop the ability to question that gratification and in the cold light of reason decide that it is not worthwhile. Watch the hot new movie on TV when it comes to TV and you will discover that it never was that hot. Just the hype and the excitement of the moment made it seem that way.

    6. Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      That's dangerous thinking, buster. Seditious, even. Next you'll be questioning the basic social principle of the Bush Era: buying lots of useless crap is patriotic!

    7. Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, I STILL haven't seen the second LOTR movie yet.

    8. Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope that is just a sock-puppet account. It would be sad to think that a real person would work so hard to link anything and everything to bush... let alone believe there is a "bush era" that is somehow magically different in terms of social priciples just because dubya became president a couple of years ago.

    9. Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Which is only fair. If nobody ripped off Michael Moore's DVDs then he'd lose his status as Righteous Outsider. It makes up for the fact that he makes all his money from the same corporate establishment he loves to criticize.

    10. Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!! by fm6 · · Score: 1
      You know, I have no problems with Hollywood demanding that I pay for my entertainment. They have every right to expect a profit. No profits, no movies, and who wants that?

      But your post tells us something important about their priorities. This isn't just about compensating creative people. This is about controlling access to the content. If all they wanted to do was prevent piracy, they'd just flood the market with legitimate copies, which would make piracy unprofitable. But it would also canibalize theater revenues, reducing front-end profits on a picture.

      Maximizing profits is what business is all about, and I guess it's reasonable that theaters have a temporary monopoly on a new movie. But Hollywood has been able to put its profit agenda ahead of everything. For example, those of us who will never buy a plasma display would love to have access to to small neighborhood theaters that would show any movie on big screen on a demand basis. People actually tried to start such theaters back when VCRs first came out. The studios soon put a stop to that. But there's no equitable reason they should be able to. Demand royalties for the showing of the material, yes. But prevent the showing? The only purpose of such prevention is for the studios to retain control of how the content is distributed, never mind whether they get their cut or not. It's just not fair that they can do this.

    11. Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!! by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      Oh do shut up. I guarantee over the years the guy has done more good than 99% of the readership on here.

    12. Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      That's not saying much!

  106. Hollywood is its own worst enemy by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 2, Insightful
    More than piracy ever could, what hurts Hollywood's bottom line is a business and creative model that takes its cues from high-stakes gambling.

    In the decades since the collapse of the studio system, moviemaking costs have been driven higher and higher for bad reasons - namely, sky-high star salaries and the desperate emphasis on blockbusters.

    What can also be measured is how the majors make fewer movies involving fewer actors, and take fewer risks. Monoculture, thy name is Hollywood.

    This would be OK if it worked, but it works less and less: other media like the Net and gaming are overtaking movies, and many megabucks stars (e.g., the unusually bland Costner) can't make a profitable movie to save their lives. The frantic, eggs-in-one-basket hunt for opening weekend success - think of all the screeching hype that has replaced honest movie reviewing - also grows from this narrow-minded approach.

    But it's not only the movie industry's fortunes that are affected by this model. One of the great means for transmission of ideas and values in society is film. Unlike films of even 30 or 40 years ago, Hollywood's navel-gazing product today rarely has much to say to anybody older than 13 (and when it does, the message is inevitably, "You should be 13 again!"). Independent film, which can sometimes do much more, isn't distributed because all the screens at the gigaplex are showing the corporate product. The festival circuit is literally teeming with hundreds of cool films you'll never see because they are crowded out of contention by, say, a single Gigli, which is one Gigli too many.

    Thus do a few unimaginative men make a less interesting world for all of us. Excuse me if I'm not too worried about them.

    1. Re:Hollywood is its own worst enemy by mpe · · Score: 1

      In the decades since the collapse of the studio system, moviemaking costs have been driven higher and higher for bad reasons - namely, sky-high star salaries and the desperate emphasis on blockbusters.
      What can also be measured is how the majors make fewer movies involving fewer actors, and take fewer risks. Monoculture, thy name is Hollywood.


