Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Eight Charged in Episode III Early Release

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the tommy-we-got-hosed dept.

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."

83 of 573 comments (clear)

  1. Not exactly.... by Rolan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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
    1. Re:Not exactly.... by Radres · · Score: 5, Informative

      I believe the submitter was being sarcastic as $380 million is a lot of money to make in spite of the losses suffered from piracy.

    2. Re:Not exactly.... by Approaching.sanity · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you mean

      I believe the submitter was being sarcastic as $380 million is a lot of money to make in spite of the "losses" "suffered" from "piracy."

      --
      RTFA again for the best results.
    3. Re:Not exactly.... by zxnos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i concur. but what is the price point at which copyright infringement becomes acceptable? $100 thousand, $10 million, $20 million, etc?

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    4. Re:Not exactly.... by thepotoo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    5. Re:Not exactly.... by sxmjmae · · Score: 2, Funny

      What are you talking about?

      The movie had focus groups and followed the hollywood formula to make it a hit.
      Based on the focus groups and the 'geek' factor of Star Wars the Hollywood executives knew with 100% of their own certainty that it would make over $500 million. Since that did not happen when applying the focus groups and Hollywood accounting methodology formula that difference must be due to piracy. Hollywood logic says so. Just because any statistics and marketing major knows you can not guarantee the results based upon a focus group does not mean anything in the well based movie making machine formula.

      So I am afraid to tell you that you are wrong. Yup it must be Pirates! /Sarcasm off

      --
      My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
    6. Re:Not exactly.... by interiot · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wikipedia has a list of the worldwide gross for each episode... Revenge of the Sith was the second highest grossing of all of them. So most statements about piracy or suckiness should be said in a sarcastic way, yes.

    7. Re:Not exactly.... by dusik · · Score: 5, Funny

      >> "there very well could have been over 300 million spent in production/marketing/advertising/other overhead"

      Actually, the breakdown is:

      $379 999 999.00: production/marketing/advertising/other overhead
      $1.00: script

    8. Re:Not exactly.... by Radres · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is it worth enforcing Draconian laws, eliminating the right to privacy of the common man, spending millions of taxpayer dollars, etc. in order to enforce an unpopular law so that film studios can make even more money on something so non-essential to life, all the while abusing their position of power to overcharge consumers?

      Why does it make sense that popular athletes, actors, and musicians make hundreds of millions of dollars while scientists researching diseases and solutions to the energy crisis make far less and risk having their research sent overseas to be done for even less money? We wouldn't be in this situation if people had an alternative to the **AA conglomerates. Is a movie or music CD that costs less than $2 to print really worth $30 or $15? Is it really worth $10 a ticket to go to a movie theater? Is it worth close to $100 to go to an NFL game? We pay way too much for entertainment and I feel that thanks to technology, we can finally drive a spear through the eye of the entertainment industry.

    9. Re:Not exactly.... by kcarlin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, the breakdown is:

      $379 999 999.00: production/marketing/advertising/other overhead
      $1.00: script

      They paid for that script?!?

      --
      Free Adam Smith! (Or best offer.)
    10. Re:Not exactly.... by skiflyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, but we live in a Capitalist system... so if this is what you want I think you know the answer...

      That's right, start up a company which prints CDs and DVDs for $2 and don't sell them for $30 or $15, open a movie theatre where tickets cost less than $10 and buy an NFL team, and charge less than $100 for admission.

      Or, boycott, and get enough people to boycott with you and see how the industry reacts, they can lower prices or go out of business depending. It's a pretty simple system, act within it, don't steal and say that you're boldy "driving a spear through the eye of the industry"

    11. Re:Not exactly.... by Radres · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't do any of those things because the barrier of entry is too high due to the practices of aforementioned conglomerates.

      Maybe people should stop stealing from them when they stop price fixing.

    12. Re:Not exactly.... by madprof · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Er, it doesn't. Their profit margin has no reflection upon whether copyright infringement is good or bad.
      If you want free music and film go grab Creative Commons licensed stuff.
      That's what it is there for.

