Arrest in Caridi FBI Investigation

skillio writes "The FBI arrested one Russell Sprague in Illinois on Thursday in connection with the previously reported Carmine Caridi dvd screener leak investigation. Given the FBI's figure of up to 60 screeners a year provided by Caridi, and Sprague's clearly sophisticated setup, one can't help but wonder if this will prove to be the main, if not sole, source of these dvd screener leaks. Caridi has yet to be charged, but after he's admitted to supplying Sprague with screeners for the last 3-5 years, I highly doubt his innocence will remain unchallenged for very long."

Comments

What's with the cop talk?

[Fear the Clam]

The FBI arrested one Russell Sprague

Why is it that cops always arrest one of somebody? It's not like raids on human clone factories are that common.

Re:What's with the cop talk?

[Anonymous Coward]

If my name was Russell Sprague, I'd be relieved they were only arresting one of them. Headlines announcing mass Sprague purges would frighten and alarm me.

Re:What's with the cop talk?

[Aumaden]

If they said they were arresting "one CarrotTop" I would be concerned that there might be more than one of him!

Re:What's with the cop talk?

[swb]

Have you also noticed that all the raids police and the military usually perform are "Pre-Dawn Raids"?

Re:What's with the cop talk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they have to be back in their caskets by the time the sun comes up?

Re:What's with the cop talk?

[sTalking_Goat]

Which is why I get all my sleep in the afternoon.

Lets see em try to raid me...

Re:What's with the cop talk?

[Kiaser Zohsay]

Why is it that cops always arrest one of somebody?

Real cops don't talk that way, just movie cops and TV cops. The story is from the Hollywood Reporter, after all.

Re:What's with the cop talk?

[valintin]

I think it must be to indicate that they did not arrest multiple people.

"The FBI arrested one person, Russell Sprague." vs. "The FBI arrested a few people, one of which is Russell Sprague."

I don't know why I'm answering this except that I don't really like beer comercial humor.

Re:What's with the cop talk?

[thirdbanE]

One of the definitions/uses of one is -- Denoting a person or thing conceived or spoken of indefinitely; a certain.

Plus it sounds good too.

Re:What's with the cop talk?

[nelsonal]

That's because most people are sleeping most soundly causing the least impact on surrounding residents and reducing the likelihood of resistance.

Re:What's with the cop talk?

[nsushkin]

I think it's a figure of speach meaning "a Russel Sprague". Probably borrowed from the Frank languages, where the indefinite article is the same word as the word for the numeral "one".

Re:What's with the cop talk?

[gklinger]

That is easily explained. You see, pre-dawn is when the sign first lights up at Krispy Kreme.

All screeners?

[jasonflacid]

I doubt that he would be the only person doing screeners. There's probably about 2-5 people per movie, as you'll get different weirdnesses (such as blured out text) in the same movie, depending on the release group.

Re:All screeners?

[dtolman]

There are only so many screeners sent out by studios - if this guy _was_ sending out as many as they say he did, he probably represented a large portion of all screeners posted to the internet.

Re:All screeners?

[BHennessy]

The different versions are probably different 'rips' of the cds provided by Sprague, or if he ripped + released them himself, different versions of this rip.

Re:All screeners?

[FatalTourist]

Quiet you fool! You'll ruin everything!

Yes, this Caridi guy was the sole source. Guess you can stop looking! Right, everyone?

Re:All screeners?

[pantycrickets]

There are only so many screeners sent out by studios - if this guy _was_ sending out as many as they say he did, he probably represented a large portion of all screeners posted to the internet.

They say this guy released 60 screeners a year. There are a lot more than that a year being uploaded to usenet. So, I'm sure this will only make it so that all distributors of pirated screeners in the future will just blur any identifying marks from the film.

Re:All screeners?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

There are only so many screeners sent out by studios

Last I saw the quote was there was something like 5200 members of the Academy who were on the list to receive screeners.

Re:All screeners?

[drinkypoo]

I'm sure this will only make it so that all distributors of pirated screeners in the future will just blur any identifying marks from the film.

It's not that simple. The identifying marks are red herrings. The real identifying marks will be obscured. This is easy to do with modern computing technology. Since they're already making multiple copies, and duplication is the hard part, they can stick assorted different symbols/logos into portions of the movie where they will not be noticed. Even easier; Chop specific scenes down here and there by a second or two. If you're writing the mastering software it should be easy to drop MPEG frames off the end of a clip, alter the header, and create your image for burning without screwing anything up. It would also be fairly trivial to add in assorted sounds which are not found in the movie normally, or time-shift them, by overlaying them onto the audio track later. Studios typically have not done this to date because it is harder than not doing anything, but they will start doing it, because they can't just stop sending out screeners (though screeners will typically be sent to less and less people, I think - maybe we'll start seeing more workprints, which must hurt their bottom line less) but they still want to discourage copying.

Re:All screeners?

[big_O_of_n!]

I had an internship in "the industry" for a few months, and I have a hard time believing one person was responsible for the bulk of leaks. I and my friends were all interns, so we had no reason to have screeners, but we had access to just about any movie in competition for awards. People seem to assume -- and news outlets seem to report -- that screener sharing is rare, but this assumption couldn't be farther from the truth. If the sharing makes its way to interns, it makes its way to everyone.

There may be "only so many" screeners out there, but sometimes so many is so many!

Re:All screeners?

[pantycrickets]

It's not that simple. The identifying marks are red herrings. The real identifying marks will be obscured. This is easy to do with modern computing technology. Since they're already making multiple copies, and duplication is the hard part, they can stick assorted different symbols/logos into portions of the movie where they will not be noticed. Even easier; Chop specific scenes down here and there by a second or two. If you're writing the mastering software it should be easy to drop MPEG frames off the end of a clip, alter the header, and create your image for burning without screwing anything up. It would also be fairly trivial to add in assorted sounds which are not found in the movie normally, or time-shift them, by overlaying them onto the audio track later. Studios typically have not done this to date because it is harder than not doing anything, but they will start doing it, because they can't just stop sending out screeners (though screeners will typically be sent to less and less people, I think - maybe we'll start seeing more workprints, which must hurt their bottom line less) but they still want to discourage copying.

It would be harder to use such subtle methods of indentification when the end product is often a very lossy rip. If you were trying to prevent people from making a 1:1 copy, then what you describe would be feasable. I have seen screeners that simply have what looks like random numbers on the top & bottom of the screen. I guess it turns out those numbers weren't random at all. :)

Re:All screeners?

[drinkypoo]

The idea of inserting symbols/logos might not fly on a lossy copy, but most rips one sees of movies on the internet are actually of very high quality. a 700MB 2 pass DIVX or a 2 or even 3 CD SVCD really looks damn near as good as the source DVD in most ways; certainly enough to where if you changed a graphic on the side of a truck or something, it would come through quite well. The other methods I mention (inserting alternate sounds, cutting specific scenes down early) would not be affected at all.

Thank you....

[musikit]

Carmine Caridi for saving me thousands of dollars on rental fees, movie tickets, popcorn, late fees, dinner with friends/family and candy for providing the worthless crap that the MPAA puts out to the common man on the internet.

Re:Thank you....

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's worthless crap, why are you watching it?

Re:Thank you....

[Anonymous Coward]

If its crap than the easy solution would be dont go to the movies and rent the crap. these guys commited a crime as you do by downloading it. I dont agree with all the over the top pattent and copyright stuff weve seen lately but studios should be able to profit on making a movie. if the studios arent making any money then how do the make new movies?

Re:Thank you....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are actors paid $50,000,000 for doing a film instead of, say, $50,000 or $200,000? It's just acting. It's not like they're risking their life or health. I think we're at the start of a trend which will end up with people who work in industries where copying is a problem being paid less, and people who actually provide something useful to society, such as teachers, nurses, etc getting paid more.

Re:Thank you....

[Yakko]

I figure you're being facetious, but hell, I didn't need Carmine to help me out here, as I just stopped watching movies and (most) TV years ago.

In the case of movies, I learned early on that very few movies were worth my (then) $10 in ticket and concession stand charges. Lack of decent content has kept me from renting. My DVD collection is mostly cartoons and anime.

Re:Thank you....

[Bootsy Collins]

Why are actors paid $50,000,000 for doing a film instead of, say, $50,000 or $200,000? It's just acting. It's not like they're risking their life or health.

Well, $50M is a bit of an exaggeration -- you're not going to find many (any?) examples of that high a figure -- but some actors do get paid a lot of money, even millions of dollars, to do a film, yes. Why so much? Because that's what the market is. They're paid that much because the studios are willing to pay that much, and the studios are willing to pay that much because the filmgoing public is willing to pay what it pays. That's what our priorities are.

I think we're at the start of a trend which will end up with people who work in industries where copying is a problem being paid less, and people who actually provide something useful to society, such as teachers, nurses, etc getting paid more.

That would be nice; but it's hard to imagine. As long as people value entertainment more than they do education, public safety, or public health, entertainment will be where the money goes. And as long as the main contributing factor to the success or failure of a movie continues to be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as its acting lineup or director, directors and acting talent will get big money. However, it's certainly possible that some of that money that would otherwise go to foleys, carpenters, sound editors, costume tailors, etc. (which for a typical movie is comparable to the money than the acting talent earns, simply because there's a lot more crew than actors) will be spent on anti-piracy crap instead, with the result that the foleys/carpenters/sound editors/costume tailors/etc. make less.

Re:Thank you....

[dollargonzo]

a lot of anime is inspired by earlier live film. metropolis, for example, was based on an earlier film of the same name. perhaps some people aren't quite as ignorant as having mostly anime in their DVD collections and want to rent/buy something else...

Re:Thank you....

[WhodoVoodoo]

Yeah! I for one am sick and tired of seeing major Hollywod studios go out of business! Oh, if only people had watched 'Cheaper by the Dozen' In theaters instead of pirating it to realize it was terrible! Why! If only they were able to profit in some way from these movies somehow!

Re:Thank you....

[faxafloi]

Well, $50M is a bit of an exaggeration -- you're not going to find many (any?) examples of that high a figure...

It's not much of an exaggeration. Didn't Bennifer get a combined $25M for Gigli?

Re:Thank you....

[abdulwahid]

Why are actors paid $50,000,000 for doing a film instead of, say, $50,000 or $200,000?

There has been a cultrual shift in some ways. Years ago the entertainers where the jokers of society. The court jester. The clown. People who had no better skill in life than to act a fool to entertain others.

These days movie stars are often looked up to as some of the highest people of society. Some are virtually worshipped. I do sometimes wonder why. Are they really that different from the court jesters from years ago? I am sure that both generations worked hard on their act.

Perhaps in the future the trend could shift back again.

Re:Thank you....

[mutewinter]

$50million or not, the market is distorted. The same could be applied to sports figures. Public Stadiums just mean more money in the pockets of the sports teams owners, which translates into more money for the players. And I'm not even going to get in to the supposed "economic benefit" of building all these stadiums on public money.

The same could be said of the movie industry. Theres alot of money in it simply because they get the US (and other countries) government and tax payers to foot the bill for copyright enforcement. In the business world, I'm not footing anyone's bill unless I have an invested interest in the company. Not to mention what these copyright enforcements, or lack there of do to international trade.. then again maybe its the only leverage these poorer countries have.. reguardless they are spending someone elses money too.

No point for me to pirate a movie.. I have friends who work at theaters, I usually get front row opening night if the movies good enough. Fuck some shit-quality pre-release being watched on a 19" computer screen.

Re:Thank you....

[monique]

They're paid that much because the studios are willing to pay that much, and the studios are willing to pay that much because the filmgoing public is willing to pay what it pays. That's what our priorities are.

This is kind of misleading. Watching a movie costs less than $10 a person. So yes, our priorities are such that we are occasionally willing to pay somewhere around $5/hour for entertainment. That's not to say that any individual values acting talent in the millions.

That being said, there may be changes in the wind. My local theater upped its prices to something like $9 for evening shows; $7 for a matinee. SEVEN DOLLARS for a matinee! And for this, I get a lecture from an MPAA lackey, several minutes of commercials, and several minutes of trailers, some of which, I admit, may be interesting.

It's looking more and more like the right financial choice for movie enthusiasts is to buy a high-quality entertainment system and rent the DVD. Rental is cheaper than a movie ticket, you only have to pay for one DVD no matter how many people are watching, you don't (YMMV) have to deal with trailers and whatnot, and you can pause it when you have to pee. Besides, it enhances non-movie experiences, like console gaming, too.

Re:Thank you....

[FroMan]

Where did your right to tell someone else how much than can or cannot make come from?

Oh, I get it, you know better than everyone else. Good thing we have you around to let everyone know how much you think they are worth. If we didn't have you, well, then we'd just have to pay everyone what the market will sustain.

Re:Thank you....

[timeOday]

Well, $50M is a bit of an exaggeration -- you're not going to find many (any?) examples of that high a figure -- but some actors do get paid a lot of money, even millions of dollars, to do a film, yes. Why so much? Because that's what the market is. They're paid that much because the studios are willing to pay that much, and the studios are willing to pay that much because the filmgoing public is willing to pay what it pays. That's what our priorities are.

What you're saying is that the price of making a movie is arbitrary. In other words, puncturing the MPAA members' profits needn't cause any reduction in the quality or quantity of movies at all, it might just mean top actors making $15e6 instead of $20e6 for 2 months of shooting and 1 month of promotion. (I'm not saying copying movies is moral and it's clearly not legal, just making an observation).

Of course we all know this. As "Friends" became more popular, did they cut down on the ridiculous number of commercials because the production costs were spread across more viewers? Of course not. They simply upped production costs by paying each actor $1e6 for each episode. This is not the positive side of market economics people like to talk about.

Re:Thank you....

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you said $7 for a MANATEE - and I thought to myself, that's a pretty good deal for all that meat, eh?

just thought i'd let y'all know that.

Re:Thank you....

[Bootsy Collins]

This is kind of misleading. Watching a movie costs less than $10 a person. So yes, our priorities are such that we are occasionally willing to pay somewhere around $5/hour for entertainment. That's not to say that any individual values acting talent in the millions.

I don't think it's misleading. The issue isn't that we value acting talent in the millions, but rather that we value it more than just about anything else. We're willing, as you say, to give that $10 to go see a single movie; but we're not willing to give that $10 to education, public safety, or public health . . .even though $10 from each U.S. citizen -- one less movie a year for each of us -- would raise the annual salary of every firefighter in the United States by $10,000. Now there's a career in which people do risk life and health, and get paid poorly for doing so. We could easily change that; we choose not to. Those are our priorities. Pass the popcorn.

It's looking more and more like the right financial choice for movie enthusiasts is to buy a high-quality entertainment system and rent the DVD. Rental is cheaper than a movie ticket, you only have to pay for one DVD no matter how many people are watching, you don't (YMMV) have to deal with trailers and whatnot, and you can pause it when you have to pee. Besides, it enhances non-movie experiences, like console gaming, too.

Some films look better on the 70 foot screen. But most of them, I agree, are just as good (if not better) at home.

Re:Thank you....

[Gilmoure]

It's looking more and more like the right financial choice for movie enthusiasts is to buy a high-quality entertainment system and rent the DVD.

But RotK won't be out until next fall!

And the concession stand doesn't have Milk Duds or Dr. Pepper. Just chocolet chip cookies and Coke.

Re:Thank you....

[monique]

We're willing, as you say, to give that $10 to go see a single movie; but we're not willing to give that $10 to education, public safety, or public health . . .even though $10 from each U.S. citizen -- one less movie a year for each of us -- would raise the annual salary of every firefighter in the United States by $10,000. Now there's a career in which people do risk life and health, and get paid poorly for doing so. We could easily change that; we choose not to. Those are our priorities. Pass the popcorn.

I wonder about this. If I were faced with a proposition that said, in plain English, "We will take ten more dollars from you at tax time and apply them directly to firefighter salaries," I would most likely say yes. But it's never worded like that. It's always some complicated verbiage about how some percentage -- not absolute amount -- of our taxes will got to some vague notion, like "community needs." And I, the suspicious taxpayer who's seen our tax dollars at work, have to wonder if the money will go to fire fighters, or if it will go to supporting some organization I may or may not agree with.