      Which is actually a great risk. Since the fewer movies they make the fewer need to be "turkeys" in order for it to hit the bottom line. If only "star" actors/producers/directors tend to be getting work these people can ask for more and more money.

      The frantic, eggs-in-one-basket hunt for opening weekend success - think of all the screeching hype that has replaced honest movie reviewing - also grows from this narrow-minded approach.

      Also how unhappy the industry is when their customers are able to use modern technology to spead "word of mouth" reviews a lot more rapidly.

  107. Another Solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen a pirated downloaded version of Bowling for Columbine (screener).

    It plainly states that it has been digitally signed and during the film , in several occasions, theres the "for award consideration only" subtitle

    Ok, now they should move their asses and sue the guy who ripped it...

  108. how exactly is that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how folks claim that filesharing/piracy/whatever hurts such-and-such even though there is no evedence that a single company has been hurt by piracy.

  109. Ha Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The copy-n-paste is pretty evident. That's the only film where the leading determiner was pushed to the end (The and La).

    I fear the day I have to play Trivial Pursuit against Google, not this dude.

  110. Completely amazing! by danila · · Score: 1

    I love that bit:

    the Motion Picture Association of America is trying to get the major studios to stop mailing out DVD and video screeners, claiming the practice leads to piracy.

    The MPAA was supposedly formed by the major studios! I see now it took the life of its own and started ordering the studios around... Soon they will probably try to stop studios from making new movies, because this leads to piracy as well. RIAA, reportedly have been very successful with this practice - greately reducing the number of newly released CDs and supposedly reducing the piracy with that...

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  111. Benefits of screeners by danila · · Score: 1

    As usual, MPAA ignores the benefits of the technology (this time a business practice) and concentrates on its flaws. Screeners help promote films, supposedly leading to greater box office revenues (for good movies) and DVD sales. But increasing sales is not a concern for MPAA, decreasing piracy is.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  112. What many studio's are doing... by digitalgimpus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've worked with a media company, so I know their solution:

    They are starting to use a faint watermark, across the entire picture. The watermark is individual to the tape itself (a number, letter, symbol or combo).

    This way, if the tape is pirated... it's easy to trace back.

    Each tape is signed out to a particular person. That person previously signed NDA's. Now they have to sign NDA's... and there is something to ensure they don't forget about it.

    If the tape is leaked.... they know exactly who to go after. The tape's watermark will lead to the person responsible.

    1. Re:What many studio's are doing... by Loosewire · · Score: 1

      What does mpeg compression do to these watermarks?

      --
      Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
    2. Re:What many studio's are doing... by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

      Distorts a bit.. But it's designed to withstand that.

      Even resizing.

      If you destroy the watermark.. you pretty much ruined the video.

    3. Re:What many studio's are doing... by smg_mrBlonde · · Score: 0

      "Now they have to sign NDA's... and there is something to ensure they don't forget about it. "

      They make you sign in blood... No, i'm serious.

  113. Watermark the screener version. by dnahelix · · Score: 1

    Why don't the just put some logo or icon in the corner of the screen on the screener version? (like we see on ALL of the TV channels now)

    On another note in the same chord, I wonder when producers will think of putting scenes in the box office version that will NOT be included in the DVD release, in an effort to raise box office sales. Something to the effect of, 'Only see {star-x}'s ASS in the theater!'

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
  114. Movies that I'd never go see... by 9mind · · Score: 1
    A lot of movies that just didn't advertise well I'll view the screeners... And if they are worthy... I'll buy them on DVD when they come out. But the fact is any movie like the Matrix, etc I really want to see, I spend the 10 bucks and go to a high quality theater for the experience.

    A perfect example of that was Gladiator... with the sound effects and background music..s It was 10 fold better than when I bought the DVD and watched it at home on surround sound. And the stuff I watch on screeners... I would never go to the movies to see in the first place. But after watching it, I may want to buy the DVD for my massive collection. So they aren't losing money in my case... Can't lose what you never had.

  115. Ravaged by christurkel · · Score: 1

    following the path of the piracy-ravaged recording industry
    Oh pity the music industry. They're out there, in rags, begging for anyone to help them.

