Slashdot Mirror
Night Goggles Capture Spider-Man Movie Bootlegger
linuxwrangler writes "According to SFGate.com/AP, a teen has been arrested for attempting to bootleg the Spider-Man 2 movie, after a projectionist using night-vision goggles spotted him. The teen was escorted from the theater by security guards and turned over to police. This may be the first arrest stemming from the use of NV goggles that were previously mentioned on Slashdot."
It's encouraging to see movie studios go after the actual perpetrators, rather than raise a blanket assumption that everybody is guilty and everybody deserves restrictions to their activity. I remember Roger Ebert complaining that a year or so ago critics were being patted down before being allowed into movie screenings.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Even in the "pirate everything" community, there's a lot of people saying "Don't download it, go see it in a theater." It's the type of movie that needs to be seen on a large screen, not a computer monitor or small TV.
I have to wonder if this might qualify as an invasion of privacy. I mean, people in a dark theatre assume they aren't being watched. If theatres were releasing video tapes of teenagers making out in the dark, there's be a huge outrage.
Well, IANAL, but I know I won't be going to a theatre again... I'll stick with rentals of the few movies I'm interested in.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.
While not strictly related to this teenager's arrest, the article below does provide insight on how the film industry might better accomplish its goal of keeping bootleggers at bay.
----
Piracy and the movie business
Tipping Hollywood the black spot
Aug 28th 2003
From The Economist print edition
[Image]
The movie business is not doing enough to ward off the threat of digital piracy
AS HOLLYWOOD bosses know all too well, digital piracy could plunder their industry. The music business, where piracy has long been active, has lost a quarter of its sales already. Watching its plight, the movie moguls say, has taught them a lesson: listen to what the customer wants and keep the business model flexible. But investors are not convinced that Hollywood's leaders are on top of the piracy threat. Like Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone with the Wind", says Gordon Crawford, an investor at Capital Research and Management in Los Angeles, many have decided to do something about it tomorrow.
It is true that movies are not yet as vulnerable as music. Hollywood starts from a better position. Its products are priced more reasonably than CDs. People want to watch all of a film, so there is no incentive to download a single track. It can take days to download a movie from the internet, unlike a song, which takes minutes.
But rampant DVD piracy may be coming soon, both in the form of traditional counterfeiting and downloading from the internet. Hard pirated copies are widespread, and will proliferate further with the spread of DVD recorders and burners. Already as many as 600,000 movie files are shared each day on peer-to-peer file-sharing networks such as Morpheus and Grokster, according to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). That number is likely to soar as more households get broadband internet and compression technology cuts download time.
Movie industry bosses say that they are doing plenty to combat the threat. As well as helping local police with raids on counterfeiters, they are devising "digital rights management" (DRM) techniques, such as deleting content after the user has "consumed" it. They are also offering movies cheaply online and seeking new laws. This week they won a battle against pirates when California's Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment right to free speech cannot be used as a defence by someone publishing trade secrets on the internet--in this case, software to break DVD copy protection.
American Pie-in-the-sky
Next will come an Orwellian project to "re-educate" the young. With Junior Achievement, a volunteer teaching organisation, the MPAA has developed a curriculum for use in 36,000 American classrooms which teaches that swapping content is wrong. Older file sharers will be hard to persuade, however, and hackers can usually get around any copy protection the industry devises. According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 65% of people who share music and video files online say they do not care if material is copyrighted. Last month, the MPAA tried an emotional approach, with a series of adverts in which a set painter, a stuntman, a make-up artist, a grip and an animator explain how piracy hurts them, not just the big bosses. The campaign is unlikely to have much effect, industry-watchers say, as everyone knows how many millions the latest blockbuster grossed and how much the star got.
To frighten people, the big music firms are going after individuals in court. Movie firms reckon that this will help them too, though for now they are leaning on universities to stop their students file-sharing. One studio s
It's hard to believe the movie industry is getting so excited over wretchedly poor quality bootlegs. This strikes me as being more of a propaganda war than anything else. Every time an arrest is made some movie exec gets to come out and use the words "steal" and "movie" in the same sentence, as if making copies is at all the same thing as theft. They can jump up and down and say it's theft as many times as they want but that doesn't make it so.
