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?"
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.
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
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
There's such a big deal made over it because it affects rich people.
God spoke to me
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
For once, a copy-protection technology that I don't think anybody can argue with...
I'll argue, and it echoes sentiment that others have expressed in this thread: How do we know he did it? He's 70 years old and not exactly the key demographic for uploading/digitizing movies. Maybe one of his kids watched it and did it (I used to watch screen copies with my college roommate who's dad was in the Academy), or perhaps someone along the process (encoders, mailers, distributors) took 2 hours and did it.
The only proof is that a leaked copy with this guy's name on it is on the internet. We have no proof that he had anything to do with it being there.
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