Over and over again, we have been taught to be suspicious of new taxes, because they almost always carry more pork than substance. It's not that I don't want to pay fire fighters, teachers, and various other groups more. It's that I have grave doubts that the money will ever land in their hands. Whereas the transaction involved in watching a movie, while partially distasteful, is pretty straightforward.

Re:Thank you....

[James in Iowa]

$50million or not, the market is distorted. The same could be applied to sports figures

I don't think the market is distorted so much as supply is limited.

Think of it this way. Suppose you have two singers, Britney Spears and some unknown. Say the unknown person sings 99.9 percent as well as Spears. Would you--or whoever actually likes Britney Spears stuff--be prepared to pay 99.9 percent of the price of a BS CD of songs as sung by the unknown person?

These super stars get paid so much beacause they are the only person suppling their talents. Only Tom Cruise can make a "Tom Cruise" film.

If anything piracy will increase the salaries of these superstars. This is because the marginal viewer who wouldn't pay a full price ticket for a movie will instead download it for a fraction of the cost. Therefore the market for these stars increases and the stars can demand larger salaries. This will probably be especially prevelant in the music business since more people will be going to concerts.

Re:Thank you....

[monique]

Yes, but on the other hand, no one gives me weird looks when I watch a movie at home in my PJs. And there are no guards at the door to rough me up when I want to bring my own tasty treats instead of whatever they have at the ridiculously expensive concession stand.

Re:Thank you....

[amplt1337]

Why so much? Because that's what the market is. They're paid that much because the studios are willing to pay that much, and the studios are willing to pay that much because the filmgoing public is willing to pay what it pays. That's what our priorities are. Some might argue that the fact of widespread movie piracy on the internet proves the filmgoing public is not willing to pay what it pays.

The copyright laws thus permit the movie industry to engage in a different form of price-fixing. People who would probably go to the movies for $5 won't for $10, so we get downloads instead, but if the MPAA were responding to market forces they'd have to lower the price.

Re:Thank you....

[amplt1337]

Gah, should have used preview.

Why so much? Because that's what the market is. They're paid that much because the studios are willing to pay that much, and the studios are willing to pay that much because the filmgoing public is willing to pay what it pays. That's what our priorities are.

Some might argue that the fact of widespread movie piracy on the internet proves the filmgoing public is not willing to pay what it pays.

The copyright laws thus permit the movie industry to engage in a different form of price-fixing. People who would probably go to the movies for $5 won't for $10, so we get downloads instead, but if the MPAA were responding to market forces they'd have to lower the price.

Re:Thank you....

[karnal]

You mean you don't have a copy yet?

For shame! :)

Re:Thank you....

[lazyl]

Well, $50M is a bit of an exaggeration -- you're not going to find many (any?) examples of that high a figure

Actually, if you include profit sharing (for the big name actors) then the numbers go way up. Take for example Tom Cruise, who has a profit sharing clause in his contracts. For Mission Impossible 2 he got a salary of about $25M and his share of the profit was around $75M.

Re:Thank you....

[corbettw]

Of course we all know this. As "Friends" became more popular, did they cut down on the ridiculous number of commercials because the production costs were spread across more viewers? Of course not. They simply upped production costs by paying each actor $1e6 for each episode. This is not the positive side of market economics people like to talk about.

Actually, it's a very positive side. As the work done by the actors became more valuable, their salaries went up. Say what you will, but a set dresser leaving the crew of "Friends" would've had zero effect on the show's popularity; Jennifer Anniston leaving would have. Given that, of course the network is going to pay the actors more when they get to charge the advertisors more.

Re:Thank you....

[letxa2000]

I suppose people will start justifing downloading movies like they do music. "the movies coming out today suck, so I'm not paying for it...but I'll download it". "Actors/directors/producers/cinematographers/ makeup/wardrobe/sound/fx/grips/best boys/art dept/ have to understand they won't get money now from movies and DVD's, they'll have to get it from performing live gigs". Wow...sounds pretty stupid when I put it that way...huh?

Yeah, because it's a wrong comparison. Going to the movies is like going to a concert. Renting or buying a DVD is like buying music.

The movie industry doesn't have much to worry about in terms of losing the movie-going population. Going to the movie is "going out" with your wife or girlfriend, getting out of the house for awhile. It's a social activity, and Hollywood does well because many people go for the social aspect of it even if they know the movie is going to suck. There may be a few nerds that would rather download the movie and watch it alone at home, but going to the movies is something couples and even groups of friends do together. It's not going away.

The threat to the movie industry is that downloading movies could cut into DVD sales and rentals. That's where there's a fair comparison to downloading movies and there may be some risk.

I know someone (sister-in-law) who has downloaded several movies at work before they came out. She saw them first and then went to see them with my wife and me. Like I said, going to the movies isn't just about the movie. It's about the social aspect.

Re:Thank you....

[mooingyak]

As long as people value entertainment more than they do education, public safety, or public health, entertainment will be where the money goes.

If I go and see a movie every week, bring my wife, and buy popcorn, I'll spend maybe $25 / week * 52 weeks = $1300. That would be a HEAVY movie-goer.

A pre-school we're looking at for my daughter, 3 days a week, 1PM - 4PM, costs about $3800.

One entertainer can reach millions of people at once.
One teacher can reach maybe 200 kids during a day.

It's not that we spend more on entertainment. It's that the money gets concentrated to relatively few people.

Re:Thank you....

[timeOday]

Theoretically, I think it would have been nicer if Anniston's salary had only gone up to $500,000 per episode, and the amount of adversizing decreased by roughly 50%. That way everybody benefits.

I think the notion of "earning" huge sums of money by being famous is a tricky issue. On the one hand, it's what the market dictates. On the other hand, look at all the 'Seinfeld' cast members - each tried to make another show, and each failed. So what made them worth so much on 'Seinfeld'? At some level it's a lottery. Not that fame doesn't require some effort and talent, but I think there are thousands of others just as talented and devoted, who don't win the lottery.

Re:Thank you....

[Datafage]

Yeah, cause there's no real difference between 25,000,000 and 50,000,000...

Re:Thank you....

[corbettw]

Well, under your first proposal, only the advertisers benefit. What, you thought they'd pass their savings on their customers? Probably not the likely result. And somehow I doubt Anniston is just stuffing her money into her mattress. She's probably got teams of finance types who manage it for her; which means it gets invested; which means it helps power the economy; which means everyone benefits.

As for the "Seinfeld" cast, I think it proved that, as an ensemble, they were great. Individually, they weren't. It doesn't reduce the value they had on "Seinfeld", it only means the cast there was greater than the sum of its parts. Of course, it could also be a symptom of type casting. Though Jason Alexander seems to be doing fine with a Broadway career.

Re:Thank you....

[ScottGant]

This makes sense.

Though they could attract even more people to the theater if they would lower their prices on food (I know, they get most of their cash from the food), enhance their sound systems and make sure they're projecting the film at the optimum brightness etc etc.

I would even agree to draconian stormtroopers waiting in the wings to drag out anyone that is talking during the movie. lol

Re:Thank you....

[ScottGant]

Actors performing live? That's just silly! How would they put in the special effects and CGI?

It's obvious you didn't get my comparison to "Our Town" and LOtR.

The stage is totally different experience. How would you stage the battle of Minas Tirith on the stage and make it awe inspiring?

Granted, if someone pulled that off, I'd love to see it. lol

Re:Thank you....

[swv3752]

Exactly.

For example take a look at most state lotteries. They are for providing "additional" funding for education. For a year or two that is how it works out, then budgets for everything but education gets raised and now the lottery money is used to take up the slack.

Re:Thank you....

[trentblase]

Didn't you ever play EcoQuest? Manatees are friends, not food!

Re:Thank you....

[faxafloi]

In order of magnitude terms, they're the same thing. A real difference would be between 50M and 500M. Or between 25M and the 6M that the film grossed. When the numbers get that big, it's the exponent, not the mantissa, that really matters.

Re:Thank you....

[trentblase]

Art can enoble society. Can enlighten.

And don't forget that a noble spirit embiggins the smallest man.

Re:Thank you....

[Karadryel]

Why are actors paid $50,000,000 for doing a film instead of, say, $50,000 or $200,000? It's just acting. It's not like they're risking their life or health.

Well, $50M is a bit of an exaggeration -- you're not going to find many (any?) examples of that high a figure -- but some actors do get paid a lot of money, even millions of dollars, to do a film, yes. Why so much? Because that's what the market is. They're paid that much because the studios are willing to pay that much, and the studios are willing to pay that much because the filmgoing public is willing to pay what it pays. That's what our priorities are.

I think the point was that there's no underlying moral reason why actor's *deserve* to be paid so much. For example, doctors are paid well because their job is high-stress and requires a very high level of education, and thus they deserve to be paid a lot. If some external force (like, say, HMO's) came along and worked to lower doctor salaries, we as a society would have a moral reason to help the doctors continue to be paid well because it encourages the youth to want to be doctors (despite the long hours, stress, and student loans until retirement).

Actors, the grandparent post is arguing, have no such claim - they're paid well because of environmental factors, but if those environmental factors change and that pay drops, well, boo hoo. We shouldn't feel like the drop in actor salaries is going to undermine our society and campaign for their continue high pay in the same way we should for the doctors.

(On a side note, I'm not sure I entirely believe that. I have this theory that the average salary for an actor is pretty low, when you factor in all the bus boy "future actors" in Hollywood. Given the high risk of failure in an acting career, it may make sense that you have to make the reward absurdly high to offset that risk.)

Re:Thank you....

[belthezar]

You should have posted non-anon, that is actually a very insightful post!

Even if we would all like to live in a world where the firefighters and teachers make the big bucks instead of movie stars, you are absolutely right in what would happen.

Anyway, thanks for the reality check! Even if it is out of place for a /. discussion ;)

Re:Thank you....

[placeclicker]

Great quote, but i don't remember where i heard it...

"When's the last time you saw a movie with an actor, and not a celebrity?"

Re:Thank you....

[Gilmoure]

Another problem with the home theater is that you have to make the popcorn a day in advance and set it out so that it has that nice, stale texture. If you haven't done proper planning, you will miss out on the theater experience. For the drinks, you only have to leave them out for an hour or so, to make them warm and flat tasting.

Re:Thank you....

[abdulwahid]

You might want to check the spaces are still there when you copied it

Can't think of anything else wrong...it should work. If I get access to the MSWin32 binary myself I will try it out

Call me crazy...

[Txiasaeia]

...but I can't find any mention of DVDs in the article. Wasn't this guy being charged with ripping VHS tapes?

Re:Call me crazy...

[Motherfucking Shit]

...but I can't find any mention of DVDs in the article. Wasn't this guy being charged with ripping VHS tapes?

MSNBC is carrying a copy of the AP story, which says,

"The FBI said Sprague used a software program to convert the VHS tape into DVD format and then sent the original tapes back to Caridi."

It's probably a terminology mixup.

Re:Call me crazy...

[FattMattP]

...but I can't find any mention of DVDs in the article.

From the article: "The search of Sprague's residence Thursday turned up DVD copies of 11 films...

According to the FBI, Sprague admitted receiving screeners from Caridi and said that he used the software program Copy Guard Breaker to copy the VHS tapes to DVD and then returned the original VHS tapes and two VHS copies of each to Caridi.

Sprague said that he'd made as many as six duplicate copies of each DVD and distributed them to family and friends. He supplied copies to another friend in exchange for using a FedEx shipping account, the FBI said."

Re:Call me crazy...

[saderax]

From the article:

An FBI search of Caridi's home resulted in the seizure of 36 original Academy VHS screener tapes and two DVD screeners. Caridi also told the FBI of eight other screeners he had received which were at another location, where agents subsequently picked them up.

The search of Sprague's residence Thursday turned up DVD copies of 11 films -- ranging from "Samurai," "Calendar" and "Mystic" to "X2: X-Men United" and "Cold Mountain"

emphasis mine.

Re:Call me crazy...

[Txiasaeia]

Let me rephrase: no mention of "DVD screeners," because they no longer exist -- the Academy sends out VHS tapes now to combat piracy, for all the good it did them.

Re:Call me crazy...

[poot_rootbeer]

I have a family member who works as a purchaser for a media distributor -- she brings home DVD movie screeners given to her by sales reps on a regular basis.

Granted, these screeners are typically created after a movie's theatrical run but before the home video market run, but it's a little misleading to say "DVD screeners" when all you mean is the ones distributed for Academy award consideration.

Re:Call me crazy...

[Txiasaeia]

The Academy no longer sends out DVD screeners. This entire topic is about some guy busted for getting Oscar-nominated videos and ripping them. The poster of this article talked about the "dvd screener leak"; there *was* no dvd screener leak. This has *nothing* to do before pre-home market distribution DVD screeners.

Re:Great.

[Have Blue]

If the guy committed a crime, what's wrong with putting him in prison?

Where are they?

[stealthyburrito]

So, uh, where might these screeners be released on the internet?

We have a right to examine the evidence, right?

Re:Where are they?

[Anonymous Coward]

download bittorrent then go to www.suprnova.com (yes its spelt like that) enjoy!

Re:Where are they?

[Natchswing]

Newsgroups.

Re:Where are they?

[limekiller4]

1.) Download xnews.
2.) Look in alt.binaries.svd, alt.binaries.vcd, alt.binaries.multimedia, alt.binaries.boneless, alt.bin...
3.) ??
4.) Profit!

Re:Where are they?

[limekiller4]

At the request of a poster, I explained how to go about finding bootleg movies.

Some Anonymous Coward (aren't they all?) whined:
"Gee thanks. Now kindly shut the fuck up. Don't ruin a good thing for no good reason. Talk about this enough and it will cease to be."

Suck it, Trebek.

This isn't a popular method because it isn't 1-click and it never will be a popular method for that same reason. You don't simply say "gee, I want Photoshop CS" and poof, there it is. You have to scan the groups day in and day out and if you miss more than two days (with the way retention works) then you're S.O.L.

Second, do you have any idea how the newsgroups work? No? Why am I not surprised? Because if you did, you'd realize how bloody difficult it is for the RIAA/MPAA/et al to do anything about newsgroups because it is nothing more than someone posting small chunks of noise which is collected by the user and sewn together. Of course this makes it impossible to stop for the same reason that international IP is not recognized by absolutely everyone. You'd have to get 100% cooperation from every government in the world to succeed.

It would be nice if ignorance were painful. In your case, lethal.

If you think that my post clued the four-letter goons in just now, you're an idiot. And if you think that more than two people who actually bother to read Slashdot -- and did not already know about newsgroups, no less -- suddenly figured it out thanks to me, you're a super idiot.

Take your pick.

Re:Where are they?

[Wargames]

Here's the link for clicking on. www.suprnova.com

This is not a free service but it looks very convenient.

Note, I get the credit for the link.

Re:Where are they?

[onomatomania]

You fucking idiots, suprnova is completely free. It's .ORG not .COM. The .COM site is run by a bunch of sqautters hoping to make a buck off of STUPID IDIOTS that can't get the domain right.

sole source?

[gl4ss]

UNLIKELY.

If it were I'd kinda except all releases to have comen from the same group as well.

well, it's hardly likely that it will change anything. they might scapegoat him for all the huge losses of entertainment industry that they've invented with a random number generator though.

and you know what? sometimes the retail dvd is out in usa before the movie hits the big screen here in Finland. with phasing like that who needs screeners?

Re:sole source?

[GigsVT]

What's the motivation here? Why would they risk all this just to provide movies to the Internet at large?

Re:sole source?

[Otter]

If it were I'd kinda except all releases to have comen from the same group as well.

When I lived in Los Angeles, I was about as unconnected from the entertainment industry as you can get, being a molecular biologist for a living. (OK, I had an agent. And worked as an extra a couple of times. But everyone in LA has an agent from the mayor to the guy selling oranges on the freeway ramp.)

Anyway, even I routinely had access to Academy screening videos. Those things were everywhere. I can't imagine there's any shortage of sources for the pirates.

Re:sole source?

