Slashdot Mirror
Eight Charged in Episode III Early Release
ewhac writes "Earlier this year, an advance copy of 'Star Wars: Episode III' was released to the Internet a day before the film's official worldwide opening. Yesterday, the US Attorney handed down charges to the eight people believed responsible. Using forensic markers embedded in the advance-release "screeners," law enforcement were able to track down the leaked copy and the people who came in contact with it. As a result of the early release, Episode III only managed to earn $380 million at the box office."
More like: "As a result of Episode I and Episode II SUCKING, Episode III only managed to earn $380 million at the box office."
Leave it to hollywood to blame everyone but themselves for a movie not doing as well as they wanted it to.
- AMW
Gee, someone broke the law, got caught and somehow it has something to do with "my rights online?"
And I thought it was because the movie sucked?
I would like to know who pays for these investigations. There are all kinds of crimes that go uninvestigated but somehow they have time and resources to use James Bond tactics to track down someone that released a movie on the Internet.
I'm a big tall mofo.
As a result of the early release, Episode III only managed to earn $380 million at the box office.
Nice editorializing there. Yeah, the movie made a boatload of money. That does not change the fact that the people who screened the movie violated the agreement under which they received the screener copies.
Personally, I don't think that the US Attorney should be involved in what amounts to a contract violation. This should really be a civil matter, but it is still wrong.
I'm not sure I agree with the logic that the movie did bad at the box office because of an early release on Internet. Internet releases tend to be of lesser quality and people who really like Star Wars will have gone to the theatre anyways. I think Lucas only has himself to blame. With the crappy Episodes I and II, it's no wonder there was no rush to the theatres to see Episode III.
Only $380M?? The movie industry is doomed! To think, all along the MPAA was right.
My world has lost all meaning.
"There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
Very true. I think the little jab at the end about the early release was uncalled for(although not surprising) but the truth of the matter is these people violated the law.
This was not a case of simple bootlegging either. For those who never saw a copy of this version, it was an extremely good rip. Once some aspect ratio issues were corrected you pretty much had a DVD quality copy with an exellent stereo sound track.
I know in my area the bootleg was rather prevelant. Seemed like ever other person had a copy. People who weren't big Star Wars fans or hated the prequels got/bought copies to see it instead of going to the theater. And star wars fans got copies so they could watch it over again in their homes instead of seeing it again in the theaters. All of which I'm sure did in fact impact sales a decent bit.
Still, this certainly isn't the sole cause of th emovie not meeting expectations, but other slashdotters have already covered that to death.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
There's got to be a felony involved in there somewhere. Wanton distribution of Clint Eastwood? Willful spreading of mawkish sentimentality?
Seriously, though, I like the way they imply that you can get arrested for giving away a copy of a DVD you finished watching. "Done with that copy of Harry Potter? Got a friend who hasn't seen it yet? Make them buy their own or go to jail!" I'm sure there's more information the journalist in question could have provided about why Redding wasn't allowed to give his copy away.
Definition:
I Love Alberta Beef
It's only "Legal Murder" and "Legal Robbery" if the state's doing it, but we use colorful euphemisms like "Capital Punishment" and "Eminent Domain"
Not exactly PR, but very close - and very good, too! Better to call it PP - public perceptions. The words you use can make a big impact. Get people to assosciate "file sharing" with "illegal" and half the battle's already won.
:-D
Other examples of really good PP include the gambling giants getting it called "gaming" in the news - gaming has positive connotations; gambling is bad.
Another interesting one was the battle over what to call the proposed Social Security funds a few months back. "Personal" retirement accounts sound good, so Bush&co were using that phrase extensively, even when news organizations were going with more neutral phrasing.
Following mainstream US media news is generally not worth it. Much better to read the free newspapers going on about the evils of the Amerikkan Kon$umer Empire. At least there, there's no pretense of impartiality
--LWM
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are comparatively few uploaders, and hundreds, possibly thousands of downloaders, so it's easier. Plus, if they stop the uploaders, there will be nothing for the downloaders to download.
So prefacing labels of instances of illegal filesharing with the word "illegal" seems perfectly reasonable. Kind of like you would the word "took" if you were describing stealing, eg "He illegally took the money" as opposed to "He took the money".
Now, piracy I can't explain. That one's by definition illegal (yes, "copyright infringement isn't piracy" people, LOOK IT UP, yes it is.) But as trading, filesharing, release, etc are by themselves neutral on the subject of something being illegal, it certainly ought to be mentioned, and would - in many ways - be wrong to omit it given the overuse of the words to describe illegal activity might give the impression they really are, by definition, illegal.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Also Matrix Reloaded & Revolutions.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
... I say "Good!"
It wasn't their property to broadcast onto the internet. Whether their actions cost the studio $10 million in lost ticket sales or increased the the movie's profits by $10 million is irrelevant.
These bozos committed theft, pure and simple. Throw the book at 'em.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
I mean, Hollywood revenues are declining. They claim that it is due to movies being pirated. They say that the movies are as good as they ever were.
We say that the movies just suck, straight up, and that piracy isn't having that big an impact.
To this question, I submit the following:
If all movies were being killed by piracy, all movies would have below average ticket sales. That is not the case. Crappy movies, like "The Island" or "Stealth" did bad, but good movies like "Batman" did pretty well. Ditto "Wedding Crashers". I mean, if piracy was the only problem, shouldn't all of the movies this summer have done poorly?
Its still entrapment. They would approach the cops asking for a deal, if the cops hadn't suggested being capable of delivering the goods.
They might not say "Do you want some drugs?", but they are pratically wearing signs saying it instead.
So its entrapment, but its tolerated because the politicians want legal entrapment.
Yes, it was wrong. The contract those people signed was violated on their part.
But, I'm willing to read your logical reasoning as to why entering into a contract with the intention of violating it is not wrong.
And now this ..... individual is going to sue people because the movie didn't make as much *money*?
Wow, you're pretty worked up for someone that didn't even RTFA. Where did you get the idea that Lucas was suing over the money the film did or didn't make? From the slashdot summary? Sucker! You've fallen for the editorial spin, and then added your own.
How about this as a reason to sue: when someone is making and marketing a large, expensive movie, he actually has some plans about how he wants that to hit the market. Part of that process is the very controlled, signed-for, private distribution of screeners for review by the press. He trusts people in that loop, and they agree that there are consequences for violating that trust (and the copyright).
If an artist or a film company conveys private material under a non-disclosure agreement prior to public access to that content, and some ass breeches that agreement without any consequence... what's the result? More of the same. Lucas isn't in the mood for it, and neither should be any other author, filmaker, musician, game studio, etc. Get a grip.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Check out http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region= world-wide
;)
The whole idea of releasing a movie to the internet means that anyone in the world can grab a copy, not just people in the US, so global revenue is a more accurate figure to use.
The internet does not end at US borders ya know
Regards,
g@z.
We all should be so unlucky! Perhaps if 1 and 2 didn't suck so bad more people woulda seen 3? I didn't pay for it in the theater, steal it from the internet, or borrow it off a friend, and am blissfully 3-free to this day.
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
As a result of the early release, Episode III only managed to earn $380 million at the box office.
It of course had nothing to do with the track record of the previous two films.
It had nothing to do with the overpricing of the "theater experience."
It had nothing to do with it being a poor film season in general.
It had nothing to do with us having seen most of what we wanted to see of the movie in trailers.
It had nothing to do with people wanting to wait to spend their hard earned cash on the DVD release.
Lets blame all of hollywood's woes on the early release demon!