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?"
"pronoun actor": an actor who is familiar but lacking a name (like Brian Dennehy). Carmen Caridi has been in a shitload of movies and I can't find a photo of him anywhere.
In case you are wondering who Carmine Caridi is here's the IMDB link. He plays a lot of Italian type roles. Well with a name like Carmen Caridi....
I certainly hope that this doesn't ruin his chances of reprising his role in the sequel to "KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park" (Oh you know you want it)
You know when I was a lad you could trust a policeman to get you to the church on time, but seems that now even 69 year old actors like Carmine Caridi can't be trusted not to digitize and upload screeners they get sent to the Internet.
These geriatric hooligans are ruining the Internet for the rest of us. The problem is they've got time on their hands, they retire and if they're not out on the streets selling drugs, they're at home violating copyrights on Kazaa.
Have they no shame!
I say bring back compulsory military service for the over 60s. They need a dose of good-old military discipline to whip them into shape. And if that doesn't work then cut off their supply of Tums.
Harsh I know, but it's the only language that they understand.
John.
It's only fitting that this guy was in such movies as "Life Sucks", "Runaways", and of course "Whacked"
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.
I must ask....why would anyone WANT to pirate such a movie? If you're going to risk being exposed for leaking a movie...at least leak a movie worth downloading.
-T
Here's a possible picture of him from images.google.com
Carmine Caridi
>> Caridi and make others think twice before
>> leaking films to the net?"
Can you imagine how many hands this went through before it got to Caridi? Manufacturing? Shipping? Someone had to imprint those special markings? Were the markings modified by the release group from one set to another that now matches the markings that were assigned to Caridi? Innocent until proven guilty here folks.
Carmine Caridi is about 70 years old which doesn't strike me as the typical source for screener releases.
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...
I dont think this was an intentional copyright violation, someone probably just saw the words 'gotta give' labeled on the media and thought they were instructions.
At least when the sequal, "Dont copy this you theiving bastards", screeners become available the hole will be closed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Right... they send out a free copy of a film, but only after the receipient has signed a form that is analogous to an NDA. If someone violates an NDA you had them sign, then yes, you have a right to be pissed at them... called breach of contract or somesuch, depending on jurisdiction.
in Godfather II (Carmine Rosato) and Godfather III (Albert Volpe) according to the IMDB. Coppola must be so embarrassed now.
[the sound of imdb vicariously crashing as people try to figure out who Carmine Caridi is...]
Heh, for all we know, he got it in the mail and said "Ugh, another stupid AOL disc" and pitched it into the trash can where some dumpster diver scored it.
On another note, now that it's been an "inside copy" that got out, can the MPAA please quit running the anti-piracy ads before movies? And can they drop that stupid proposed law banning "video recording devices" in theatres?
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
-Caridi is a B-movie actor who has been in a ton of films, yet no one seems to have a picture of him, not even the IMDB.
-Caridi is given an advance copy of a movie. Now, perhaps this guy has more power than thought, but who gives an advance screening of a movie to a B-movie actor? Then again, when movies like Glitter and Gigli are leaked onto the Internet, who knows?
-Caridi is a 69 year-old man who allegedly had the knowledge to transfer a movie onto his computer and distribute it onto the Internet. My grandmother prints out e-mails and sends them via postal service to me. And I am supposed to believe this guy knows how to work video capture?
Add in other things like how bad the movie is and the unique tracking mechanisms, and one must seriously begin to wonder about the convenience of this discovery. Long live John Titor.
--Chag
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
"the academy said "Something's Gotta Give" marked the first time a so-called screener sent to an Oscar voter had been made available for illegal copying"
There have certainly been screeners circulateddigitally before, so perhaps there's some subtle distinction here. Perhaps they're differentiating between the "screeners" sent to Oscar voters and the "screeners" sent to reviewers, etc., to promote the movies?
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
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
MPAA: Carmen, buddy, how are you today?
Carmen: Stools a lil loose today. My hip still...
MPAA: Wonderful, fantastic! How about we strike a little deal?
Carmen: Speak into my good ear?