    --

    CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
  116. isn't it only "perfect" copies that "hurt" sales? by kaltkalt · · Score: 1, Informative

    In theory. Nobody cares (or at least, they shouldn't) if you record a song off the radio because it's far from a perfect copy. In the same token, I don't see how a fuzzy, downloaded, ultra-compressed screener with all sorts of "THIS IS THE PROPERTY OF MGM STUDIOS" warnings popping up all over it (I do realize some screeners are better than others but they're all far from a DVD you'd buy in the store) can be said to hurt DVD sales. If the movie is good you'll buy the $14 DVD (for less than the price of the movie's soundtrack on CD, but that's another issue). If the leaked screener causes people to realize that the movie sucks and they don't go pay to see it in the theater, that's a good thing because it encourages studios (at least it should) to make better films. Thus, pirated screeners not only do not hurt legitimate sales of the equivalent product (the DVD form of the movie) but they help to act as a muse for the industry as a whole. This is why people in the industry probably share their screeners. It keeps them on their creative toes.

    --

    Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
  117. Dateline: 2004 by interociter · · Score: 1
    Dateline: Hollywood, California, June 2004

    The MPAA filed suit against Universal Studios and its parent company Vivendi Entertainment today for film piracy. The details of the suit allege that Universal illegally copied the Universal film "Lord of the Rings: The Return of The King" and distributed it to members of the Acadamy of Motion Pictures as a promotional tool. The MPAA has repeatedly claimed that the distribution of promotional copies of Oscar-eligible feature films is a major source of piracy. "Distributing these films is morally equivalent to selling the ingredients for crystal meth.", said an MPAA spokesman, "The studios know the films will be copied illegally, and they don't care what happens as long as they get their Oscar votes."

    In other news, the online humor magazine "The Onion" ceased production today. Editor-in-Chief Carol Kolb said "We just can't come up with anything weird enough anymore. Reality keeps beating us."

    --
    Interociter
    -=What do I want? I'm an American. I want more.
  118. Easy fix by sharkey · · Score: 1

    Lock the doors at the Oscars after everyone is in. Then, each film that has received a nomination will be played in it's entirety. After all films in a category are played, the audience can vote using their remote keypads. Port-a-potties and hot dog carts can be set up in the back of the theater.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  119. Screeners are a huge part of piracy by spitzak · · Score: 1

    Now maybe my sample is biased because I work in the film industry, but literally 100% of the movie rips I have seen people play on their computers have had the "Property of 20th Century Fox" (or whatever) logo on the bottom. From what I have seen getting rid of screeners will literally get rid of all piracy.

    1. Re:Screeners are a huge part of piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. Because no one ever pirates movies after the dvd is released. That would be so last week.

  120. Look who's voting by harmonica · · Score: 1

    If you disagree, please explain why Kevin Costner has a "Best Director" award but not Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock or Akira Kurosawa?

    The Oscars aren't fair.

    The fact that it depends a lot on your fellow nominees in a particular year (tough / weak competition) was already mentioned in this thread.

    However, one of the main reasons for the lack of fairness - look who's picking nominees, and who's picking the winners. Directors who are members of the AMPAS pick the nominees, all AMPAS members (~6,000) vote for the winner.

    So if directors like or dislike a particular fellow (competitor) director, he may be nominated although he doesn't deserve it (or the other way around, may not be nominated although he deserves it).

    Even if a worthy director gets nominated, all 6,000 AMPAS members vote on the award. Every sound engineer, actor, producer who may know nothing about directing has a vote. It's a miracle that sometimes the right people do get the award.

    And for those who never get a real Oscar, there's still the life time achievement award. ;-)

  121. Re:What the fuck is your problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I keep pimping my website because there are so many ignorant people like you who need to learn from it.


    ompulsive masturbation disorder. You sicken me with your flagrant homosexuality.
    I think you project too much.