[Shalda]

they might scapegoat him for all the huge losses of entertainment industry

At the very least, I expect they'll make an example of him which should have a very strong deterrent effect. Lend your screeners to the wrong person, and bam, you're out of the academy and on a lot of informal blacklists.

Re:sole source?

[DoraLives]

Why would they risk all this

Because it's there. Same reason people risk their lives (and often lose same) just to climb a mountain.

It's kind of like jazz, according to Louis Armstrong: "If you have to ask what it is, you'll never know."

People who take risks on these sorts of terms understand it perfectly well on a completely intuitive level. People who don't understand not only don't understand, but they oftentimes think that everybody else ought not to understand, too. Needless to say, the ones that do understand don't spend much time attempting to enlighten their brethren, they just get on with whatever business is at hand.

Re:sole source?

[Blic]

Offhand I'd say it sounds like the movies actually making it to the internet come further down the chain from him. The article doesn't mention him encoding movies (DIVX, SVCD, whatever) just copying them. He makes five or six copies for friends, maybe they make copies, and eventually one winds up in the hands of group that encodes it and posts it. Would explain why there's lots of different groups releasing encodes, even of the same screener.

Re:sole source?

[gl4ss]

well on the other hand, don't give screeners to anyone and BAM nobody knows about your movie or cares a flying fuck about it and BAM you're not going to be the thing talked about and BAM you don't get nominated and BAM you're not getting showed anywhere..

lose / lose situation for them.. too bad. BAM

also covered on cnn.com

[mcmonkey]

"Stealing movies is tantamount to taking money out of the pockets of everyone involved with the film industry," said United States Attorney Debra W. Yang in a statement. Kinda like how The Godfather 3 is tantamount to taking 3 hours of my life.

Re:also covered on cnn.com

[nate1138]

Isn't it great that a FUCKING US ATTORNEY can't even get the infringement/theft thing straight? She should be disbarred for incompetence.

There's also this choice bit:

Among the movies being illegally sold off the Internet: "Master and Commander," "Last Samurai," "Matrix Revolutions," "Mystic River," "Gods and Generals," "Mighty Wind," "Matchstick Men," "Something's Gotta Give," "Love Actually," "Thirteen" and "Calendar Girls."

There is no evidencd he "sold" anything to anybody. Fuck CNN, they have no respectability anymore.

Re:also covered on cnn.com

[BitchAss]

one can't help but wonder if this will prove to be the main, if not sole, source of these dvd screener leaks

...and does it mean they'll stop playing those damn anti-piracy commercials before movies?

"David makes movies"

"Alls I wants ta do is the bests jobs I cans"

Re:also covered on cnn.com

[BitchAss]

David GOLDSTEIN! I feel better now. I've been racking my brain for the last 1/2 hour to remember his name.

"David Goldstein makes movies" Like that makes me care more. Does anyone have a copy of that so I can download it and put it in front of the DivXs I download. I do want the full theatre experience.

Better yet, anyone wanna make a new one with me? I have a few ideas for some...

"John Smith pirates movies"
"Yeah - I uh, met my wife on IRC while downloading 'Lord of the Rings'. She was dressed up as Arwin when we met. I knew it was love then."

Y'know - it could be like those Apple switch ads.

Re:also covered on cnn.com

[Darth23]

Great. Yet again the US government sounds like a mouthpiece for giane media conglomerates.

Re:also covered on cnn.com

[nfg05]

Along these lines, it also bothers me when news organizations say pirates used "p2p web sites" to obtain illegal movies.

Re:also covered on cnn.com

[madcow_ucsb]

There is no evidencd he "sold" anything to anybody. Fuck CNN, they have no respectability anymore.

Seriously - besides, what retard would actually buy a bootleg off the internet? It's not like it's hard to find them for free. That's almost as stupid as paying for porn.

Re:also covered on cnn.com

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

pirates used "p2p web sites"

Never been to any of these P2P web sites?

My apologies to those of you with the [display domain name] feature enabled.

Re:also covered on cnn.com

[rk2z]

any body else notice how ironic it is that you only see these ads when you have already paid to see the movie. Seems pretty inefectual to tell the paying public not to pirate when they are already not doing that.

Re:also covered on cnn.com

[nate1138]

You are an idiot. They didn't say distribution, they said "sell". And they were wrong.

Re:also covered on cnn.com

[Danse]

but seem completely indifferent to the legal distinctions among theft, robbery, burglary, and conversion?

Probably because we don't get too many stories about those things around here.

Re:also covered on cnn.com

[MacDork]

Fuck CNN, they have no respectability anymore.

I lost all respect for CNN when they actually proposed it may be possible to clone Elvis from a lock of his hair. That would be impossible because there is nothing but mitochondrial DNA in hair. The slightest bit of fact checking would have told them this much. Yet they ran it as a story and in the text gutter along the bottom of their newscast as a genuine possibility.

In regard to the current topic, perhaps it was someone's personal pipe dream to clone him and reset the already illegitimately long copyright clock on his works. If copyright law had the same time limitations put in place by the 1790 Copyright Act, then a) all of Elvis' work would be public domain by now, and b) I would have some sympathy for the MPAA on this issue. As it stands though, neither of the above is true.

Re:also covered on cnn.com

[retinaburn]

Anymore ? I thought they just had a button they found in a cereal box that said 'respectabilicious'.

Don't burn him

[blackmonday]

If he was just sending the guy movies because he'd watched them and was done with them, the only laws he broke were of the Academy, not criminal laws. As it says in the first article, if he didn't know the movies were being copied, he's criminally innocent.

I can't really believe that Caridi really knew that his screeners were being uploaded to the Internet. He's an older guy, I wonder if he's even familiar with the Internet, much less file-sharing. Anyways, if they were guilty wouldn't he let this other guy know, so he could get rid of the evidence before the feds showed up?

It's pretty safe to say he won't be voting for the Academy Awards anymore.

Re:Don't burn him

[Mr. Darl McBride]

Read the article. Caridi knew they were being copied -- indeed, he was having the guy mail back VHS copies.

Re:Don't burn him

[Ilex]

They all know he's guilty. He'll be arrested in due course.

He Has No Chance to Survive, Take Your Time.

Re:Don't burn him

[hanssprudel]

This is simple. Just get two different sources of the video, and do a diff on them. Then you blank out or interpolate over the watermark (depending on whether it turns out to be value or position of the marks that they use).

Re:Don't burn him

[skaffen42]

As it says in the first article, if he didn't know the movies were being copied, he's criminally innocent.

While not a term usually employed by the legal community, I think "criminally stupid" might be a better description.

Re:Don't burn him

[Asic Eng]

Just get two different sources of the video, and do a diff on them.

I'm not sure whether it's so easy - this would work if each version had just one watermark, so video A would have watermark x and video B watermark y. However they might use different sets of watermarks, so video A might have set a,d,x,z and video B might have set b,d,q,x. You'd get rid of a, b, q and z in the comparison, but d and x would still be there.

If you are chosing the sets carfully you might even be able to detect which two sets were combined.

Re:Don't burn him

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAH that two-bit actor is one of the voters for the Acadamy Awards? No wonder Most movies suck ass

Re:Don't burn him

[Via_Patrino]

I wonder if he's even familiar with the Internet

The article says Caridi couldn't make a copy of the tapes himself, how can he be tech person? And make copies for himself i think is fair use, even he probably will go to jail.

And i don't think that Sprague put that copies on the internet himself, the article said it gaves back vhs copies. If he was able to digitalize them he would send copies on dvd.

At long last ...

[burgburgburg]

the national nightmare is over. Finally, the screeners can roam the wilderness, free and unripped.

BitTorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

And make sure you people set up BitTorrents for 'em. I wanted to see Win a date with tad hamilton (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335559/)

Ok folks...

[hookedup]

I herby give him the name 'VHS Carmine'.

You heard it here first.

Re:Ok folks...

[GPLDAN]

This is the part where Michael brings Carmine's brother to sit with him at trial, so he won't point the finger up the line, right?

seinfeld

[hashmap]

Reminds me of the Seinfled episode when Jerry (and then George) became bootleggers.

George: I'm a bootlegger.
Anna: You're a what?
George: I'm bootleggin' a movie, baby!
Anna: Isn't that illegal?
George: I can do hard time for this one. And community service!

Jerry: I don't care about Brody. I was up on 96th Street today, there was a kid couldn't have been more than ten years old. He was asking a street vendor if he had any other bootlegs as good as Death Blow. That's who I care about. The little kid who needs bootlegs, because his parent or guardian won't let him see the excessive violence and strong sexual content you and I take for granted.

Caridi won't get time

[funpaul]

Caridi has yet to be charged, but after he's admitted to supplying Sprague with screeners for the last 3-5 years, I highly doubt his innocence will remain unchallenged for very long."

I don't know, seems to me that Caridi flipped and gave the cops the man they really wanted. I'll bet you they'll be some fines, community service, etc., but I doubt he's going to prison. Sprague is going to be sent up for a long time though.

What did Caridi get out of the arrangement? He denies receiving money, and says he just thought Sprague was a film buff. I wonder if all Caridi ever got from Sprague was praise and adoration: "I've always *loved* your work."

Re:Caridi won't get time

[bigpat]

Yes, it hasn't exactly come out that Caridi was actually involved with the copying of movies... just that his copies were being copied. If he just lent this guy the movies without knowing or benefiting from this financially, then Caridi as far as anyone should be concerned did nothing.

Re:Caridi won't get time

[happyfrogcow]

definately. he's only violated The Academy's rules on not giving the screeners to people, right? screw The Academy if they try to press criminal charges on him. Don't send him any more screeners if you want.

So is an apology coming from the industry?

[Zed2K]

Since many people have been telling the movie industry for years that it is mainly its own people who distribute good copies of movies on the internet and they have constantly denied it. Are they now going to apologize?

Re:So is an apology coming from the industry?

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Since many people have been telling the movie industry for years that it is mainly its own people who distribute good copies of movies on the internet and they have constantly denied it. Are they now going to apologize?

Let me answer that with a question:
Has there been a significant drop in temperature in hell?

MPAA Whacka Mole

[Papa Legba]

One down, thousand to go. Keep at it MPAA and you just might get enough tickets to get that secret decoder ring in the prize case.

The only bad thing is that the screeners will dry up for a couple of months while the release groups go into damage control mode.

But they will be back in time for the DVDRIP.

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Could you please direct me to the article of the constitution that grants immunity to 70 year old criminals? Thank you.

I Feel Safer Already

[MrBlackBand]

Thank God they arrested this guy. Now I can finally sleep at night.

FBI Agent 1: Hey, I've got some evidence here that a massive terrorist attack is going to take place at...

FBI Agent 2: Not now! We've got to stop those damn dirty stinkin' hippie copyright infringers! To the FBImobile!

Re:I Feel Safer Already

[MadCow42]

I know you meant that in jest, but you have to understand that copyright enforcement is essentail to the survival of a capitalist society... if there's no profit in doing something, it won't be done.

If you make the entertainment industry profitless due to illegal downloads of all their works, nobody will make movies any more. Sure, a lot of it is crap, but there are very few people that can honestly say they haven't watched TV, listened to music, or seen a movie in the last DAY, let alone last month/year.

If you take the FBI off these tasks, you're undermining the foundation our society is (maybe wrongly) built on.

MadCow.

Re:I Feel Safer Already

[MrBlackBand]

if there's no profit in doing something, it won't be done.

Bullshit. Raising children, spending 'quality time' with the family, reading, mountain biking, etc. all have no profit in them. Most of them cost money (a hell of a lot for #1) yet they still get done.

If you make the entertainment industry profitless due to illegal downloads of all their works, nobody will make movies any more.

Double bullshit. People who love making movies will continue to do so. Why is it so hard for capitalists to realise that for thousands of years people have created art without profit? Have you never heard of the term "starving artist"?

Sure, a lot of it is crap...

Because it is money-driven. Designed to offend no one, lest they dare not spend their money on it. Take the bottom line out of it and you get great art (bearing in mind that "great art" is about the subjective phrase in English).

If you take the FBI off these tasks, you're undermining the foundation our society is (maybe wrongly) built on.

Our society is not built on the bottom line of the Entertainment Industry(tm). If these companies want to stop people from making copies of their crap then they should spend the resources to track the people down. Sure, the executives will only be able to buy 4 yahts this year, but it will be money well spent.

Re:I Feel Safer Already

[MrBlackBand]

Yeah ... that's a great idea! Let's all just focus on one type of crime.

Nowhere in my post did I say that.

Why worry about child abductions...

The topic is about copyright infringement, not child abductions. Or are you equating copyright infringement with child abductions?

Same goes for medical research. Eh, Cancer can wait! We're putting everybody on Spina Biffida.

Huh?

Putting everybody on a single objective isn't the right approach.

Oh I see now. You think my point is that we should concentrate on one type of crime at a time. Actually, my point is that the FBI should not be wasting resources on crap like copyright infringement when there are more important threats. Like child abductions.

Says IMDB

[snofla]

Named as a "person of interest" by the FBI looking into illegal copies of recently released films appearing on the Internet.
IMDB's bio of Caridi.

They will both serve lengthy prision terms

[geomon]

if convicted of the charges that they suggest are involved.

Sprague (charged):
1) criminal copyright infringement, and
2) illegal interception of a satellite signal

Caridi (may be charged):
1) contributory copyright infringement

While I'm no fan of breaking copyright law (or any law for that matter), what pisses me off is that these two will be sentenced to terms longer than Bill Janklow (R,SD). That fucker will get 100 days for killing someone AND his record will be expunged.

No wonder people have no faith in the judicial system.

Re:They will both serve lengthy prision terms

[HPNpilot]

Money crimes are very serious in this country.

Re:They will both serve lengthy prision terms

[2MuchC0ffeeMan]

Caridi will most likely get off, cause he co-operated with the FBI...

Sprague will be made an example out of.

Re:They will both serve lengthy prision terms

[drinkypoo]

The article says Janklow blamed it on being a diabetic and not having eaten in 11 hours. That is no excuse, and should not even be mentioned in court, except as a preface to the statement "but since I knew I was a diabetic, and that would affect my driving, you should throw me in the slammer for being a fucking asshole."

Re:They will both serve lengthy prision terms

[kmankmankman2001]

Right on! Where the heck is ABATE on this? Whatever happened to "Kill a biker, go to jail"? Not for 100 damn days! Guy didn't even stick around, he drove away and left Scott there. Well now that the criminal case is over I hope Scott's family goes to civil court and rips Janklow a new one.

Re:They will both serve lengthy prision terms

[dvdave]

If they can show that Caridi knew anything about what Sprague was doing, you can throw in Conspiracy charges for both as well.

Re:They will both serve lengthy prision terms

[Cryptnotic]

Unfortunately, no.

She's a fun girl at parties though.

Stickler for the law

[ad0gg]

According to an FBI affidavit, six such "loopers" and six DirecTV access boxes were in plain view at Sprague's home when agents conducted their search. One box was connected to a television and had a reconfigured card in it.

Wonder how they knew it was reconfigured for pirating satellite reception without seizing it or at least turning on the tv. Last time I checked warrant is only for the crime that it was issued to, pulling out the card or turning on the tv don't fall in scope with a warrant to search for illegal dvds.

Re:Stickler for the law

[Graemee]

Even If you were not tech savy and you saw a AVR board or other electronic device in a sat reciever, you'd know it was not a regular card. I believe they can expand their search if evidence of another crime is obvious. Most satellite hacks are pretty obvious, besides this was a previous investigation and they probably ran him the FBI DB and his ass was flagged and they looked.

Re:Stickler for the law

[Colazar]

Well, since they were probably searching for any evidence of copying or distributing these screeners, I would think that pretty much any audio-visual equipment would be fair game for the warrant.

Hey! FBI!

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

Can you drop the fucking make-believe-land movie crap and go after those real-life terrorists instead?

And see if you can get back my VCR and tape collection from the guy who burglarized my house.

Re:Hey! FBI!

[Anonymous Coward]

And see if you can get back my VCR and tape collection from the guy who burglarized my house.

Uhh...it's not the FBI's job to recover your porn collection, assmonkey.