"The teen could be charged under a law that went into effect Jan. 1 and makes taking a recording device into a movie theater a crime punishable by up to one year in jail and a maximum fine of $2,500."
Potentially a year in jail for videotaping a movie? He didn't distribute it yet so they can't punish him for more broad piracy issues. A year in jail for a single instance of copyright violation? Could this be argued as a violation of 8th ammendment rights?
It is about time theatres have taken it under their mandate to try and help the studios out on this one. Although, from various news sources and from /., I realize most recordings are inside jobs. Who knows it may go up to the top. If a manager knows it is happening or is actually in on it, I am sure there is a tidy bit of cash for him to make or at least favours to get by handing out copies to friends.
I gave up going to the theatre due to high costs and lack of value. Now I just wait the three to 6 months and watch it at home on the wide screen. At least I won't get busted for making out with my fiancee if things get to heavy.
I am just waiting for the guy who works in the theatre, donning these new fangled night vision goggles, to sue the theatre because they didn't give him proper training . I am sure someone, somewhere will forget to take them off when the lights go on.
Barring human stupidity, I just wonder what effect on your vision wearing these things for, lets say 6 hrs a day, three days a week, for the average teen kid working at a theatre part time. I also wonder how the bright flashes of light comming from the screen effect your vision over time. Whenever you see a movie where some guy is hunting down some other guy, or girl for that matter, and is wearing night vision goggles, inevitably the hunted use some bright light to blind the hunter... Does anyone have any first hand knowlege of the damage to the eyes, or if the pain and squinting you see in the movies during these scenes is true to fact?
flinging poop since 1969
"The teen could be charged under a law that went into effect Jan. 1 and makes taking a recording device into a movie theater a crime punishable by up to one year in jail and a maximum fine of $2,500."
How can they actually prove that HE brought the camera into the theatre?
If the law only applies to those who bring a recoridng device into a theatre, then they'd have to be able to prove he is the one who actually carried it into the theatre, and if he was with freinds then there's no way they could prove who brought it in.
Why not just pay homeless people $20 to tape it. If they are caught they get to get a free home and food, and if they are not then they get free money.
Paying homeless people to do civil disobedience is win-win.
3dinfo@maficstudios.com
But I'm betting on the movie companies reneging on the $500.00 bounties.
Once word spreads that the bounties aren't being paid,
snoopers will stop snooping.
And the pirates will be back in force.
Well, maybe the projectionists will keep snooping.
So they can have a monopoly on making bootleg copies.
Don't you think the word "stealing" is in this case a bit falsly borrowed, stealing is TAKING AWAY. Now if I record something, whom did I what away so his has any less?
I think it's all a more complicated issue, since movies and any thus data like this are not normal goods in consumption. For example an apple is a normal, if I eat it, you can't, if take it you got one less. Movies are a totally different case, or for example the television set at home is the same problematic. If I consum it, I don't disable you consuming it also. Say one family member bought a TV, is it legimate for other family members to turn it on when he isn't at home? What your oppinion to this? On one hand he was the one who bought it, on the other hand he does not loose anything if some other family watches his favorite show when he is in the gym. It's more the problem of the freerider to calling it stealing.
And honestly this has absolutely nothing to do with breaking into my house, raping my wive, TAKING my TV and Computer, and setting it to fire.
Your throwing pure emotional random stuff in it.
For example I would agree if you say it has something to do with resting in a hot summer noon in the shadow of MY tree next to my house. You didn't pay for the tree, yet you benefit from it without compensating me.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
It sounds crazy, but that's what happens. Go Google for the article with the Israeli Mossad torture expert. You have deep subconsious shit that goes off to make you a martyr. It doesn't work for everybody, but for a lot of people it becomes just so satisfying to piss off the assholes trying to fuck with you at some point that you don't really care about the little nagging prison time and everything anymore.
Actually...
On the internet, I don't belive that 92% of the files copied are cams. No way. That statistic is BOGUS.
But for the street vendors, pushing VCDs and crappy VHS dupes to idiots, it might even be true. Or might have been a few years back - nowdays with pirate DVDs of unreleased-to-DVD movies are more common, and with those the customers already demand a bit more quality than a cammed copy.