  122. Is Piracy word of mouth advertising? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

    1. IF Some downloads result in some sales losses, and some don't (a reasonable assumption admittedly). 2 AND Some piracy functions as word of mouth advertising (even if that's far from its only function). 3. THEN Piracy will do more damage to the bottom line of a film if all forms of 'word of mouth' and corporate ad campaigns are seriously out of sinc, AND in particular if word of mouth is much more negative than the official ad campaign. 4. How much more depends on how big the 'somes' and"much mores" in the first 3 lines are. 5. If the above ideas are actually logical, then Ben and J-Lo's latest effort bombed, but a heck of a lot of people have pirated copies of it.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  123. Hurting below the line craft people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers."

    Nope. The single biggest threat to all "below the line" craft people (at least in the US) is "Run-a-way" production.

    The practice of sending out copies of films to Academy members will not change as long as the studios have so much to gain in winning "awards".
    Getting films in front of Academy members is just one way to promote a film.

  124. It is NOT piracy by gessel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is not possible, legally or physically, to "steal" data. It is not possible to "pirate" data.

    It is guerilla antitrust.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    It may be illegal, but it isn't theft.

    The MPAA is taking a legally defensible and appropriate action to control the dissemination of data.

    "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

    Quotes from Thomas Jefferson To Isaac McPherson; Monticello, August 13, 1813.

  125. That's the reason. by Kris_J · · Score: 1

    A leaked screener may or may not be the reason that I didn't see LotR:TTT at the cinema. That it's a purile, badly-told, pointless story also may or may not have been the reason.

  126. Well they might be evil...... by 56ksucks · · Score: 1
    .... but at least they haven't sued any 12 year olds in the ghetto yet.

    -------

    --

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

  127. IT? by kcornwell · · Score: 1

    -----clip Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers. -----clip guess it does'nt hurt IT people.

  128. D'oh! by Eccles · · Score: 1

    Gotta read more carefully, as you said, cut the credits. And if it's an insider, making a little extra by releasing the screener, it would be impossible to catch them. I think there's a perception that it really isn't making much difference to movie sales, as Spider-Man et al don't seem to have suffered.

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  129. Maybe less movies will get made. by sideshow · · Score: 1
    Aren't only high-profile actors/diretors/etc rewarded a percentage of the movie income, while all the others receive the same no matter what?

    If they don't get hired because the studio can't afford to make a movie then those guys get nothing.

    --

    Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

  130. Nope it's still free. by sideshow · · Score: 1

    The studios already show about a million movies between November and perhaps March to members of the Academy. The reason they send out movies is that a lot of these people are lazy fucks. I've met people in the Academy who you'd swear hated the fact that movies even existed. Driving to Westwood to see a screening is way to much effort so they'd rather be fucking hethens and watch them on their TV.

    --

    Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

  131. For your consideration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For your consideration.

    This news item not to be posted , posting is a copyright violation.

  132. Twisted Thought For Counteracting Piracy... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
    Change then ending for the releases sent out to Screeners. Something signifigantly different that what the movie-goers would see.

    In fact, distribute a couple of different endings just to confuse the living crap out of everybody. Hell, they do it already with Video and DVD's. (For the love of God, where can I get a NON director's cut of Blade Runner and Das Boot! The fluffing toy sub shots ruined the entire mood of the film.)

    At the same time, folks would HAVE to go to the movies to find out how the movie actually end. They would also drain far more resources having to download multiple version of the film, and watch them all the way through, never sure what will change.

    Muhahahaha. I'm earning my Evil points tonight...

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  133. Movie piracy hurts costumers by Handyman · · Score: 1

    Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

    On first reading I misread this as "movie piracy ... (hurts) ... customers". I really got too accustomed (or accostumed?) to reading these kinds of arguments pro or against movie copying, especially the parts where they say it will hurt consumers/customers (difference?) in the end, so I kind-of automatically read the closest word I usually see in this context. :)

  134. Key grip? by Koualla · · Score: 0

    What does a key grip do anyway?

    Seriously, I have wondered about this for a while.

    Regards, Koualla.

    --
    Six boxes to use in the defense of liberty: letter, soap, ballot, witness, jury, ammo.