Slashdot Mirror
Oscar Screener Leak Traced
EvilLiberalGuy writes "CNN has an article about a leak of a screener copy of 'Something's Gotta Give'. They are reporting that 'visible and hidden markings on the videocassette copy on the Internet identify it as the one sent to Carmine Caridi, a film and television actor'. Apparently this didn't stop the leak from happening in this case, but will it result in actions against Caridi and make others think twice before leaking films to the net?"
I want an apology from the MPAA. All this time they have been blaming downloaders and moviegoes for "leaking" these screeners. Now we discover its one of their own. I wonder how many of the other screeners were "released" by other Academy members.
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Just wait 6 or fewer months and get a copy from pay per view.
What? you don't have $3.99?
How much did you pay for your capture card?
Am I the only one that finds it "out of character" for a guy who will be 70 years old in 10 days to be the one that leaked the film?
I mean, who is to say how the damn thing ended up on the Internet? Who knows what happened while burning the screener, in the mail room at the studios, during the mail delivery process, etc.
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
A dumb out-of-work actor gets caught letting his copy of a screener be the one that gets onto the 'net. I wouldn't call this a setback, I'd call this proof that this idea works.
There's tons of ways a screener could be marked up so that unique ID numbers get inserted, and it was only a matter of time before everybody who got a screener got a serial number embeded into the content so that when the screener appears on the 'net, the leaker could be busted for a breach of their contract. For once, a copy-protection technology that I don't think anybody can argue with...
"The academy required its 5,803 eligible Oscar voters to sign forms promising to protect their screener tapes before they were received. About 80 percent of voters signed and returned the forms."
i take it Carmine Caridi didn't sign, therefore can the MPAA can't do much can they?
Really, good on them for making unique identifiers for each copy. I really do applaud them for doing this, I know many Slashdotters will reply saying I'm some kinda freak and I hate open source or something (they'll find a way), but realistically stealing a video is stealing a video. Whether you jack it off the shelf or download it from the net, the fact is you have a copy of a movie which you didn't pay for and is meant to be bought.
I do hope that this will discourage people from uploading their screener copies to the net.
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
but seems that now even 69 year old actors like Carmine Caridi can't be trusted
My guess is that he gave it to a grandson/great nephew/etc who decided it would be kewl to rip it.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Surely all he has to do is say `I lost the tape` or `it got stolen` or something. Don't you have to prove that an offence has occured before you can convict someone? How can you prove he did it deliberately, short of a signed cheque from someone or something dumb like that?
The article just says that there's an investigation under way and that the academy isn't identifying the screener being looked at; the LA Times is the one fingering Caridi. So while the Academy and the MPAA may occasionally be up to no good, there's no indication right now that in this case they're unfairly blaming the wrong guy. (And assuming that it couldn't be him because of his age would be a pretty poor way to run an investigation).
Actually, tracking down the leak is the right way to handle this. Go after the distributors and those actually responsible for the infringement. Enforcing your copyright is not in itself the problem; it's pretty clear here that someone is doing something wrong. The problem comes in the way you enforce it, and whether it's the screener or someone in the supply chain or a family member, tracking down that person is the way to go.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
The MPAA sends out *free* copies of their films, one of said *free* copies makes it onto the Internet where the general public can consume for free
/. audience does it, downloading movies is still illegal. And if the movies are so crappy why are so many people downloading them and wasting their time by watching them?
So, if say, Ford, gives out a number of free cars to a number of important clients, and one of them gets stolen, then we can go and steal the rest of the Fords sitting in front of our nearby Ford plant and Ford should in no way get upset about it?
Or if an independent musician records a song and emails it for *free* to his friends and a copy of this *free* song gets posted on the internet and now everyone can download it for *free*. Why would the musician be upset?
Think a little more about what you're saying. Yes the MPAA are bastards, but they do have a right to protect thair assets. Just because it's easy and probably 50% of the
Casual Games/Downloads
I'm sorry but the possibility of reuniting KISS and Anthony Zerbe is worth any sum of money. We already waited too long to include Don Steele. Let's not put this off any longer!