    13. Re:Not exactly.... by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      in many cases the amount the film takes at the box office means jackshit. your forgetting all the toys,dvds and other franshised material they sell, which in many cases outstrips the boxoffice takings. in fact these days many films sounds tracks make more money then the film does.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    14. Re:Not exactly.... by rjstanford · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is a movie or music CD that costs less than $2 to print really worth $30 or $15? Is it really worth $10 a ticket to go to a movie theater? Is it worth close to $100 to go to an NFL game?

      According to millions of people, the answer to your questions is, "Yes." It may not be worth that much money to you - hey, don't buy 'em and save the cash. But for many, many other people, its worth all that and more. Otherwise they wouldn't keep buying those movie tickets, NFL season passes, et cetera. When they stop, the prices will come down or the services will change. Until that point, its not like only 50 people a week are paying to go to football games...

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    15. Re:Not exactly.... by skiflyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:Not exactly.... by cbirkett · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can buy vouchers for cinemas at a specially discounted rate at the university here, and a lot of businesses give them out as incentives to employees. Basically, the cinema sells a bunch at once and gives a slight discount on each ticket (a couple of dollars). The vouchers are good for one ticket to see anything (i.e. they're not the "no passes accepted" type of pass). When I go see a movie with my family, I usually just buy a set of vouchers, because the discount adds up when you've got 6+ people going at once. So, we head down to the cinema to get our tickets, and find they're not accepting these vouchers for Episode III. It was the first time they'd not accepted the vouchers for any movie they'd *ever* shown. Apparently good old George had a memo sent around saying if any cinema sold tickets for less than full price, he'd have the studio screw them over by cancelling their distribution contract. The general consensus was that he was afraid discounted tickets would affect the opening record he desperately wanted to set. Greedy bastard. We ponied up the cash to see that piece of trash at the regular price, though.

      --
      "My fellow Americans, these are not the droids the nation is looking for."
    17. Re:Not exactly.... by Radres · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:Not exactly.... by srw · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    19. Re:Not exactly.... by Glyphn · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Why does it make sense that popular athletes, actors, and musicians make hundreds of millions of dollars while scientists researching diseases and solutions to the energy crisis make far less and risk having their research sent overseas to be done for even less money?
      YMMV and all that, but to me it makes sense. For one, there's a lot less risk in pursuing a career in science. Looking back, I'd say the main requirement is persistence--you have (in the US) 10-12 years of post high school education and then maybe a few extra years thrown in for postdoc. During this time, you can expected to be treated (and paid) as your typical minion. After that, the jobs aren't exactly plentiful, but if you chose your degree with some minor forethought, you should be employable. At that point, you can choose broadly between job security and lower pay in academia or higher pay and less job security in industry.

      In any case, it's not that hard. Science doesn't require any great social or communication skills or, frankly, much in the way of intelligence either (which is not to say that having these traits doesn't help). Also, oversees competition isn't (IMO) much of a concern, but I concede ignorance outside my discipline.

      Compare this to athletes, actors (or TV newscasters, or corporate execs, etc.) where only a handful actually win high-profile and high paying positions. Whole different scale of risk, IMO.

      But as another poster said, it's a capitalism thing too so if you're not into that, well, it probably still won't make a lot of sense :)

    20. Re:Not exactly.... by Goo.cc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is Slashdot, my friend. Copyright infringment is always acceptable, unless we are talking about GPLed software.

    21. Re:Not exactly.... by sdpuppy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Script: Well besides wonders (such as when Mr. Vadar screams "Noooooooo!",

      I'd like to kow why a culture with faster than light space ships and cars that levitate, the ability

      to install cybernetic limb replacements, recover from near-death

      hypothermia has so much difficulty with

      Maternity medical problems...

    22. Re:Not exactly.... by bezza · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Who the fuck are you to go judging what other people like? If people practiced a little bit of understanding for other peoples preferences this world would be a better place.

      This goes to all the people who say crap about the people who like Britney Spears. So what if they derive enjoyment from listening to her music? God forbid they don't like what YOU like.

      --
      WARNING: This sig does not contain a joke
    23. Re:Not exactly.... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      in fact these days many films sounds tracks make more money then the film does.

      I understand your point that films make a lot of money on the side that isn't counted towards the film's gross, but your statement is waaaaaay of base.