Fresh obsessed

[luckytroll]

These pirates are a little too fresh obsessed - crappy camera vids, then crappy VHS rips -its only going to hurt the box office if the movie is so bad people wouldnt want to see it on the big screen in the first place. I suspect that if all movies were available on opening night in VHS quality on the net, the great movies would do better, and the crappy ones would be destroyed at the box office.

Well this is certainly odd...

[emtboy9]

I thought it was 14 year old girls, 60 year old grandmothers, and college students who were responsible for all teh piracy... It cant possibly be one of the Acadamy members!!

Makes ya wonder tho, after all the commercials geared to make the American public feel guilt for pirating movies, how will the MPAA and such be taken seriously now that its been pretty much proven that one of their own is responsible for HUNDREDS of movie screeners getting out into the wild?

That would be like one of the RIAA people being found trading CDs on P2P networks in his off hours...

Re:Well this is certainly odd...

[Contact]

That would be like one of the RIAA people being found trading CDs on P2P networks in his off hours...

Actually, some record industry guys were merrily quoting from an independent report a few months back, and when the author of the report asked where they'd read it (as not many copies had been purchased), they went a bit red and admitted they'd been emailing copies of it to each other.

If they don't respect copyrights themselves, they really ought to realise why the general public don't seem to do so either.

it was a nice run- while it lasted

[way2trivial]

now the only d/l available will be screenED..
I often wonder, the commodization of computers made the pricepoint go down.. who pays 3k for a computer any more? no one..
ever watch the original 'blob'? one great scene, where the kids are pulled out of the movie house by the local law enforcement.. they complain "ok sherrif, you've got out eighty cents"-- movies were a dime.. and until my adulthood, so were phone calls.. think about it.. movies and payphone calls were the same price at one point in time. and payphones held level for DECADES

could not the widespread of free movies have forced the studios to re-normalize (read, de-gouge) to a point where the value was obvious?
instead of selling popcorn/candy/soda/food at a huge markup, and forbidding bringing it in from outside.. charge enough of a price that precludes anyone from wanting to bring it in from outside.
instead of selling 10-20 bags at 1$ profit, sell 100-200 bags at 20 cents profit

Re:it was a nice run- while it lasted

[cheekyboy]

What $1 profit? last I heard here in australia, $6 per large, its $5.95 profit, since the bag costs more than the popcorn itself.

Screw em, I bring my own stuff. At least we dont have nazis here that search your bags :)

Re:it was a nice run- while it lasted

[Qrlx]

People pay $3k for a top of the line ailenware machine. A geek friend of mine, quite capable of building his own system, just did this. He wanted the convenience and he wanted a slick rig. It was worth it to him. (I buy parts and tweak, but that's just me.) Or as others have pointed out a high-end Mac will cost that much.

Sure, the price has droppped a little. I seem to recall a boss that spent $4k at Dell when the Pentium Pro 200 came out. Or how about $9k for a Mac II FX back in 1990? So things aren't quite that expensice any more. And the cheap stuff has gotten dramatically cheaper. (Duron 1.6GHz for fifty bucks, anyone?) But a top of the line x86 system will still set you back at least two grand.

As for the popcorn, that (total concession revenue) is actually more of a money maker than ticket sales. Not sure how much more, but there it is.

WHen I go to moveis, unless I must go to opening night, I go to the second-run theater where the tickets are like three bucks. The money i "save" goes right to popcorn!

Direct TV captures on the internet.

[Graemee]

"Asked whether Sprague might have been burning DVDs with content taken from his illegal satellite TV connections, Mrozek said: "It's kind of separate from the movie thing, but who knows? We'll continue to investigate.""

Come on, even PPV today isn't any more recent then what the video stores offer.

Boy, Did this guys Karma take a beating. Sat theft, an Academy Investiagtion, FBI. Maybe the RIAA is looking into him, what's his IP address.

Re:Direct TV captures on the internet.

[wampus]

If you are ripping PPV, then you don't have to get up off your fat pirate ass.

The accused.

[codework]

The accused biog here

So it's bad for BIG BIZ to steal, only little guy

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I highly doubt his innocence will remain unchallenged for very long.

But average /.ers still think its hunky dory to go out to the net and download it. Everybody wants something for free, doesn't matter what it is.

We can all go on and on about the evils of big business, how all they want to do is rip us off. But most people also think that the rules that apply to us "little people" such as honesty and integrity should apply to Big Biz as well, no double standards. So why do most here still think it's OK to steal music and movies?

Re:Great.

[Kierthos]

Nothing, per se, but you notice how much bad press the RIAA got for suing a little girl, right? Besides, they're probably much happier to find the leak (Caridi), and have the "mad copier" (Sprague) in custody.

Sprague will, no doubt, see some jail time, but he's just as likely to plea bargain his time down if he can provide the Feds and the MPAA with any more names or information.

Caridi, however... let's see, career ruined, good name ruined... sure, they could throw him in jail, but if he sticks to his story, he's likely to get off with little time or punishment other then being ostracized by the major players in Hollywood.

Kierthos

And also thank you...

[hoggoth]

> Thank you ... for saving me ... for providing the worthless crap that the MPAA puts out

Thank you to all the people I've mugged in alleys over the years for saving me thousands of dollars on cars, motorcycles, clothes, drugs, jewelry, and dinner with friends/family for providing the worthless crap that our materialistic society demands we consume.

I am a victim of a society gone rotten!

Re:And also thank you...

[Darth23]

Thank you RIAA and the MPAA for confusing the difference between sharing and stealing. Remind me to call the cops on all the people who have books, tapes and magazines of mine. Remind me to call the FBI on the Public Library as well.

Re:And also thank you...

[aWalrus]

Once again: Distributing a perfect copy of copyrighted material over the internet is not sharing, regardless of the fact that you may not be charging for it.

I don't agree with the tactics of the RIAA and MPAA, but I'm sick of people thinking they have a god-given right to enjoy entertainment they don't pay for (as crappy as it may actually be).

Re:And also thank you...

[Gilmoure]

But they're charging $16.98 for Pluto Nash, the Extended Special Edition. That's over 1 hour of my labor, to earn that much cash. How else am I going to see the deleted nude scenes with Randy Quaid?

Re:And also thank you...

[LookSharp]

I think it's time we re-evaluate our value system. Fiscal values, I mean.

Why *should we* pay so much to consume things with our eyes and ears, and have them placed-- temporarily or permanently-- in our memory? Shouldn't this "consumption" be valued differently than food or solid goods?

I know why we *do* pay so much, because corporations want to make money, and "the consumers" (the ones with enough money so as to make the expense of free acquisition a waste of time, which currently means the majority) are willing to pay the asking price no questions asked. The vocal minority wants cheaper prices for their "entertainment," the silent back-roomers just continue to acquire and consume before moving on.

I personally believe that if money can be made on the consumption of entertainment, it should be considered 100% bonus. People should be able to see and hear things at will. The logic that follows is that without fiscal incentive, there will be no more creation. I call shenanigans.

Between marketing tie-ins, merchandising, and the continuing (and likely perpetual) sale of physical media that provides a sense of "ownership" to the consumer, there is *plenty* of money to go around for *good* entertainment. (e.g. The Lord of The Rings - about 300 million dollars to manufacture, another few hundred mill to market (they could have done well with much less, IMHO), and the net result will be between four and five *billion* dollars in return.)

The problem is that many people do not want to pay unless they know something is worthwhile... they should be allowed to view or listen to the entertainment before deciding it is worth "owning." The current corporate construct of the capitalist world is not engineered to understand and respond to that mentality.

That's not an "everything's free, man" hippie point of view, it's a challenge to change the world. Capitalism can work, but not in a vacuum. Corporations devoid of intelligence and accountability cannot be trusted to evolve into entities that understand and value like advanced human beings. (I'm giving people the benefit of the doubt here. :)

Re:And also thank you...

[LookSharp]

I'm sick of people thinking they have a god-given right to enjoy entertainment they don't pay for (as crappy as it may actually be).

I think you say that without thinking about the words that you're typing.

God gives each of us a different idea of entertainment. Just because something's labelled "Entertainment" does not mean that I will be entertained, or that it has a curtural or financial value.

I posted a deeper brain-dump here.

Re:And also thank you...

[aWalrus]

The model you describe (give away the product for free, make money with the tie-ins) already exists and is used successfully by an enormous amount of Intellectual property producers (software, books and even movies).

The fact here is that the producer has the option to choose the revenue model he wants for his product. This cannot be forced upon people. What you're saying is akin to suggesting that because GPL'd software exists and is a viable business model, *everyone* should license their software that way.

Furthermore, there are fundamental difference between "fairness" and "law". There are unfair laws that people choose to break. There's nothing wrong with this (*Knowingly* breaking a law you don't agree with is a valid civil statement as long as you're not hurting someone). That said, you can't expect said law to disppear or not be enforced merely because you don't agree with it.

Re:And also thank you...

[LookSharp]

I'm talking about the evolution of public awareness (unlikely without activism, sadly) and eventual adoption by legislative and corporate entities.

I'm not saying we start forcing people to adopt this model tomorrow; I'm saying that I believe in trying to pursue the ideal whenever possible.

I live my life trying to manage, moderate and merge ideology and reality. I stumble often, as the two are largely incongruous. :)

Re:And also thank you...

[TyrranzzX]

Theft is defined a mugger taking a wallet from someone. Taking something from someone by force. I go and download a movie, I'm not taking anything. It's like going into a store, taking out a nanolathing machine, setting it up next to a pot of flowers and replicating the pot of flowers then walking off with your pot of flowers and nanolathing machine. Store doesn't lose a pot of flowers, it doesn't lose anything at all. The only way they can proove they lose something is for you to say "If it weren't for the replicator, I would buy the pot of flowers", and the 5th amendment protects us from implicating outselves I believe.

Is it rude to walk into a store and replicate a pot of flowers? You betcha. But not illegal nor should it be illegal. However, the store would be well within it's rights to ban the use of nano-lathing equipment that can replicate products on it's premisise. You've also got to wonder about the affordability of the pot of flowers, quality, etc. You expect a lot more for $10 than you do for free. Most of the movies I'v got I wouldn't spend $1 on, they aren't worth that to me. Most people think a music CD should be $3, and a movie should be $5. Not $15 and $30. But that's besides the point.

From now on, don't get copy right law and theft mixed up like so many misleaded people do. Applying old systems of thought to new things tends to completly ruin those new systems. If the original creaters of the internet had copyright in mind, we wouldn't have the internet. The RIAA and MPAA likes to call people thiefs and pirates because it sounds good and to get mislead people such as yourself to go on "your a theif, evil evil thief" namecalling rampages to shun the file sharers and warez hounds. Do I think it's bad thing to do? Hell yes, but unfortunatly I think the major corperations have already ruined many buisnesses by making file sharing a victomless crime. People don't differentiate between software and music made by a multimillion doller cartel and a small company in europe; it's all the same to them.

In all honesty, they want to protect their bottom line and increase profitability. I frankly have no mercy or respect for cartels or monopolies. Profiteering corperations are dangerous enough as it is to all life on this planet; the ones who can sit on and control the resources are even worse. Few people working in them are bad beans, but I suppose when you can blackmail a person into doing what you want them to do (do this or you're fired) you've got a lot of power.

Arresting the Criminals

[TheDawgLives]

It's nice to see the FBI arresting the person actually breaking the law, unlike the RIAA which suied napster and other P2P services for "providing a conduit to break the law." If the FBI thought like the RIAA, they would destroy all roads in the US, because they facilitate people breaking the speed limit.

Re:Arresting the Criminals

[devnull17]

If the FBI thought like the RIAA, they would destroy all roads in the US, because they facilitate people breaking the speed limit.

Yeah! You know, it was just last week that I got pulled over by the FBI for going 75 in a 60.

FBI has no business

[nurb432]

This should be a civil manner, not something that has been escalated to a federal criminal issue. ( including their funding via taxes )

Yes I realize that recent laws have allowed this, but that doest make it right.

At this point the feds can go after anything they want, for any reason. regardless of how severe it isnt.

Re:FBI has no business

[stubear]

Copyright law is a federal statute and therefore falls under teh jurisdiction of federal crimes which are investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sure there are civil and criminal penalties but this does not mean that the case is necessarily investigated by state or local police.

Re:FBI has no business

[ajakk]

Yes I realize that recent laws have allowed this, but that doest make it right. Recent? You could be criminally prosecuted for copyright infringement under the 1909 Copyright Act. Don't believe everything you hear on Slashdot (especially regarding the law).

Re:FBI has no business

[hackstraw]

This should be a civil manner, not something that has been escalated to a federal criminal issue. ( including their funding via taxes )

You can check out the FBI's updated priorities here. I too don't see how the FBI got mixed up with movies. Maybe its just advertising, because the most I hear/see from the FBI on a regular basis is at the beginning of DVDs where the FBI warns me to be good with the content of the disc.

But hey, if the FBI is this aggressive for movie copyright violators, then terrorists, organized crime, and spys must so scared that they will stop doing their illegal activities any time now.

Will this mark a change?

[hugzz]

Just to be noted from the article:
However, because this year the screeners carried invisible markings for the first time, the studios were able to identify the Academy member for whom they had been intended.

If everyone who gets a copy of movies knows that they're traceable, wont this seriously cut back the amount of people willing to get screeners onto the internet? I know if I was given screeners and occaisionally leaked them, i'd stop right now (at least until I found out what these "invsible markings" were, and how to remove them)

Re:Will this mark a change?

[Grey_14]

Any decent group distributing these movies, have known about, and removed these marks for years now, This is just a slightly new idea in that manner of copy protection, It'll be broken. They just missed it this first time (oops),

As I recall, Normally, they get two seperate copy's of a movie, and compare them, to find out whats different, then remove it from both copys.

or something, Y'know.

Re:Will this mark a change?

[Darth23]

Yeah, they'll have to make a public example of these guys for the propagan - er - Public Information effect. I just how that they can get a book deal and a tv movie out of this when it's all done.

Re:Will this mark a change?

[gr8_phk]

If I was really bent on releasing screeners onto the net (or other motives), I'd do the following:

1) Drop by a big party at someones house whom I secretly hate.
2) Find their copy of a screener
3) Duck out to the car where a laptop awaits and do some ripping.

Loads of fun.

Re:Will this mark a change?

[octal666]

I will probably be less willing to receive any copy of a movie. Since it's so easy to rip and put onto the Internet, I will feel like it was burning my hands, if your copy gets leaked, say, by accident, in a week you can be sued for causing million dollar loss.
I will prefer not being in such a danger.

Re:Will this mark a change?

[ivan256]

What if the protection is something that is in every copy but one?

Re:Will this mark a change?

[LnxAddct]

Then they can't track it to one specific person. They'd have to say something like "One of you 3,000 screeners leaked our film and we want answers!" rather then "Yo dumbass, our invisible mark says that this film on the internet was yours. Give us your freedom now!"
Regards,
Steve

Re:Will this mark a change?

[ivan256]

No, they'd be able to determine the two films that were diffed with each other because the two identifiers that were missing would be traceable. If the identifiers run the entire length of the film in the overscan, or appear repeatedly, it could be shown that it was highly unlikely that exactly the right frames were dropped by mere coincidence.

Re:Will this mark a change?

[cfuse]

If everyone who gets a copy of movies knows that they're traceable, wont this seriously cut back the amount of people willing to get screeners onto the internet?

In a word, no. If I were a 'distributor' of entertainment that I knew was marked for each individual, I would simply obtain more sources and compare them. Soon, I would be able to identify the indentifying marks.

And if I wanted to give the movie industry a big 'up yours', I would release my stuff with false markings.

Good thing criminals are idiots

[strictnein]

Why wouldn't this guy have disposed of, or at least hidden away in some storage facility (pay with cash), all of his equipment?
If I'm doing something like he was and my "supplier" gets busted, everything I have is going bye bye. You still might get busted, but they're going to have a hell of a lot harder time prosecuting you if they don't have that stuff as evidence.

Re:Good thing criminals are idiots

[ChicagoBiker]

Did you happen to catch the ages of all these people involved (50-60 years old)? There's a whole generation of folks out there who don't really feel this is all that much of a "crime".