Lots of pirate _sales_ are made on the very first days the movie is out - and at that point the cammed version might be the only thing that's out there. The dumb pirate *buyers* do not know any better, and I could belive a hefty chunk of the sales are cammed copies. Tho I still think that 92% number must include telesyncs, which are made with a tripod, in an empty theater with the cooperation of the staff. And THAT problem is fixable by securing the handling and showing of the prints. Of course THAT would cost money. Probably more than what it costs to buy off new laws to toss camming kids to jail.
By breaking into my house, then raping my cat and killing everybody or whatever else, you might end with a sentency somehow lower than by camcording a blockbuster.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Hey, I didn't want to express that this law is necessarly false. I merly pointed out that just because something is THE LAW like the original poster said, it's not necessarly a right thing. History has shown us this many times in a painful way.
I'm for a system that allows maximum welfare for all (including movie watchers and producers). I agree that without any restrictions to copyright and/or exhibition movies could not be financed, which would be a pity and hurting welfare. However on the other hand granting maximum copyright/exhibition right to the procuders moves the scale a big way to the procuders, allowing whole cities to live from this, and people owning islands from the revenues taken from the public.
I confess that I'm downloading sometimes movies and music to watch and hear it. Yet I still love to make an evening going with my girl-friend to the cinema, buying (expensive) pop-corn and all that, altough I have the movie at home and could watch it on my 17" screen also eating cheap popcorn from the supermarket.
If for example a system living from the revenues of offering good evenings for people allows it to bring in the revenue for allowing the movies to be produced, I don't see the additional public welfare by forbidding private copies, except for some rich guys to be even more richers by selling video tapes CD's that self destruct and all that.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
because some cretin put it on the internet for free. :
The movie which was being filmed and its copy are not the same thing
The original movie is being projected ona big screen with a huge digital sound.
The copy has a crappy and shaky 1-Mpixel picture and an almost monaural sound.
What you'll lose here will only be the public who'll realise how lame the movie could be.
The others will either end in a theater for the real thing and/or buying the DVD.
So, crappy camcording should rather be considered as alternative promoting.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
...everywhere on every format simultanously!
That way the pirates would only have those who can't or won't pay the full price as customers. Everybody else will be able to watch it where and when they want with a clean conscience because they paid for it.
As long as they continue to discriminate based on geographical location and format, there will be pirates filling those huge gaps in availability. What part of supply and demand don't MPAA understand?
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
There is loss. Loss in seeing the value of the movie being diluted because some cretin put it on the internet for free.
Oh, bullshit. You mean MARKETED for free. The first Spiderman was one of the most blatantly posted movies ever, and it was one of the biggest takers at the box office. You think anyone who would have paid to see that movie is going to look at a washed out, bad sounding, shaky cam-movie and decide not to see it? Half the point to these movies is the special effects, none of which are coming across to the little low-res tape.
TRANSLATION:
How did the projectionist see the bootlegger, considering that everbody is facing the movie screen?
Easy, he looked for the guy who seemed to be staring at his chest....or something...
My Favourite Meme
If I remember right, when you look at a videocamera with something IR-sensitive, you can see the focus light that it uses to put a strong known pattern on the scene in front of it.
I wonder if they just need to glance in there, with the camera sticking out like a sore thumb, or if they actually need to see the camera itself?
I for one welcome this move to stop the distribution of movies filmed by the audience in theathers.
:)
This will homefully deter people from spreading poor quality bootlegs.
However, this means that the average movie spread on the internet will be of higher quality. I wonder if the MPAA really has thought this one through...
A CAM version of a movie is not a replacement for buying it. But if the only copies spread on the internet are DVD-rips, this could have a negative impact on VHS/DVD rentals and sales
So if people were encurraged to bring cameras to the theatre and shoot crappy bootlegs, the internet would be flooded by a lot of different versions of low quality files. And anyone downloading stuff would get dissapointed.
A personal note: I once watched a downloaded movie "filmed in Tilt-o-vision(tm) in front of a live theatre audience" and I woved to myself never to do that again because of the poor quality. I guess the MPAA feels the same way
Before this degenerates into another "The MPAA suxx0rz" argument (oops! too late!), I'm going to field a question here:
Is there be a way to defeat these goggles by emitting light in a wavelength invisible to the human eye? And if there is, since creating a blind spot where you're sitting would immediately call attention to your evildoing antics (bwahahaha), would it be possible to use a beam, directed at the little window and the dude with the night goggles, effectively blinding them?