There's such a big deal made over it because it affects rich people.
God spoke to me
a few well placed white spots on a dark background in a certain scene, or even something as interesting as changing the color of a small unimportant object in a certain scene...
There are many ways in which such a video could be "marked", without drawing attention from the viewer. One simple method is to vary the frames on which the "Do not distribute, blah blah blah" caption appears. This can be done automatically when the disc is produced, provides virtually unlimited unique combinations, and the process of matching a specific copy's "serial number" to the caption pattern is trivial. I can't say for sure, but I'm willing to bet that something like this was the method utilized to ID the "Something's Gotta Give" trailer. Other similar techniques might be something like inserting duplicates of specific frames. Such a technique would be virtually undetectable and if done in such a way that the effect is preserved by the encoding process it would be quite effective. -JT
They have no way to know that. All they know is that this is the first time a screener that was MARKED and thus could be traced as a screener, was made available.
Now if you wrote some GPL software and someone went and modified it, then distributed it, but did not adhere to the specific requirements of the GPL guaranteeing your rights as the author, don't you think you would have a right to be pissed off? Do you think that might color your opinions of the people who ended up buying the software?
This individual violated a binding agreement, no less so than the GPL. Just because the MPAA is the wronged party doesn't make the wrong right.
More, if the demand for the fruits of such unlawful activity wasn't disproportionately high, the temptation would have been far less, and the whole issue likely wouldn't have occured.
And please don't try to ascribe people's unethical behaviour to some sort of protest over movie quality. If a movie is bad, you don't go see it, period. That is not license to obtain an unlawful copy. That kind of reasoning is childish, narcisistic, and anti-social. If all movies suck, you don't go to any, and you certainly do not obtain unlawful copies. If you want to send a message, fine, send the message. But when you obtain an unlawful copy of a movie the signal you are sending is not that the movie sucks, you are signalling your desire to watch/own the movie, while engaging in a childish reaction to the cost.
There is no moral reason to obtain unlawful copies of music, movies, software, what have you. The motive is greed pure and simple.
And the oft quoted argument of try and buy, is worse than useless. That kind of arrangement requires trust. Why should the MPAA or RIAA or anyone else trust you? If they could trust you the problem wouldn't be as pandemic as it is.
Having said all that, there are responsible people who could live within a reasonable try before buy setup, and who would honor their obligations, this post is not directed at you. This post is wasted effort, since it directed at the large group of internet toddlers who can't prosecute an argument, and use the internet primarily as a means to slake their insatiable greed.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Which do you think is the most likely source of this video? Even an out of work actor can't be expected to keep every tape he is sent. Good money bets that it was either grabbed by someone at his agent's office or it was found in the trash.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
Yes. And while the /. is doing the big 'we told you so' over unauthorized copying clearly starting with MPAA members, the MPAA is doing a little 'we told you so' of their own.
The MPAA powers-that-be don't want 'screener' copies sent out to academy voters, and this has actually been the subject of a couple court cases. The makers of small independent films--the makers of films that usually get limited release and not all voters can go see on their own, and the sort of artists the /. crowd usually supports--fought for the right to send tapes to the voters.
So, yes, one of the *free* copies of their films the MPAA didn't want to send out makes it onto the Internet, like they said it would, and now they are upset.
On another note, if these guys were working harder to make their movies better, the voters would go out to see the movies on their own (without expecting free copies) and they wouldn't be in this situation.
Um...the guys you want to work harder ARE the voters. Do you read every publication/attend every conference/review every new application/whatever analogy applies to your profession? If every movie opened on 3000 screens, this might not be an issue. But joe filmmaker shouldn't be shut out of the shot at some recognition from his peers just because not every member of the academy lives in New York or LA or across the street from one of the five little art houses he actually got to show his film.