Add to that, there are some really, really stupid people out there (especially in that area of Chicago) who think that they are somehow invisible to the law, that "everyone is doing it", that it's "ok", and "some big corporation or the freakin' FBI ain't comin' after ME, I'm a nobody, I'm just makin' copies for my buddies from the Moose Lodge. We're on the inside track, we've got an important uncle in Hollywood. Billy Bob is the president of the Moose cause he gets all those cool movies first. And hey, if you want, you get in good with him, he'll give you one of those special TV boxes he makes that gets ya HBO for free. Free man! He's so smart"

With the national news attention this is getting right now, there are a lot of suburban hicks in Chicago today disposing of VHS tapes, burned DVD's and Satellite black boxes. Too bad garbage pickup in most communities is Thursday or Friday (this morning), so I guess you'll see them by the side of the road. And someone's 16 year old son who's dad is about three degrees of separation away from the guy they arrested is having his computer and internet connection removed from his bedroom this afternoon and is grounded for life.

Re:Good thing criminals are idiots

[GPLDAN]

You got that right. Homewood Illinois is known for having a really good BBQ place (forget the name, I actually think it was called 'The Homewood') and other than that, the place looks like GoodFellas. Most of the houses still have the plastic wrap over the couches in the living room. It's like a timewarp.

Where are the duplicates?

[MissMarvel]

Sprague is claiming he duplicated the screeners and returned the origional plus two copies to Caridi. Caridi is claiming he didn't know Sprague was duplicating the screeners.

Seems to me a search of Caridi's home would be in order. Of course, it's probably too late now. If Sprague is telling the truth, Caridi surely would have disposed of any evidence by now. Too bad.

Re:Great.

[pclminion]

If the guy committed a crime, what's wrong with putting him in prison?

So it's not okay for me to disagree with a law, or the harshness of the punishment for it?

Sorry, I thought I was supposed to never question anything.

It's in there but...

[SwedishChef]

because of the special nature of eyesight over 40, only those of us with the proper corrective lenses (which you poor fools don't think you need... yet) can read it.

Re:Great.

[pclminion]

Could you please direct me to the article of the constitution that grants immunity to 70 year old criminals?

Can you please direct me to where it says I'm not allowed to disagree with a law, or the punishments associated with it?

I suppose you think it would be justice to throw somebody in prison, most likely for the remainder of his life, because he allowed people to see a movie screener? You're a barbarian.

How is "interception" illegal?

[gkuz]

So I actually RTFA, and I'm wondering about the legal basis for the "illegal interception of satellite signals" part. I can see where copyright infringement is illegal, and I can see where duplicating the SatTV smart cards is illegal, but what, exactly, is "illegal interception"? If they beam RF into my home, can't I receive it and -- purely for experimental purposes, say -- try to do something with it? The RF spectrum is licensed for transmitting on, but I thought I had a legal right to receive whatever I wanted. Now whether I can decrypt the data I receive is another question entirely.

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[general_re]

If they beam RF into my home, can't I receive it and -- purely for experimental purposes, say -- try to do something with it?

No. And if your neighbors might be wondering the same thing, I suggest you don't buy a cordless phone. Or a cell phone.

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[gkuz]

>If they beam RF into my home, can't I receive it and -- purely for experimental purposes, say -- try to do something with it?

No.

Can you give me reference to the relevant US Code? This is not a troll, I am genuinely curious. I know that manufacturers of reasonably full-spectrum RF receivers have to block the ability to receive in the 800MHz cell range for units sold in the US, but you can buy the receivers elsewhere in the world, so technically even receiving those signals is not illegal in the US. So how (exactly, please) is receiving the SatTV signal illegal?

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[NinjaPablo]

It's what you do with what you receive. Receiving the SatTV signal will give you garbage. Decrypting it runs you afoul of the law. Receiving your neighbor's cordless phone signal and monitor their conversations is also illegal. Monitoring police frequencies is legal, as long as you're not running from the cops in your car while you're doing it.

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[gkuz]

Receiving your neighbor's cordless phone signal and monitor their conversations is also illegal

Under what statute, please? Be specific.

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[Motherfucking Shit]

I'm wondering about the legal basis for the "illegal interception of satellite signals" part.

IANAL. However, "satellite theft" accusations usually fall under USC 47 605. This is one of the laws DirecTV was using to base its lawsuits against "smart card" owners, IIRC.

(a) Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception, [...] (6) on demand of other lawful authority. No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. [...]

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the interception or receipt by any individual, or the assisting (including the manufacture or sale) of such interception or receipt, of any satellite cable programming for private viewing if - 1) the programming involved is not encrypted; and [...]

Note the phrase "satellite cable programming," it qualifies satellite TV as cable TV. So now we look to USC 47 553, which says:

(a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service; ''assist in intercepting or receiving'' defined (1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law. [...]

In a nutshell, 47 605 establishes that satellite TV qualifies as cable TV (as well as "radio"), and 47 553 makes it illegal to intercept cable TV without the authorization of the operator.

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[Xoder]

Reception is always legal. Decryption (see DMCA) and illegal surveilance (see Amenment IV, US constitution) are not.

So... say I'm tuning about on my scanner, and I just happen to come across my next door neighbor talking about his drug deal (he didn't upgrade to the latest digital cordless phone, the fool!). If I gave my friendly neighborhood police officer a tape of that conversation, it would be illegal. However, if I called up Mr. PoPo and told him that I thought there was some funny stuff going down, and he managed to get a warrant for those kinds of things, then those tapes would be admissable.

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[Vegeta99]

FWIW, it's my opinion that it's not.

A little googling will find stories of C-band sattelite dish users seeing ABC/NBC/CBS sending the "via sattelite" transmissions over a usually dead transponder. In the DirecTV case, it's probably fraud - Since there's no way to (cheaply) talk back to the sattelite and verify your subscriber status every time you turn on the reciever, they use smart cards. DCMA or not, he's changing the contents of the smart card to fool his reciever into thinking he's a valid subscriber. It'd be the same as using someone else's keycard to get into a building you're not allowed to be in.

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[NinjaPablo]

The Counterfeit Access Device Law (18 USC 1029) states it is illegal to use a radio scanner "knowingly and with the intent to defraud" to eavesdrop on a wired or wireless commmunication. Full details here

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[sLaSh_N_bUrN_(.Y.)]

When cordless phones first came out, you could pick up on calls with a standard police scanner (they are legal here). Are you telling me that just having a scanner is breaking the law? Do police need a warent to receive signals that are emitted from your house?

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[general_re]

Reception is always legal.

But what you get are people who don't understand the difference, and who try to parse the fact that simply owning a piece of metal that might act as a natural antenna causes them to "receive" signals without having to do anything therefore makes it legal to take those signals and do something with them. Arguments that it's passing through my property, therefore it's mine to do with as I please, are just silly - the pizza guy's car doesn't become yours just because he parks in your driveway when he's making a delivery. You cannot refuse to pay the cab driver for a ride to the airport just because you think he was going that way anyway - that's theft of service, same as taking satellite TV without paying for it.

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[general_re]

So how (exactly, please) is receiving the SatTV signal illegal?

It's not the "receiving" that's illegal - standing outside with a metal coathanger held to the sky will cause you to "receive" satellite signals. It's the "try to do something with it" part that will get you in trouble.

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[general_re]

Do police need a warent to receive signals that are emitted from your house?

Typically, yes. Otherwise, they'd never bother with surveillance warrants in the first place - they'd just set up an antenna with no oversight at all.

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[sLaSh_N_bUrN_(.Y.)]

Surveillance, yes. But what about just driving by my house and just happen to pick up a signal of me saying "I am going to bomb such and such" or "yes, mrs. doe. I will kill your husband"? Will they keep driving or use this as cause to get a warrant for surveillance? or worse yet just bust on in? This is assuming they know where the signal came from.

No, this has not happened to anyone I know.

Re:How is "interception" illegal?

[general_re]

But what about just driving by my house and just happen to pick up a signal of me saying "I am going to bomb such and such" or "yes, mrs. doe. I will kill your husband"?

That's the sort of thing that the Fourth Amendment - for the moment, anyway - doesn't allow. They have to have a reason to be there, and they have to have a reason to be listening to you, and with those reasons, they then have to get a warrant, otherwise it's an illegal search - see, e.g., Kyllo v. United States. They can't simply "go fishing" by rolling up and down the streets of your neighborhood with a scanner to see what they might "just happen" to pick up.

Obviously, the devil is in the details in this kind of thing, though. Suppose for a minute that the FBI has a warrant to listen in to the wireless transmissions of your neighbor, the reputed mobster. And while so doing, they accidentally catch your baby monitor as it broadcasts you speaking about your plans to blow up the White House, or whatever. Clearly, they'll want to investigate further, but they still need to go get a warrant to do any further listening, or they risk having everything they hear being tossed out of court when they come to arrest you later on. Basically, any time you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in your own home, the police are required to obtain a warrant to do any kind of electronic surveillance, as per Katz v. United States...

Re:Great.

[zakezuke]

It depends whether or not he's found guilty and if he spends more time in prison then someone who commited a violent crime such as murder.

Mysterious Uploading

[barryfandango]

"The FBI affidavit does not explain how the films were uploaded to the Internet."

The FBI understands how the screeners were distributed and then illegally copied using elaborate equipment. As for how that digital information made it on to the interweb, they are still researching the possibilities. Their suspicions include the use of some kind of Computing Machine.

Re:Great.

[thenextpresident]

I suppose you think it would be justice to throw somebody in prison, most likely for the remainder of his life, because he allowed people to see a movie screener? You're a barbarian.

So I take it you support companies taking the Linux kernel, and then using it, and NOT following the GPL? I mean, if you agree with that, then fine. I am sure you are also okay with companies that say they won't sell or distribute your private information, and then do so anyways without fear of punishment.

I am sure you are supportive of those measures...so I guess it's all golden.

RANT: Annoying useless propaganda advertising

[Thud457]

I just hates advermatizing!

Dammit, I've already paid my $8 to see your goddamned movie! I'm not the one you need to be winning the hearts and minds of!

The people you really need to go after are those that AREN'T already in your damn theater and AREN'T buying/renting your DVDs. Maybe you should take out some magazine ads or something. I bet those damn gamers have PCs and DSL... hmmmm....

As an engineer, I find wasted effort to be offensive. STOP annoying your paying customercers!

Re:RANT: Annoying useless propaganda advertising

[sTalking_Goat]

I really need to get my hans on a bootleg copy of that anti-piracy ad.

I just know there's something clever to be done with it...

"Copy Guard Breaker"?

[donutz]

Google doesn't know about any program called "Copy Guard Breaker". What is this mysterious software program that Sprague allegedly used?

Re:"Copy Guard Breaker"?

[emilng]

I'm guessing they didn't want to release the actual name of the program he used for fear that other people might start using it after they find it on Google.

Re:"Copy Guard Breaker"?

[glesga_kiss]

It'll likely be a Macrovision stripper. Which kinda misses the point; screeners are usually DVD but this crew was working from VHS. Patsy?

Re:"Copy Guard Breaker"?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

There is software to strip Macrovision from VHS? Does it turn off the vertical-stabilizer-thingamajig on your video capture card? How exactly would that work otherwise?

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

You are allowed to disagree with a law but you are also required to uphold it. You of course think that you are part of some great revolution, participating in some great collective disobedience when, in fact, you are a simple criminal. The fact is that by downloading a movie off the internet you are participating in a crime. By uploading a movie on the internet for millions to share, you are participating in a crime. You might think the law is unfair but you think thus not because you believe in some greater justice, nor because you think it makes you less free but, face it, because that way you can NOT PAY for what you are watching. And I HAVE TO PAY MORE because people like you find downloading movies justifiable.

You really should seperate the RIAA and MPAA

[AzrealAO]

Their approaches to internet copyright infringement and illegal copying have been quite different from the get go (largely, I suspect due to the volume of piracy each industry is experiencing).

Re:Great.

[k98sven]

Could you please direct me to the article of the constitution that grants immunity to 70 year old criminals?

It has nothing to do with immunity or the consitution, it has to do with the principles of justice though.

What was the reason we put people in jail, again?

Oh yeah, to protect society and to punish criminals.
Let's see.. is this 70-year-old a danger to society? Hardly. Will he commit the same crime again? I doubt it.

Punishment, then? Well.. putting the guy in jail for any extended period is more or less a life sentence. Hardly warranted for a crime that didn't harm anyone, except financially, and even that's in a rather diffuse manner.

And there are plenty of ways to punish the guy without putting him in jail.

Re:C'mon, we know Caridi was doing it

[Aumaden]

Of course, that's not the way it will play in MPAA's version of reality. Just watch, all the focus will be on Sprague while Caridi will fade into the background. The fact that most of the leaks came from an industry insider will be quietly swept under the carpet.

(I'm not saying Sprague should go free, just that he couldn't have done it without Caridi.)

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

RTFA. He signed a document agreeing to not let the movies leave his home.

Re:Great.

[pclminion]

You of course think that you are part of some great revolution, participating in some great collective disobedience when, in fact, you are a simple criminal.

What the fuck are you talking about? I've never downloaded a movie. This isn't about me, as you seem to think. Continue making your stupid assumptions. One day they'll get you in hot water.

You just can't imagine how a person who doesn't pirate movies on the Internet could possibly have an opinion on this matter, huh?

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

You do not put people in prisons to protect society, nor to punish them. It is a common misconception, however it is wrong.

Re:Great.

[pclminion]

So I take it you support companies taking the Linux kernel, and then using it, and NOT following the GPL?

Wow, you people are just fountains of illogic, today.

Read what I said. I didn't say it should be legal to violate copyright. What I said was, it is cruel to imprison somebody whose death is already imminent, for a non-violent crime commited against what amounts to a corporate conglomerate.

The issue is not my ability to pirate movies off the Internet. I don't even do that. The issue is the degree of punishment this man will probably face, which is disproportionate and cruel.

Double Standards

[thenextpresident]

I am probably going to be mod'ed as flamer, but still. I see a lot of double standards here (yeah, it's /., I know). These people broke the law. They should be punished.

People are complaining about wording in the article or from quotes (people suggesting they "stole" something). Does it really matter? Does the description of the act to a news reporter change the crime? If I describe a murderer's act as "He hurt the victims...", does that change the fact that the murderer committed the crime?

And for everyone complaining about how the big bad MPAA is going after people for these "littie" crimes. Remember, they are using the same laws that protect the Linux Kernel. When the community goes after a company that doesn't provide the source code they use, and don't follow the GPL, it's basically the same damn thing. We have rights they agreed to, and we expect them to act accordingly.

I mean, seriously, by suggesting that the MPAA shouldn't be going after these guys is tantamount to suggesting that the laws should be different for big companies and small companies.

Regardless of the current state of the laws in the country, that's just wrong. If these guys did commit crimes, nuff said. They should be punished.

Saying that they shouldn't be punished for committing a crime is just wrong.

Re:Double Standards

[forand]

I think that there is an undertone that you might be missing: many here are worried about the "current state of the laws in the country." As a poster aboved mentioned this type of "crime" was a civil matter and used to be handled by civil courts. Now, however, federal, state, and local governments are doing the grunt work and paying to enforce these new laws.

Also I don't think you are correct in your assertion that the same laws are protecting the linux kernel, the laws being used here are criminal laws that are very specificly targeted a distribution of content, in various ways.

Re:Double Standards

[Cyno]

Yeah, he broke the law. So fine him $1000 and lets move on. Its not like he injured another person physically. I mean how can you even compare this "crime" to murder?

Saying that they shouldn't be punished for committing a crime is just wrong.

And imprisoning someone for committing a "crime" that does not physically injure anyone is just as wrong.

I consider a crime to be stealing someone's car or their physical possessions. Stealing someone's IP by copying it (not taking any physical products) some might consider a serious crime, if it were their IP. But I can't feel that strongly about something so petty.

Re:Double Standards

[strike2867]

Please give credit where it is due for your sig.

