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."

Comments

Not exactly....

[Rolan]

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.

Re:Not exactly....

[thepotoo]

Hell, 380 million isn't exactly bad.

IMHO, it's about 300m more than episode III deserved. If Serenity does half as well, we'll be vitually guarenteed of the two sequel movies being made, and of the show comming back.

BUT, just to play devil advocate... So I was going to go see SW3 and shell out my hard earned cash to Lucas like everone else. But, I stumbled on a fast FTP with a high quality screener to downloaded. As a result, Lucas lost a couple bucks.

Just goes to show, hollywood may have a point despite what us /.ers say.

Re:Not exactly....

[skiflyer]

How is there a barrier to entry on a boycott?

Or is it that even at their fixed prices enough consumers are willing to pay the fees such that the different industries you mention that your boycott wouldn't have a chance in hell?

I concur, the prices are obscene for the most part, I wish they'd go down, given current technology there's no reason they shouldn't go down... actually, given technology of the last 50 years they never should've gone up, the entertainment industry has been making people fabulously wealthy for a very long time... arguably rewarding people over and above their hard work. The advantage of filming once and distributing millions of time, or recording once... etc.

But, the prices are only so obscene because the consumer is willing to pay. If we stop paying, they'll either fold up because they truly cannot operate on those margins (unlikely) or they'll lower prices... fact is, right now, enough people aren't there.

I'm sure it's been said, or will be shortly, but there is no "right" that you have to the RIAA's brand of pop music and there is no right that you have which entitles you to see Star Wars Episode III for a price you see fit. It's a product, they've set a price, accept it or don't, vote with your money.

With current technology do we all think we could come up with a better model that would distribute money more fairly, give more people a fair slice of the pie and cost consumers far less? Yes we do, and hopefully with enough time the startups who have done this will catch on and we'll all have new distribution methods, but the old one is still raking in enough cash that it's not going to get out of the way just yet.

Re:Not exactly....

[Radres]

I'd like to add a corrollary that it's not just through theft that technology is cutting in on entertainment industry profits (and "stabbing them in the eye"), but it is also by lowering the barriers to entry. There is no need for an RIAA when all you have to do to make a record is get $5,000 for studio time, rip the songs to MP3, and set up a web site to distribute the music (or go through iTunes, Napster, or a similar channel). It will be a while still before the independent filmmaker can do the same, although we have seen some very successful independent films in recent years.

Re:Not exactly....

[srw]

Or, boycott, and get enough people to boycott with you and see how the industry reacts,

Some of us have been doing this for a few years already. How has the industry reacted? They interpret the lower sales (or lower than projected growth) as losses due to "piracy." I have never once heard the RIAA or MPAA suggest that their lower-than-expected growth was even partially to do with people boycotting them and spending their money on independant releases. All I hear from them is how much "piracy" is hurting them.

Re:Not exactly....

[rk]

It has been my experience that some people are so wrapped up with fixing the problems of the world (whatever they define those problems to be), they forget that the goal of fixing those problems is so people can take joy in life, even in simple, stupid, or trivial things. They seem to have the attitude that until all problems are fixed, nobody anywhere is allowed to actually enjoy their lives.

Who pays for this?

[bigtallmofo]

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.

Re:Who pays for this?

[AthenianGadfly]

I don't think it's so much that there are other crimes that aren't investigated... after all, if they only went after the most serious crimes, burglary, arson, and assault would never be investigated because there will always be homicide cases that need more resources. It's even fine with me if the government invests its resources in going after people who infringe copyright. However, if they're going to be involved in this kind of thing, I should be able to expect that the local law enforcement and DA's office will be helping me investigate and charge the next person who infringes the copyright of one of my original songs I recorded in my home studio. It's an old problem: the rich get most things for free from the government (or for the cost of lobbying and campaign contributions), but that doesn't make it any more acceptable. The government shouldn't be able to cherry-pick the cases that they want based on how much money it gets them in campaign contributions or publicity - imagine if your house was broken into and a large amount of valuables stolen, but the police wouldn't come out to look at it because you didn't donate enough to the last election or you weren't in a high enough tax bracket.

Um... It was still wrong

[El Cubano]

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.

Correct

[Solr_Flare]

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.

Re:What is it with US and the word "illegal"

[Lenins_beard]

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"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

At the risk of getting my geek card burned...

[Captain Sarcastic]

... 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.