Yes, 99.99% of the academy awards is Hollywood big shots jerking each other off about friggin' great they all are. Stop providing screeners to the voters and you're one step closer to ending that 0.01% that attempts to recognize the independent artist.
Here is a fine example of how the RIAA and to a lesser extent the MPAA have gone horribly wrong in their pursuit of their own customers. Quite simply, the greatest damage to the industry comes from those who are on the inside. Not from their hard earned money spending customers.
I mean lets face it. Our country and culture is founded in the concepts of fair play. Most everyone I know respects the concept of paying for what you get. What a fair price is for a fair product. Those who "fileshare" are sick of being fleeced and do it mostly because of that. Come up with a fair price and the customers will return and the "insider" pirates will have no customers to sell to.
I am sick and tired of being accused of being a "pirate" because I want to save my DVD's to my HD. Or because I want to watch my DVD's in Linux. Or because I want to record HDTV just like I can regular TV with my VCR. Or because I want the convenience of being able to listen to any music I want anywhere I want. These are products I have already paid for. Fair use is clear in its benefits for the industry overall.
-- Mean People Suck
So what if the guy is 70 years old. That doesn't mean he can't operate a computer.
This guy is just as capable of committing a crime as anyone else here.
The real underlining problem in Hollywood is not whether someone somewhere is watching a movie in some format for free...
The real issue that Hollywood won't face is that their audience (the people who stand in line to give their money away) has stopped growing while the cost of producing the movies continues to grow unchecked every year.
Movies have become a saturated business. Last year the actual number of paid admissions actually fell 4% for the first time in since 1991 (according to NPR - the USA public radio network). Only half of the big blockbuster productions of last summer earned back their production and advertising costs from USA box office receipts. All the profit from Hollywood is coming from overseas ticket sales, video and DVD rentals, and syndication to other media.
And this is from a good year...
Hollywood has written off all the people over 30 years old in their demographic targetting for their product. If young adults decide to stop going to the movies and do other things with their disposable income, they will go bankrupt on their movie product. And young adults are turning away from television in record numbers, a bad sign for this industry.
All the while film budgets continue to go up and up. Each 150 million dollar movie is a giant three year gamble on the fickleness of the audience for the first two or three weeks after its release. Three or four big bombs like 'Gigli' in one season and the studio is history. Especially if the interest rates start to go up again.
DVD screeners is just a smoke-screen. It gives the industry something to collectively pretend is a problem without forcing them to acknowledge the real situation that they're in.
He's not bad, he's just written that way. In all seriousness, the Wesley Crusher character was just another in a long line of hopeless "smart kid" characters in tv sci fi: and he was usually somewhat more bearable than Will Robinson (except in the stupid Traveler scripts, of course). Remember, too, that WW wasn't exactly a 40 year old man when he got that job, and it's not like they expected him to deliver his lines in iambic pentameter. The Wesley Crusher character, mindless as he was, was the creation of the same man who created the Whorf character. Now, you can say that the actor helps to flesh the character out: but did WW really have much hope with Wesley "I'm so smart" Crusher? When they gave him a well-written ep he usually handled it well (that whole bit he did with Robert Duncan McNeill for instance was a nice bit of acting).
So cut the guy some slack.
Personally, I think that the war against piracy is unwinnable, and that piracy will destroy the business as it is today;.
Piracy isn't destroying the movie industry, the movie industry is destroying the movie industry. The budget of the average movie is going up (how much money spent on making a movie is actually spent making the movie?) and the quality of the product is going down. And from television, to the VCR, to piracy, the internet, instant messaging, and even consumers themselves, they've always found someone else to blame. Pumping out the same old crap and hyping it up just doesn't work like it used to. Make better movies, make movies more efficiently and stop throwing money away, and sell the product at a reasonable price, and the industry will be just fine. Reasonable prices have defeated piracy time and time again.
However there are a boatload of others for critics, and most particularly for the distribution industry. There are physically too many screeners to uniquely tag them all, except for physical serial numbers on the DVD itself. These get 'defeated' by the first copy.