Also small companies should have different rights from big companies. Personally I cant afford to pay 100 grand to lawyers for years after years of appeals. If that is what it takes to protect a copyright, then a large corporation could just force me out.

Thanks to Bushes tax cuts, larger corporations now pay a smaller percentage of their earnings to the gov't. Giving them even more money. Smaller companies just cant compete with that. Creating an unfair advantage which leads to monopolies.

Re:Double Standards

[Flavius Stilicho]

Also small companies should have different rights from big companies. Personally I cant afford to pay 100 grand to lawyers for years after years of appeals. If that is what it takes to protect a copyright, then a large corporation could just force me out. Thanks to Bushes tax cuts, larger corporations now pay a smaller percentage of their earnings to the gov't. Giving them even more money. Smaller companies just cant compete with that. Creating an unfair advantage which leads to monopolies.

You're kidding right? In essence, you're suggesting an 'affirmative action' type setup in which small companies are given preferential treatment because of their size, rather than on the merits of their products.

I agree that there are problems with the enforcement of anti-trust laws and that the US tax code is a joke but affirmative action is NOT the answer to the problem. Personally, I'd vote for any tax law that placed a larger tax on corporations that did not maintain at least 75% of their employees, manufacturiing facilities, and so on in the U.S. Right now it's too attractive to 'off-shore' operations.

Re:Double Standards

[Rupert]

Does the FBI arrest GPL violators?

When they do, I will listen to you about how the laws that the MPAA and RIAA purchased also protect the Linux kernel.

Re:Double Standards

[Kombat]

And imprisoning someone for committing a "crime" that does not physically injure anyone is just as wrong.

Oh my good sweet Lord, I have mod points and have already modded in this conversation, but I just HAVE to respond to your incredibly stupid comment.

How easiest to prove your lunacy? I suppose the simplest and most effective would be a series of counter-examples. That is, crimes that "don't physically injure anyone," and yet are clearly still deserving of some severe prison time. How's this:

• Virtually every kind of theft.
  
• Embezzlement, blackmail, securities fraud.
  
• Stalking, threats, emotional trauma.
  
• Flagrant negligence with dangerous equipment (reckless driving, flying planes while drunk, etc.)
  
• Animal abuse.
  

I'm sure there are tons more.

Re:Double Standards

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Makes me wish I had mod points. I hadn't thought of it that way before, and I'm sure a number of other people hadn't either. Increased power = increased responsibility...what a concept.

Re:Double Standards

[thenextpresident]

"Please give credit where it is due for your sig."

Huh? Maybe you could, in your infinite wisdom, tell me who originally use that line? I have no problem giving credit where credit is due, but I have seen this sig all over the place.

Indeed, by not telling me who to credit, you are just really perpetuating the cycle. Sort of like SCO, saying "Hey, that's our IP" but not saying what that is.

Re:Double Standards

[strike2867]

Steven Wright

Re:Double Standards

[thenextpresident]

Thank you. =)

Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.

As a side note: I have seen the man live, and he is great!

Re:Double Standards

[strike2867]

you're suggesting an 'affirmative action' type setup in which small companies are given preferential treatment because of their size, rather than on the merits of their products.

I did not suggest this, but it may be a good idea to place some restrictions. Maybe some kind of action giving them equal representation. Very hard, but a more equal playing field may be possilbe.

Re:Double Standards

[Cyno]

Hows about we just lock every one of these criminals up in our prison system. There, that solves all these problems, right?

Why do people steal and cheat and lie? What incentive do we have to do these things? Afterall its easy to get a job and make all the money anyone would ever want.

Re:So it's bad for BIG BIZ to steal, only little g

[cheekyboy]

Its not stealing, its borrowing it.

Besides, the corporates have STOLEN enough from us, that we deserve a bit back, that includes ripoff prices, etc.. and corps we work for that pay us crap wages or sack us, while the boss gets the credit and the $120k job.

eye4 an eye, bible says, so its 100% legal to copy ;) see not even the bible is (C)

Re: But

[Quantum-Sci]

What do you call a crime? Corporate CEOs and their radical self-interest, now control our legislative system, which is furiously dismantling our judicial system. (war powers act, PATRIOT, etc) Gen Tommy Franks actually said, that if there's another major terrorist attack, the Constitution may have to be suspended! WTF? We've had much worse crises, and haven't had to suspend the Constitution.

Where do you stand on (the current) abridging, and (the proposed)suspending the United States Constitution?!

Re:Great.

[pclminion]

You do not put people in prisons to protect society, nor to punish them.

You're utterly full of shit. Prison personnel turn a blind eye to abuses of inmates by other inmates. That's punishment. I don't give a flying fuck what it says in your nice little book what a prison is "supposed to be."

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Your "opinion" is idiotic, much like you appear to be in your last e-mail, and, believe me, is not upheld by affirmations such as the one above. Keep convincing yourself you're a warrior, when you are nothing but a misinformed, uncultured and ultimately banal individual.

Be a sheep.

contradiction

[yarbo]

'Caridi most recently appeared in the 2003 movie "Runaways", which has not yet been released' How is it a 2003 movie if it wasn't released in 2003?

Re:contradiction

[Gr33nNight]

Made in '03. Hero (with Jet Li) was made in 2002, but will be released in '04. So, its going to be considered an '04 movie in Hollywood.

Stego

[Quantum-Sci]

Stego serial numbers.

Re:So it's bad for BIG BIZ to steal, only little g

[real_smiff]

We don't [think it's OK to steal music and movies]. We think it's ok to copy them not for profit and then, if it's good, buy a ticket or dvd & recommend others do the same.

Things you shouldn't do (again i'm speaking under some geek "we" umbrella):

1. Sell copies
2. Steal media
3. Have to pay for entertainment without knowing if it's going to be entertaining, when you don't have the chance of a refund - ? Otherwise the studios could, you know, produce bad movies and still make money from them...

oh, wait...

I'm very much of the belief that good movies are worth watching more than once, BTW.

Re:Article text, sweet and fine like strawberry wi

[Overzeetop]

"There's no evidence Sprague was duplicating these movies and selling them," he added. "But anything is possible."

He should really get life for this. I mean, just listen to the FBI, "Anything is possible." I'll bet he used those screeners to kill people too. I mean "anything is possilbe." They'd better check all tohe cold case murders in that town. There's no telling what kind of felon this guy is. I mean, they already know he's actually used this slolen property to fund his *gasp* vast FedEx shipping empire.

He shouldn't do any time. He should have a small fine to pay (FBI wonks cost money, I'd say $50,000 should do it). Make sure there's a felony on his record - he did steal over $300 worth of "content".

He should have to pay for the owners of the copyrighted films for the distribution to the half-dozen or so family members he send the discs to. (60/yr*6 copies*3years*-let's say 3x damages = $4320)

DirecTV should sue his ass for theft of service, also with triple damages. That would be quite a bit more: figure $90 for all the channels, plus another 90-150 for PPV (how much can you really watch in a day?) x (?) 5 years x 6 boxes (oh, actually that's only $5 extra per box, per mo.)

All in all, he's a bad man doing bad things. Doesn't really rank up there with killing, raping, physically assault, selling drugs, or cooking corporate books resulting in the _direct_ loss of billions of dollars for shareholders. Still, he does deserve a good slap.

Here's a tangential question: If you plead innocent and are then found guilty, aren't you also therefor guilty of perjury?

Or is it like suicide, which is considered a homicide in some (most? all?) states, but if the victim dies there's no sense in prosecuting, and if the victim lives, you figure the insanity defense is a lock.

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Your knowledge of the foundations of the principles of enlightenment that gave birth to modern democratic regimes both astound and amaze me. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.

Also, should you go on replying in that tone to my messages I'll be forces to smack you around with a smoked herring. Be civilised, sir.

1909 Isnt recent

[nurb432]

It falls *after* the constitution, so its recent history as far as im concerned.

It's his birthday!

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy 70th Birthday, Carmine! Our agents will be there shortly with your birthday present.
- Love, FBI.

Re:Great.

[pclminion]

Why don't you help me out, and explain why I appear to be some kind of "warrior" to you? Or why an opinion can be a product of misinformation?

For Jiminy's sake... The entire point of my original post was that the punishment this guy is going to receive is cruel. I never once said it is okay to violate copyright.

Or do you assume that by saying "I'll never pay for a movie again" that means I'm now going to steal them?

I don't pay for music either, nor do I download MP3s. I listen to it on the radio. And I'll get by watching movies on television, if it comes to it.

It's amazing that you literally cannot believe a person could have such a viewpoint without being a thief!

Re:Great.

[thenextpresident]

Oh...I see.

So just because he is older, he should be allowed to do whatever he wants without fear of punishment?

If he did the crime, what's wrong with the punishment? Unless you are all for double standards? I mean, your logic states that if a person is older, and commits a crime against a corporation, nothing should be done to them?

What if it was a smaller company? What if the person was younger, but with cancer or something?

Should they have exceptions as well? I agree, the punishment isn't good for the person, but you have a choice, either an impartial system or not.

Re:Great.

[Have Blue]

You can question a law without breaking it. Or, you can practice civil disobedience- break the law, get arrested, go to jail, get the story on the evening news, and wait for a groundswell of protest over how unfair your incarceration is. But you still have to go to jail for that.

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

I enjoy watching movies. Going to the movies is more expensive, nowadays, partly because of rampant piracy. Your solution is for me to stop watching movies?

Your logic astounds me. I shall stop watching movies as of now and experiment your sound suggestion. I shall be reporting back as to how this novel and exciting solution affects me.

Re:Great.

[tomhudson]

blockquote> RTFA. He signed a document agreeing to not let the movies leave his home.

So, wouldn't that be a breech of contract (and hence a CIVIL matter) and not a criminal matter?

Re:Great.

[Jaysyn]

No, but at the same time, I don't think corporations should be considered citizens either.

Jaysyn

Re:Great.

[pclminion]

what if this old guy spent the last 5 years stealing half of your salary.

Point to even a single person within the movie industry whose life has been destroyed by movie piracy. When you can do that, I'll happily support throwing the responsible parties in jail.

I believe that crime is defined by suffering inflicted on others. No suffering, no crime. Simple.

And one more time for the record, since none of you respondants can seem to comprehend it, I don't pirate movies. When I said I would stop paying for movies I meant nothing more than that. (If I said "I'm never going to buy a car again" would that imply that I'm going to start stealing cars? Please.)

That's why

[r_j_prahad]

And now we know why Hollywood's been so focused on creating perfect CGI characters. It gets rid of all that overhead you just listed. Save a few million here, a few million there, pretty soon you've financed one hell of a render farm.

Re:That's why

[00420]

While I'm sure you're joking, that would be cool if they were really doing that.

I would rather see new characters designed for each movie (assuming they looked real) than the same actors over and over again.

Re:That's why

[nuclearspike]

realistic-looking, actors different from the mainstream garbage... isn't that what indy films are for?? (btw: i recommend "all the real girls")

the problem is the gen pop _wants_ to see the same actors/actresses over and over again. you can take a movie and swap out the actor for someone more well known and dramatically affect the financial outcome of the movie, even if both actors/actresses are equally talented/good-looking.

"oh, let's go! it's the new Affleck movie!" well, maybe that example doesn't work as well since Gigli.

Re:That's why

[1u3hr]

And now we know why Hollywood's been so focused on creating perfect CGI characters. It gets rid of all that overhead you just listed. Save a few million here, a few million there, pretty soon you've financed one hell of a render farm.

The world is full of talented actors who didn't get a break into the big time. What makes some able to demand and get 10-20 million a picture isn't just their acting, but their "star power" -- what they do to promote themselves by creating an image, and the months most spend in PR, chat shows, interviews when the movie comes out.

The most successful CGI was Gollum -- very closely based on a real actor. I doubt they could do much more than a weak parody of Gollum without Serkis to add life to it, not to mention appear on the talk shows and do interviews.

They could replace a lot of porn actors with CGI, but most of them work for peanuts anyway. Stuntmen are higher paid, but they are losing out as they mostly can't show their own personalities when performing.

What does the FBI have to do with this?

[ahdeoz]

It might be a breach of contract (actually, probably only a violation of Academy rules) for which the Academy could seek compensation in a civil suit, or at least revoke his membership, but I don't see why my money is going to support thugs to arrest people that Hollywood Studios don't like. If he loaned them out to someone else who made copies *for profit* then he might be an accessory to a crime.

Re:What does the FBI have to do with this?

[Qrlx]

Didn't you know? The No Electronic Theft act of 199x moved copyright infringement from the civil courts to the criminal courts. So now the FBI gets to be Hollywood's bitch.

Re:Great.

[pclminion]

Be civilised, sir.

Sorry -- the one thing you're doing that's driving me nutty is accusing me of pirating movies. I don't do that. If you'll stop insisting that I'm lying, I'll be able to calm down and talk a little more coherently, okay?

Re:So it's bad for BIG BIZ to steal, only little g

[3.5 stripes]

I don't steal them.

I download some movies mainly because..
1. I live in Italy, and I really dislike dubbing.
2. Movies are released here much much later than in the states. For example, Down with love just came out in theaters here (an example, not interested in seeing it), DVDs come out 6 or so months after theater.. it could be a year after the US release before we see a movie in english.
3. We could buy movies from amazon or whatnot, but do we really want to spend 20+ bucks(plus shipping) to find out whether it's good or not?
4. We have purchased DVDs for films we've enjoyed.
5. We've seen movies that very possibly won't be released outside very large cities.
6. It's copyright infringement ya troll.

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Your viewpoint is shallow, unfounded, simplistic, reactionary, non-sequitur, irrational, insulting and, ultimately, wrong.

Re:So it's bad for BIG BIZ to steal, only little g

[teamhasnoi]

I love responding to these! For example: The RIAA was sued for price fixing.

The settlement dictates that if you bought one CD, cassete, or album from a member of the RIAA between January 1, 1995, through December 22, 2000, you are entitled to 20 bucks. Max.

If you bought 300 CDs, you would get 20 bucks. Max.

If you bought a CD every day for those five years - 20 dollars. Max.

Please note, the RIAA admits to no wrongdoing. If the total to each claimant is less than 5 dollars, it all goes to charity. (And becomes a tax write off?)

You're right! I don't want 'double standards'. If I do something wrong, like infringe copyright - I want to settle for a fraction of the money a make each year, and admit no wrongdoing.

Just like the 'Big Biz'.

Why do you think it's so hard to justify? With the number of entities trying to screw me over on a daily basis, then 'admitting no wrongdoing' (catchphrase of the 21 century), I have a hard time caring about anything that 'hurts' big business.

Re:This should be insightful.

[musikit]

" They watch piracy statistics in addition to sales to determine interest."

too bad piracy statistics only state how many people downloaded it. not how many people actually watched it.

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

What part of my post didn't you understand? Do I need to walk you through it word-by-word?

I understood your post perfectly. Were you not advocating my not watching movies? Did I misread you, brother sir? If so, kindly walk me through it word by word.

Holy shit you are a crybaby.

Sarcasm is wasted on the likes of you.

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

You are, of course, correct.

Re:I think we're missing a valid point

[Kredal]

Try reading the article next time. This was the first year that each screener was marked individually, so it could be traced to one person.

Re:Great.

[pclminion]

I mean, your logic states that if a person is older, and commits a crime against a corporation, nothing should be done to them?

I never said that. They should punish him in a way that doesn't amount to a life-in-prison sentence. He's got a lot of money, right? Take it all. After all, the impact of his crime was financial, correct?

I agree, the punishment isn't good for the person, but you have a choice, either an impartial system or not.

There's this concept that the system should be mechanistic, with no room for humans to make exceptions. I just don't understand that at all. This guy's lifetime of actions, his current state of mind, his character, all these things should be considered in making a punishment decision.

Clearly I've inflamed a lot of people with my original post. I'd suggest they go re-read it, and determine which things I actually said, and which things they are assuming because they're instantly enraged by anyone who appears to be a pirate (which I am decidedly not -- you assumed that when I said I would never pay for a movie again).

He should just kill someone

[panic911]

I recall hearing about a congressman who is spending 100 days in jail for killing a biker when he hit him wrecklessly with his car. What a wonderful justice system we have in the US, you can kill a man and go to jail for 100 days or you can make copies of a digital video and distribute them and spend the next 15 years in jail. It's a movie, it's not worth ruining peoples lives over.