This is merely for the sake of curiosity, of course, since (a) I'm not about to go set up a camcorder in my local cinema, (b) The attendants where I live wouldn't know night vision goggles from ViewMaster ones and (c) Creating such an effect would immediately draw attention to yourself anyway.
So long, and thanks for all the fish
What about projectionists that refuse to play police in a movie theater? I would certainly not engage in such a surveillance action (nor would my employer ask me to, but that's sheer luck).
Dear MPAA, if you want security, pay for it. Send over a security guy that watches the cinemas your reels are visiting. I for certain won't do your lousy denunciatory job.
Ignoring the actual issues involving the supposed 'crime', I find public monitoring a little uncomfortable.. esp in a darkened theatre. I guess they should just stick up a sign above the screen titled 'big brother is watching you'.
A little creepy for my tastes, freedoms are lost one inch at a time.... remember that folks!
ah stop this zero tolerance bullshit.
Being stupid at 16 years is a perfectly good excuse. It is pathetic to throw the book at this kid for doing something that caused NO HARM to anyone (or do you honestly think that a camcorder copy of Spiderman 2 puts a dent in the biz's multi-million profits?)
Man, am I hoping for a backlash of all this get tough zero tolerance crap.
Would this be like getting tips? Can the Theaters now only pay him $2.01 per hour, since he has another source of income from the patrons of the theater? That would make it even more necessary to collect the reward, and make the employees far more attentive.
Even better, maybe he can be hired on a contract piecework basis, and ONLY get paid when he finds a camcorder. Running of the equipment is a necessary part of his contract, since no movie=no need to have a camcorder.
This could be quite a boon for all of those barley-making-it megaplexes.
(did I forget to open the sarcasm tag? oops, my bad)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
C'mon, renege on the $500 bonus? How much do you think it's going to cost them? $10,000, $20,000? Against a movie cost of perhaps $50,000,000,000? If it prevents even a little piracy it's worth it to them.
They are doing this simply to make it a public spectacle and sensationalize it.
we did some tests and a pair of IR floods pointed at the audience at the sides of the screen makes it impossible for a camcorder to record the film without being massively washed out and looking like hell.
the movie companies are just trying to make examples and generate public fear.
if they pulled their heads out of their asses long enough to use simple solutions like I gave above it would be "solved". but they know that most bootlegs do not come from kids in a theatre but from staff at that theatre or in their own company.
that said, I have almost finised my head mounted high intensity IR strobe made from lots of Ir led's and I cant wait to use it at a theatre to see if I get the attention of a movie police.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
have you ever actually seen a CAM video? my $deity, it's worth NOTHING! Sneaking in is worth A LOT more than a 100 CAM copies.
In general, those that watch CAM copies fit into one of these categories:
a) wasn't going to see it in the theater or on DVD anyway but since it's there and free...nothing lost
2. already saw it in the theater X-times and wouldnt mind watching it at home sometime before the DVD comes out, and will buy the DVD when it does come out...nothing lost here either
III: Want's to preview the PG or PG-13 to determine if the little ones can handle watching it or if a sitter will be in order (you can't trust the ratings, after all LOTR and Austin Powers are both PG-13 and there's NO WAY I'm letting my 8 year old see that 1.5 hour long penis joke)... only loose sales if the movie is crap to begin with
D) just likes collecting things, probably won't ever watch it anyway...nothing lost again
in summary: CAM's don't loose revenue.
CAM movie quality is crap at best, most of them are barely even watchable, you might as well stand at the door and try to watch through the crack. Telecine or telesync caps can be near DVD quality though, and are usualy take FROM THE BOOTH by the guy that runs the camera using a $2000 camera! This is the real piracy "problem", not the kid with the $300 dv-cam.
- Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
SpiderMan.2.SVCD.TELESYNC-V****CD
:p
No, he's not
(for the uninitiated, the term 'Telesync' refers to a higher-level than cam rip, with a direct audio feed, and is done in a usually empty theatre)
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.