MPAA: Look, we'll lay it on the line. We spent all this money on this technology breakthrough and haven't seen a return on it. We've pissed off thousands of millions of fans with our red dots and fancy ways and we need you.
Carmen: Where do I come in?
MPAA: Quite frankly, we need a fall man. You've played in the Mob, you should remember.
Carmen: Ah yes, I can act well!
MPAA: Yeah, great. But we need someone to get into trouble so we can show the pirates of America that we mean business! And these dots will annoy future generations!
Carmen: I get to play a pirate? eh?
MPAA: We need you, I mean, you've made 1 movie in the last 5 years. How about it. You are perfect for our part!
Carmen: Where do I sign?
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
Actually, watermarking and Palladium are very different. The watermarking that was used to identify the source of the leak doesn't limit the use or the distribution of the movie at all -- it just allows them to determine the source of the leak. Since everyone who receives a pre-release copy of a movie has a signed NDA, it's (IMO) fair for the movie studios to use technology to determine who broke their NDA, and take corrective action afterwards.
Palladium, on the other hand, has the opposite goal -- it's goal is to prevent anyone from being able to do anything that the content creater doesn't want to have happen. So rather than treating people as honest and catching the exceptions, it treats everyone as a potential criminal.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Who is it for Pete's sake?! How can you tease us like that?
There's some slick sh*t in modern industrial control systems
;)
Perhaps you guys need to be wearing some of your own products to keep that stuff out of the equipment...
I know for a fact that one of the major Hollywood talents has leaked his share of movies.
When they did Star Trek V: The Worst Movie EVAR!!1, the producers were hardcore about protecting the scripts. Each one was coded in various ways (starbase numbers were the most popular for TNG scripts -- I think I was "Starbase 28" or something like that, Patrick was "Starbase 21" or something . . . I know they used our call sheet number in some way.) including stamping the name of the script's legitimate owner in HUGE semi-transparent letters across each page.
Being a super-nerd, I really wanted a copy of that script. Even though their Enterprise was less than 200 yards from my Enterprise, the STV:TWME!!1 producers wouldn't let me have one, so I bought a bootleg at a convention.
You know whose script was bootlegged and photocopied a zillion times? William Fucking Shatner's, that's who. Now, I seriously doubt that WFS wanted his script to get out, since he was the director and everything, but somehow it did.
It's easy to find out who was the rightful owner of a script, screener, or whatever . . . but determining exactly who was responsible for releasing it into the wild is a bit more difficult.
(And the script was as bad as the movie, for those of you keeping score at home.)
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.
Are we sure he wasn't in 'Pay it forward'?
You know what?
...but if you were privy to the techniques they used to encode the scripts, wouldn't the other actors have that knowledge too? If so then the script could be modified to make it appear that it came from some other source.
/geek)
Well, I don't think WFS needs to be defended. I wasn't accusing him of anything, so if it came off that way, allow me to correct myself.
*correct*
As to your suggestion, I suppose it's technically possible, though why anyone would want to go to the extreme lengths to falsify a script's ID is beyond me. We're talking about numerical codes on random pages, and the actor's (or sometimes character's) name stamped, by hand, across the center of every single page. If you watch the extended behind the scenes features on the LOTR DVDs, you can see them reading their sides, and each page is stamped "Sam" or "Frodo" or "Gollum," etc. (goddamn I'd do just about anything to get one of those!
Oh, and the encoding methods weren't exactly common knowledge. I was the only TNG cast member who read 2600 and TAP, if you get my drift.
"Oh, and the encoding methods weren't exactly common knowledge. I was the only TNG cast member who read 2600 and TAP, if you get my drift."
:)
Oh this is fantastic, I knew I was right! Back in Middle school, a teacher discovered my friends and I hacking around the school network (Full root, and Admin accounts at 12 years old, w00t!).
My teacher tried to use Star Trek as a moral argument, and said that starfleet officers would never hack into someones computer. I said that Ensign Crusher would, and he gave me a detention!
But only now, after learning that Mr. Crusher was reading the same issues of 2600 I was, do I know the full injustice done to me