I also like how the MPAA (and RIAA, for that matter) determines their statistics for stolen movies/songs. If you have a movie on your computer, thats money that the MPAA lost. But in reality, most likely you would never spend a penny on that movie anyway.

Stupid MPAA

Re:He should just kill someone

[zakezuke]

I recall hearing about a congressman who is spending 100 days in jail for killing a biker when he hit him wrecklessly with his car. What a wonderful justice system we have in the US

Vehicular manslaughter has always carried a mild sentance in contrast to regular manslaughter. I agree that your point is valid, but never the less perfectly normal. If you were in the business of killing people, it would make more sence to use a car then a gun. If your caught you'd serve far less time with a car then a gun, knife, poison, candle stick, whatever. I guess they could yank your license, as if that stops anyone.

Re:He should just kill someone

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall hearing about a congressman who is spending 100 days in jail for killing a biker when he hit him wrecklessly with his car. What a wonderful justice system we have in the US, you can kill a man and go to jail for 100 days or you can make copies of a digital video and distribute them and spend the next 15 years in jail. It's a movie, it's not worth ruining peoples lives over.

The difference here is that the Congressman has money, and can thus "afford justice." So can the **AA. Regardless of how serious you believe the law violations in this case to be, the defendant's comparative lack of money will be a factor here. Like it or not, the USA is a plutocracy.

I'm certainly not saying that what the individuals involved in this case did wasn't wrong, either. Look at it this way -- hypothetically, if someone with boatloads of influence/money got caught doing this exact same thing, how likely would they be to receive the same punishment from the US justice system?

Re:He should just kill someone

[FauxReal]

Hey, it's his fault for not being a celebrity or a politician.


Oh crap, I think The Governator may be setting himself up for something big.

Re:He should just kill someone

[/dev/trash]

Janklow has a medical condition, diabetes. Look it up, it's nasty disease.

If he maintains his own innocence ...

[TheCrig]

Caridi has yet to be charged, but after he's admitted to supplying Sprague with screeners for the last 3-5 years, I highly doubt his innocence will remain unchallenged for very long. If he steadfastly maintains his own innocence, he may be able to pull it off. Some folks still think Alger Hiss was innocent, Venona papers or no.

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Talking coherently should not be conditioned upon the accusations the person you are talking with is making. Anyway, I only made the accusation in my first message to you and not repeated it since - however your tone has been unacceptable throughout our conversation.

I do apologise for saying you are pirating movies but, to be frank, a discussion with someone who finds it easier to make insulting remarks rather than relevant and thoughtful comments does not interest me. Than again, this is slashdot.

summary of charges

[LookSharp]

According to the FBI, Sprague admitted receiving screeners from Caridi and said that he used the software program Copy Guard Breaker to copy the VHS tapes to DVD and then returned the original VHS tapes and two VHS copies of each to Caridi.

Sprague said that he'd made as many as six duplicate copies of each DVD and distributed them to family and friends. He supplied copies to another friend in exchange for using a FedEx shipping account, the FBI said.

The FBI affidavit does not explain how the films were uploaded to the Internet.

So they found the "source," and it was really Caridi, not Sprague. Caridi was getting "keeper" copies of all of the movies, so who cares that Sprague was making the dupes? Sprague was just the guy that had the equipment and expertise to do it, with a few buddies on the side. He didn't seem to have financial motive. One of his "friends" was kind enough to rip and upload his backroom work for him. Sprague's a hacker but now he faces three years for someone else uploading his hack.

Sprague's a pirate, no question. What he did was wrong. But three years of Federal-Pound-Me-In-The-Ass-Prison for copying movies? (It's probably be low security, but still...) Caridi is the violator and should be held liable for the movie piracy, especially after the agreement he signed.

Separately, DirecTV filed a civil lawsuit against Sprague in May over his alleged theft of its satellite signal. In 2002, Sprague had been named, along with hundreds of other suspects, in a massive crackdown on equipment that can be used to reprogram satellite television access cards, a method by which pirates illegally get programming for free. Paying customers are issued personally encoded cards with their subscription.

Sprague stole satellite TV and made cards for others to do it also... yes the whole debate about "you can't steal signals that reach everyone" will rage on, but there's no question they were defrauding DirecTV. On the other hand, that carries a potential five year prison term, is that appropriate for a first offense?

Re:summary of charges

[LookSharp]

While I'm aware of DirecTV's shenanigans, the fact is that he had 6 loopers, six receivers, and at least one hax0red card. Now it's *POSSIBLE* that somebody just happened to give him all that nice stuff, or he had an academic purpose, but... this ain't a jury trial, it's an opinion. I think he's guilty. :)

Re:Great.

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

How is it cruel or unusual to send a man to prison for breaking a law? First of all, it's not unusual at all - there are many people being sent to prison every day. Cruel? I don't know about that. Your argument is that it is more cruel to impose this sentence on a person of great age because they are likely to die in prison, whereas a younger person who commits a crime would eventually get out and therefore wouldn't die in prison - if I am to understand your reasoning correctly.

By this logic, anyone sentenced to life without parole has received a cruel sentence and should be released? The cruel and unusual punishment clause says nothing of the punishment fitting the crime. Sending people to prison for periods of time is accepted in this society as not being cruel and since it is accepted, it is not unusual.

The fact is, if the old man wanted to live his last years out free and unfettered, he should not have broken the law. If you don't have enough years left to do the time, don't commit the crime - right?

The cruel and unusual clause has no merit here and you are incorrect to bring it up.

Re:Great

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Have you considered Prozac?

Crap News Network

[Schizoid Genius]

Fuck CNN, they have no respectability anymore.

You were doing fine until you got to the word "anymore".

Re:Great

[Dot.Com.CEO]

I find your suggestion intriguing. Have you considered psychanalysis?

federal pound me in the ass prison

[Indy1]

from what my brother tells me (he is a cop), federal prison is fairly cushy (unless its a ultra max), where as state lockup can be hellish, espcially if your in one of the rather poor southern states like Louisana (sp?) or Texas.

Re:federal pound me in the ass prison

[LookSharp]

My brother's in state prison for a drug offense (smoked weed while on probation for being convicted of drug possession-- don't get me wrong, he needed the kick in the butt of prison to get the message-- but that seems kind of scary for all those potheads out there, huh? :), and his last call indicated that they are "required" to keep non-violent offenders away from the "general population" of rapists, murderers, etc.

Re:federal pound me in the ass prison

[Indy1]

if you dont mind me asking, what state is this, and what prison? i would imagine your brother isnt in a max security prison, where the violent scum are kept in a "max" section. But i'd like to be clued in instead of guessing :)

Re:federal pound me in the ass prison

[LookSharp]

Ohio, Grafton Correctional Institution. There's a "SuperMax" in Youngstown, about two hours away. They have various "pods" where various segments of the population server their sentences.

When I talked to him, he told me nobody's really messing with him, but there are "troublemakers."

Sad thing is, he has an above-average IQ and a high school diploma. He's good with PCs, he's just lazy as hell. He's been addicted to Acid, X, and weed for 8 or 9 years, been through rehab three times, but keeps going back. Basically, he wants just spend his life reading books, surfing the web, and getting high.

That's a mindset I can't understand. Begging others for gifts for survival while "researching"... Wow! It sounds like most of the college faculty I've met, except they generally put on a tough face and stand in front of a couple of classes a day to get a regular paycheck.

*Ducks the grant proposals being checked by the academes. :)

Re:federal pound me in the ass prison

[Indy1]

sorry to hear things havent worked out for him so far.

Re:federal pound me in the ass prison

[/dev/trash]

County->State->Federal, in decreasing order of bad.

Re:Great.

[pclminion]

however your tone has been unacceptable throughout our conversation.

I again apologize, but I'm being assailed by multiple people who are all insisting that the only reason I could have an opinion on the matter is that I'm a pirate. I'm notorious for being unable to deal with false accusations -- I'm working on it.

Anyway, that little "Freak" light probably means you won't respond to this, so I won't waste too much time on this post... But my opinion seems shallow due to my thinking being clouded by anger, not because I haven't thought it through. Hopefully sometime we can discuss it the right way.

Re:This should be insightful.

[j-turkey]

too bad piracy statistics only state how many people downloaded it. not how many people actually watched it.

...and when they use those figures to demonstrate lost sales, they fail to calculate how many of those downloaders were actually lost customers. Just because it's worth stealing (click, click), doesn't mean that it's worth buying.

Re:Great.

[pclminion]

By this logic, anyone sentenced to life without parole has received a cruel sentence and should be released?

No. There are certainly some crimes for which that punishment is fitting. The whole point here is that somebody who infringes copyrights (or, in this case, a person who merely enables another to so infringe) doesn't deserve to die behind bars.

Caridi is an actor. One would assume he has a fair amount of money. Since the impact of the crime is entirely financial, against the movie industry, the correct punishment would be to take his money. However, he'll probably end up in jail, in which case I will do what I said -- never pay for a movie again.

Sadly, that means I'll only be able to watch them on TV. But by no means am I going to go out and start violating copyright myself.

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Perhaps my sarcasm was over the top. The freak light is gone, btw. Having been in the same spot as you I do understand your reaction although perhaps mine would have been different. Perhaps another time then.

Durrr...

[Pope]

Grow up. No one is forcing you to do any of the above activities. The fault is with you for selecting crappy movies to go see. Last I checked, the MPAA does not create movies of any sort, movie studios do.

What the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't belong here on Slashdot.

We, here, at Slashdot, are different kinds of sheep; we accuse all of the Fox News Watching Patriotic Americans of being sheep, while we follow our own shephard; we are more sophisticated sheep.

You don't belong.

Get out.

Furthermore I want to say that the way that the FBI is infringing on Caridi's and that Segway guy's rights to privacy is preposterous. Why don't tehy just shove an RFID tag up their butt?

Re:What the hell?

[Carch]

Speak for yourself, Coward.

Bullying people to suppress their opinion. How open and respectful of you.

I, for one, applaud the original poster's cry into the Slashdot wilderness.

Human nature

[Kjella]

Hardly anyone commits crimes which they believe they'll be caught for. Since you can't be caught, there is no need for countermeasures or damage control. Flawed logic at its best, but so very human.

Few people have such clarity of mind that they truly admit to themselves that they could get caught for their actions. It's either ridiculed "Yeah sure, the day pigs fly" or rationalized "Everybody else is doing it" away. And if they do, they often don't do it instead of minimizing their risk.

So they're a) few to begin with, b) fewer still that go through with it and c) fewer that get caught. And, whether you consider this as lazy or as efficient - the police would rather catch ten stupid people than one smart guy, assuming they all commit the same crime. Simply because it's a better use of resources.

Kjella

Finally...

[pbooktebo]

The FBI acted on the warning we've watched thousands of times at the beginning of every movie we've ever rented.

Re:I think we're missing a valid point

[dave420]

Try reading the article next time. This was the first year that each screener was marked invisibly, so it could be traced even when the other marks were wiped off.

Time to Move On

[max born]

It's human nature to share information.

Except where it concerns public safety or national security, I say congress should make no law abridging the right of anyone to parse, manipulate, or disseminate any digital information.

Long live digital freedom.

Simple logic

[galtsavenger]

There is a very simple explanation for why actors are paid so much. It's even mathematical.

Your salary is directly proportional to your contribution to society.

Movies rake in so much cash because they are accessible for so many people. It lets them escape the dull drudgery of everyday life if only for a few hours. Hackers was accessible to only a minority of geeks (myself included) that dreamed of F'ing the system and "the man", and making the world a nicer place. As such, the movie was moderately successful in the office. Return of the King was accessible to everyone, from child who dreams of slaying monsters, teens that want to adventure across the globe for a noble cause, and old folks that like the idea of sailing off with pretty elves instead of getting shipped to the nursing home.

The point is that yes doctors and teachers touch lives in a fundamental way, one doctor does not give hope, wonder and excitement to the millions of people that see one actor. My .03

Re:Great.

[gorilla]

Going to the movies is more expensive, nowadays, partly because of rampant piracy.

That's an assumption, not a fact. Since the movie industry's figures about profit are notoriously manipulated, with multi-million dollar movies offically not making a profit, then I don't see how anyone could possibly know if copyright infringement actually increases the cost of movies.

Double Standards, Half Truths

[thinkninja]

If you write, "a man assulted three people..." but fail to mention that he also killed them, you're guilty of negligent reporting.

In fact, in the UK this breaks the NUJ's Code of Conduct (rule 3):

"A journalist shall strive to ensure that the information he/she disseminates is fair and accurate, avoid the expression of comment and conjecture as established fact and falsification by distortion, selection or *misrepresentation*."

OT:sig

[Xoder]

I will have you know that i just started reading the Illuminatus! Trillogy and your sig scared the fuck out of me here at work.

Re:This should be insightful.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't this raise questions about how low our moral bar is set nowadays?

Yeah, conceptually I get what you're saying, but it bothers me on some level that people are satisfied with selling out their morals for $15 (adjusted for DVD price and availability).

I'm not arguing that the MPAA is operating with a firm ethical base, but this is a race to the bottom. If people are genuinely aggrieved about movie prices they should find alternatives and get involved in the political process, because ain't nothing gonna change when the movie industry holds all the cards.

Maybe the sole source for one group

[Rufus211]

I highly doubt that he is the "sole source" for all DVD screeners. It simply wouldn't make sense considering how many groups there are out there releasing them in competition with each other and with different versions. If there was one source there would be one group always getting the first release for every movie, which just isn't the case. My best guess was that he was OBUS's source. They're the only group that released all of the movies listed in the article and while they are a major group, they're far from the largest or most well known.

Re:What about Terrorists and Violent Criminals?

[zipfaust]

Silly boy!!

Don't you know that corporate interests come before public interests?? ;)

Will they make a movie out of this?

[MiniMike]

And will we be able to download it before it's in the theaters?

Re:Great.

[LnxAddct]

First of all he's not a company, but rather an individual. Second, he's not profitting in any way from this other then cool points. Third, my case is made, you suck, I win.
Regards,
Steve

The warez group OBUS seem to have released them

[Jugalator]

From the Reuters article:

It is looking into four films -- "Something's Gotta Give," "The Last Samurai," "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" and "thirteen."

Now, all these movies happened to have the same release group -- OBUS.

- Master and Commander, nfo
- Something's Gotta Give, nfo
- The Last Samurai, nfo
- Thirteen (nfo)

In *all* cases, they were the first (and often only) group releasing the screener for these movies. I think I know who their source was then. :-P

Re:Great.

[k98sven]

You do not put people in prisons to protect society, nor to punish them. It is a common misconception, however it is wrong.

You don't spend a word on explaining HOW it is wrong, or what the correct reasons are?

That makes no sense. This is a democracy, the 'common' perception of why the government does things IS the reason why the government does things.

The movies mentioned in the article

[mkro]

A quick search on nforce.nl at least reveals what release group ended up with the movies:

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World *SCREENER* - OBUS
The Last Samurai (2003) *SCREENER* - OBUS
Mystic River (2003) *SCREENER* - OBUS
Calendar Girls (2003) *LIMITED* *SCREENER* - OBUS
Thirteen (2003) *LIMITED* *SCREENER* - OBUS

Check the nfo of Thirteen for a nice description of how they recruit people.

"Do you have connections within the academy network and can you obtain academy screeners/dvd screeners during oscar season. then contact us asap."

Oh, and if any feds are reading this: Even though Cokine is the only "name" of an actual person in the nfo, it does not mean he is affiliated with the group. He is just another starving ascii artist, taking requests over IRC.

Re:The movies mentioned in the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Check the nfo of Thirteen for a nice description of how they recruit people.

OK, so I checked the .nfo:

"At the edge of adolescence, Tracy is a smart straight-A student--if not a little naive. When she befriends Evie, the most popular and beautiful girl in school, Evie leads Tracy down a path of sex..."

Yet you're busy reading the RECRUITING APPLICATION?!?

Re:I Feel Safer Already (BLEH)

[telstar]

Yeah ... that's a great idea! Let's all just focus on one type of crime. Why worry about child abductions when we've got terrorists? Same goes for medical research. Eh, Cancer can wait! We're putting everybody on Spina Biffida. Face it ... different agents do different things. Putting everybody on a single objective isn't the right approach.

Re:So it's bad for BIG BIZ to steal, only little g

[AK Marc]

But average /.ers still think its hunky dory to go out to the net and download it. Everybody wants something for free, doesn't matter what it is.

Yes. I want things for free, as does everyone else. I want the ability to try on pants for free before I buy them. I want the ability to return them for free if I don't like them when I get them home. I guess I'm an evil person for wanting and expecting such treatment for "free" services when I'm purchasing products.

When movies are treated like other products, I may consider sharing of them "theft" (even though it isn't by any definition of theft I've ever seen, since it doesn't take property from the "victim"). Until then, I consider piracy to be the market fixing the horrible situation caused by the monopoly.

"Satellite cable"

[Qrlx]

Satellite cable. Isn't that kind of an oxymoron? Cable is distinguished by the presence of a piece of cable connecting your TV to the broadcast center, completely unlike satellite. Once the bird is up it costs nothing to maintain the network. Or are laws routinely written this way in order to group together physically dissimilar technologies into the same logical group? Would it be possible to challenge this tortuous chain of logic that establishes the crime of descrambling satellite signals?

In other words, is this the same thing as where cryptography is in the same classification as dangerous munitions when it comes to exporting it? A purely arbitrary decision, but at least that was done with the justification of "national security," not to protect a private corporate interest.

I think the laws protecting "sattelite cable" go too far. As we've seen, the only real enforcement comes via a witch-hunt whereby you find out every person who has purchased a smart card reader and then sue them. Wouldn't it be a better use of the company's resources to devise a better encryption technology? Don't tell me it can't be done. (Perhaps buying the legislature was cheaper?) And wouldn't it be a better use of the legislature's time to let the market decide which businesses will succeed, rather than create special laws for "sattelite cable" which seem to fly in the face of the Constitutional right we have to monitor the airwaves?

DirecTV, I'm really sorry you spent all that money putting a bird into orbit. But let's face it what is the function of a satellite? It broadcasts to an entire continent. Now you have to put up all sorts of barriers to make it harder for us landlubbers to get your signal. Frankly that's your problem, not the problem of any of us citizens down here on Earth, legal contrivances notwithstanding.

I wonder if there is a jurisdiction issue here. Since the encrypted signal came from space, how is it a violation of US law for me to monitor that? Do US laws extend as far up as geosynchronous orbit now?

And, for the record, I will *never* be a DirecTV customer. (Though, at one time, I did have a roommate who had a hacked card.) Frankly I barely watch TV at all, and the picture quality is not half as good as analog cable. Those arguments notwithstanding, I refuse to give my cash to a company that rewards its customers with lawsuits.

blanking lines data? Re:All screeners?

[swschrad]

it is moderately well known that data above and beyond SMTPE timecode is frequently embedded in lines 18 through, I think it is 27, in your average NTSC video frame. if you have an older TV with horizontal hold controls, roll the picture down a little and watch the black line dance above the picture.

this is, among other things, how Panasonic VCRs can automatically set their clocks when you switch them to the local PBS channel.

all you have to do is put a dupe serial number in that retrace bar's timespace, between the horizontal sync pulses, and you've tagged the tape with a unique number.

it's a little harder to blur these out, because you have to replace the information or you break picture sync, putting an ugly hook in the top of the picture.

ain't worth my time to chase it further, but bet on the serials being there... and if MPAA is truly paranoid and in league with the shadows, the name of the intended recipient of the screener. if they use some sort of argument like, "it takes a month to cut these tape copies," bet big on it.

Re:This should be insightful.

[musikit]

"get involved in the political process"

so you adopt the "if you can't beat them, join them" motif?

Really?

[filmsmith]

I had no idea Billy Bob Thornton was the President of the Moose Lodge. Man, those Celebrities have their hands in EVERYTHING!

fs

I am Russell Sprague, not this Russell Sprague

[Kingfox]

My name is Russell Sprague, and I have been frightened and alarmed.

I've had this /. article emailed a few times to me, had my boss's boss taunting me since the moment he walked in the door... Today's not a good day to be a Russell Sprague.

Re:I am Russell Sprague, not this Russell Sprague

[Motherfucking Shit]

You, sir, have just proven that all Russell Spragues are criminals and must be locked up! By using the alias "Kingfox," you've infringed upon the trademarks of not one but two media companies. Don't relax just yet, the FBI is investigating anyone named Russell Sprague and your flagrant trademark violations have surely put you on their radar!

Re:I am Russell Sprague, not this Russell Sprague

[mrfantasy]

nyah nyah! Taunt, taunt!

Re:I am Russell Sprague, not this Russell Sprague

[rjh]

You think you have it bad?

My name is Robert Hansen. I was born in Iowa, not far away from a city called Estherville.

Know who the other famous Robert Hansen from Estherville, Iowa is?

AN ALASKAN SERIAL KILLER WHO MURDERED TWENTY-ODD HOOKERS.

I discovered this while dating an Alaskan. You ever seen the Seinfeld episode where Elaine is dating a guy named David Berkowitz? You ever sat there on the couch with your Alaskan girlfriend, watched this episode, and felt enormous sympathy pangs for both Elaine and David?

And let's not even get into Robert Hanssen, the FBI agent turned traitor...

Re:So it's bad for BIG BIZ to steal, only little g

[Qrlx]

I literally am borrowing it when I go to the library. See also my sig.

Re:blanking lines data? Re:All screeners?

[wfberg]

it is moderately well known that data above and beyond SMTPE timecode is frequently embedded in lines 18 through, I think it is 27, in your average NTSC video frame. if you have an older TV with horizontal hold controls, roll the picture down a little and watch the black line dance above the picture.

this is, among other things, how Panasonic VCRs can automatically set their clocks when you switch them to the local PBS channel.

all you have to do is put a dupe serial number in that retrace bar's timespace, between the horizontal sync pulses, and you've tagged the tape with a unique number.

it's a little harder to blur these out, because you have to replace the information or you break picture sync, putting an ugly hook in the top of the picture.

Screeners are on DVD, not tapes. Those empty sync lines are still there on the NTSC output signal, but there's no metadata in them; metadata is stored differently on DVDs. It's one of them digital pixelajig thingamajugs..

Re:Great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is is right that the US takes away more people's freedom than any other free country. The report crack was total shit though.

Damn Commies!

[Cryptnotic]

These old movie guys are all communists. Didn't we learn anything from the McCarthy hearings in the 1960's.

Re:blanking lines data? Re:All screeners?

[yroJJory]

The "dancing black" you are referring to is VITC time code. It actually is quite easy to replace this. All you need is a VITC regenerator. However, it is unlikely that this form of tagging would be used for anything beyond VHS cassettes, which is what made it so easy to nab Caridi in the first place.

Since VHS duplication still requires running through the tape's full length, you can just put a VITC regen inbetween the source and the destination.

DVDs, however, require MPEG-2 encoding each time you alter the video signal.

What about congressional hackers?

[ericbrow]

The FBI is hot on the tail of the guy who leaked a stupid DVD, but members of congress who hacked into computers (and who knows what other groups other than the Republicans they gave the info to) has yet to hit the mainstream media. Doesn't anyone see any similarities to Watergate? Republicans, election year, stealing documents, break in, meglomanic president?

It's Game Over for DVD screeners...

[__aailob1448]

The MPAA apparently got their act together and started including foolproof watermarkings. Unlike the stupid dots and serial numbers, these cannot be detected unless you have two copies from different sources (extremely unlikely) and huge amounts of time in your hand.

With two sources, you could theorically be able to contrast everything in the movie (scene lenghts, colors,etc.) but the amount of work required is huge and the probability of oversights is very high. That's assuming you have two sources willing to take the risk. It's not going to happen.

Well, that's that then. No more screeners for you and me. So long and thanks for all the fish.

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

I'll give you a hint: there's a reason it's called a "corrective" facility. The common perception is wrong. It does not matter if 99% of citizens think it is correct, it continues to be wrong.

"For Your Consideration"

[ronfar]

Hmm, this reminds me of the time that some of my friends got a copy of The Two Towers sent to them from their homeland (Thailand). It was on VCD, and dubbed into Thai. It was interesting for me to listen to, but it was hard to pay attention because I know like 4 words of Thai. I couldn't tell if the voice acting was competent or not, I tried to pay particular attention to Gollum.

Well, anyway, this VCD had the telltale sign of being a screener, every now and then on the bottom it would flash "For Your Consideration."

Well, this got my mind going, someone had actually hired voice actors to dub a pirate VCD. Will wonders never cease.

Incidentally, before my friends are condemned for being wicked and evil, I should point out that I had bought a used copy of The Two Towers on DVD that I would gladly have lent them, they just wanted to watch it translated into Thai.

Re:Great.

[MacDork]

Could you please direct me to the article of the constitution that grants immunity to 70 year old criminals? Thank you.

No, but I can direct you to

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" - US Constitution Article 1 Section 8

which was intended to grant immunity from 70 year old copyrights.

Re:Great.

[pclminion]

I have you trapped, man.

I was the AC you were replying to. My ability to follow the thread is not in question. Clearly, it is you who are incapable of understanding what I'm talking about, not vice versa.

I am happy to watch you rot on a small pittance each month.

Well, since you want to get into a pissing contest, my paychecks are $1574.88. Every two weeks. After tax, dipshit. How about you?

Re:Great.

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

"I was the AC you were replying to."

Prove it. Either you're lying or you can't follow a thread. The original argument the AC gave was regarding cruel and unusual punishment.

Actually, I'm pretty certain you're lying and you were not the AC.

Good luck making such a small amount of money.

Re:Great.

[pclminion]

Prove it. Either you're lying or you can't follow a thread. The original argument the AC gave was regarding cruel and unusual punishment.

You know I can't prove it without Taco's help (the actual user account is logged in the DB), but I was arguing that what is not a cruel and unusual punishment in one case (e.g., a 30 year old sentenced to 15 years for massive copyright infringement) becomes cruel and unusual under other circumstances (i.e., a 70 year old sentenced to 15 years, who will probably die in prison during that period).

For Caridi, a 15 year sentence is essentially a sentence of life in prison. Since life in prison is unreasonable punishment for copyright violation, a 15 year sentence for Caridi would be cruel and unusual. Need I spell it out in big bold letters for you?

It would be more fitting to take the major portion of the presumably large chunk of cash he's got sitting around, and give it to the movie studio as compensation.

Good luck making such a small amount of money.

That statement is ridiculous beyond the point of being able to reply to it.

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

And how exactly is this relevant to the subject at hand? Answer: it is not.

Re:blanking lines data? Re:All screeners?

[kts]

Screeners come on both DVDs and VHS. Most studios have switched to DVDs since they are faster and cheaper to produce, but some are still sent out in VHS. (If you note in the first article in the story they talk about how the FBI found about 36 VHS screeners at the suspect's house, in addition to a number of DVD screeners.)

Some studios have started to switch back to VHS screeners since they aren't as easy to rip into a Divx encoded avi for quick posting on the internet. I believe slashdot or some other sites had an article about this a while ago since Disney only released VHS screeners of Finding Nemo to try and make it harder to be copied.

Re:Great.

[MacDork]

And how exactly is this relevant to the subject at hand? Answer:

I am so sensible, Sir, of the kindness with which the House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living. - Mr. Serjeant Talfourd

I think that thoroughly covers the connection I'm making.

rediculous

[CAIMLAS]

He'll be innocient, even if he's convicted. Showing a video to someone is, last I checked, not even a violation of the rediculous DMCA or Patriot Act. Last I checked, the most he could be guilty of is a private contract, in which there would be a civil suit.

From the sounds of it, not even such a contract is involved: the Academy just seems to be some sort of elite social class used to propigate the excessively unbalanced wealth of the few Americans that are in the film industry.

It seems rediculous to me that, with the billions and billions that are made annually in the film industry, that they would be so incredibly cutthroat over such a trivial matter; they're only making more people aware of the piracy.

Wrong. DVD screeners still exist. Pundits, settle.

[funkyjunkman]

OK, I actually work at a small film company. And the owner is very involved in getting the screener ban lifted, as it negatively affects the promotion of his films. So I can speak from personal experience that in 2004 they are still sending DVDs screeners to Academy members. Period. Enough speculation and false reports already. I know it's Slashdot and all, but sheesh.

How is this a troll?

[ScottGant]

Who was the idiot moderator that modded this a troll? How is this a troll?

I don't agree with people downloading movies because it may be bad for the industry...so I'm a troll? I don't get it.

What gives?

Re:Wrong. DVD screeners still exist. Pundits, sett

[Txiasaeia]

You say that the owner is trying to get the screener ban lifted (=no dvds sent out), but you also say that DVD screeners are being sent out (=dvds sent out). Which is it?!? Talk about confusion!

Re: Flamebait

[Quantum-Sci]

It's called Martial Law you asshole, look it up.

WTF is this hostility, Coward? What's your stake? (Or did you lose it in the stock market crash?) Noam Chomsky says that the ultimate corruption, is when an organism chooses, adverse to its own self-interest persistently, in the face of overwhelming evidence, LOL.

It has been put into place nearly a half dozen times in the history of America

You're going to have to back up this statement with a few facts.

- just because you have the interplaceneterweb doesn't mean that it still can't be useful.

This sentence doesn't make any sense. Please clarify.

Re:Wrong. DVD screeners still exist. Pundits, sett

[funkyjunkman]

Screener ban lifted = DVDs sent out
Screener ban = NO DVDs sent out
Seems logical to me. Why is it so confusing?

Re:Wrong. DVD screeners still exist. Pundits, sett

[Txiasaeia]

There's still a screener ban! Therefore no dvds are being sent out! Therefore DVD screeners are not being sent to Academy members! True or false?

Reply to the sig

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

Considering the facts that applications are often (usually) developed for Linux and ported to BSD as an afterthought, device driver support is usually better in Linux, etc., your sig is ... curious. Which is slower, a BSD file system or a Linux file system? Not too long ago, the comment in your sig was quite valid. Now, it looks silly.

So it's just hollywood movies, right?

[freeze128]

I mean, we can still download porn, right?

Re:Great.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

It is not a label. The fact that people are incarcerated to be "corrected" and not to be "punished" is a basic foundation of modern societies. I do agree with you that this foundation has been trampled upon. Especially in countries like the US (that allow capital punishment), it is impossible to make rational arguments that you are being given a second chance in prison. A state that kills its citizens obviously does not believe in prison as rehabilitation.

Re: Mistaken Identities

[some guy I know]

You think that you have it bad?
Do you have any idea how many times I've heard "some guy I know killed someone" or "some guy I know just got arrested for selling drugs / exposing himself to children / trying to bribe a cop"?

Good point

[BiggerIsBetter]

So what about the folks who made the Copy Guard Breaker software used to copy it?

Re:Wrong. DVD screeners still exist. Pundits, sett

[funkyjunkman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3210243.s tm
this place is ridiculous.

Re:Wrong. DVD screeners still exist. Pundits, sett

[funkyjunkman]

Another link...
Here

Re:Great.

[k98sven]

I'll give you a hint: there's a reason it's called a "corrective" facility.

Aha, so you mean we have prisons to correct criminal behavior?
Well, that's the ideal, but it's not the reality. Compared to almost any 'alternative' form of punishment (councilling, electronic surveillance, etc), prison sentences result in a much higher rate of relapsing into criminal behavior.

Prison convicts are now expected to relapse. No-one takes notice.
However, when repeat offenses are comitted by people given alternative treatments, the responsible politician unvariably gets labled 'soft on crime'.
That's the political reality of the situation.

(It's rather difficult to explain the overall lower crime rates in west Europe, which is much 'softer' on crime. Or the fact that the USA still has so much crime, despite having the world's highest per capita incarceration rate.
Source: International Center for Prison Studies)

Re: mistake

[Cryptnotic]

oops. 50's not 60's.