      Pretend that there is no cost to create, market, and distribute a soundtrack because the hollywood accountant weasles have included that in the film's budget to prevent a writer who took a cut of the profits from seeing anything. (Not absolutely feasable, but it helps keep the math simple.

      Now, lets assume that we can make $10 per disk/tape/record sold. If a cheap film costs $50 million to make (about average cost, from what I see), We still have to sell 5 million to equal the film revenue. That would be a album that goes platinum five times. Incase you don't follow the music world, a lot of artists would be very happy to go platinum five times. You would be on par with people like Prince, Madonna, Whitney, and a whole slew of very successful pop artists.

      I don't see that happening.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    24. Re:Not exactly.... by rk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    25. Re:Not exactly.... by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's wrong... (repeat ad nauseum)

      That's your opinion.

      Personally, I don't bother downloading movies/music/games. It's all mindless pap and I have better things to do with my bandwidth.

      But for those that do, consider this rationale:

      The unethical, arguably illegal price fixing schemes in place bring these creeps more money than they are actually entitled to. So as long as the numbers downloading the "art" (and I use the term VERY loosely) is a lower percentage than the puffed-up ticket prices, costs of CD/DVD rebuys (since you don't own the disc, you just buy a license!) etc... then the Force is balanced.

    26. Re:Not exactly.... by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So most statements about piracy or suckiness should be said in a sarcastic way,

      Statements about money lost due to copyright infringement, yes. Statements about suckiness, no.

      The highest grossing movie of all time (not star wars) is a very sucky movie to be sure.

      There are many, many, many times that a terribly crappy movie makes lots of money. There are also many times that a very good movie makes practically no money. Since quality is not tied to profit, suckiness can't be dismissed so easily.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    27. Re:Not exactly.... by malignant_minded · · Score: 3, Funny

      $379 999 999.00: production/marketing/advertising/other overhead

      $1.00: script

      Watching the movie on my PC before all the movie goers...priceless.
  2. *Imperial Cackle* by darth_MALL · · Score: 2, Funny


    Everything that has transpired here has done so according to MY design!

  3. Wow by KSobby · · Score: 5, Funny

    Didn't they suffer enough watching the movie?

    --
    "It's difficult to meditate on amphetamines." - Joe Walsh
  4. Oh poor Hollywood. by baronvonwalz · · Score: 5, Funny

    It ONLY managed to make $380 million dollars....still putting it in the top 10 movies of all time. Now because of those "evil pirates" George Lucas might not be able to build another gigantic animation studio.

  5. In other news... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 5, Funny

    This just in. Hollywood legend George Lucas will NOT, I repeat NOT, be able to afford his new gold-plated shark tank this year.

    1. Re:In other news... by Caraig · · Score: 4, Funny

      He'll have to do with the current batch of sharks with frickin'... aw, you know.

      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    2. Re:In other news... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 4, Funny

      George Lucas will NOT, I repeat NOT, be able to afford his new gold-plated shark tank this year.

      But then where will his gold-plated sharks live???

  6. Who pays for this? by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Who pays for this? by blugu64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ya know it's probably a civil lawsuit...meaning that it's quite probably that the police/law enforcement didn't investigate anything, instead the studio paid for the investigation...just a thought anyway

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
    2. Re:Who pays for this? by AthenianGadfly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Who pays for this? by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, the FBI deals with cases over $5000, which would be 0,001% of the earnings. It doesn't exactly take much to pass that limit. Besides, it's not the police that is using "James Bond tactics", it is the movie studios. They are the ones that place these trackers, keep track of where they are and probably present the police with "Here's the evidence, go round them up". It's nothing new that justice can sometimes be "bought", there's no law stopping you and me from hiring a PI to investigate something the cops probably wouldn't get around to.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Who pays for this? by Fishstick · · Score: 2

      > it's probably a civil lawsuit

      When the U.S. attorney is involved? Doubt it.

      "The charges handed down today by the U.S. attorney prove that forensic markings on screeners and early copies of movies are doing their job in locating movie pirates," said Dan Glickman, chief executive officer of the Motion Picture Association of America.

      MPAA got the Feds moving on this, oh yes.

      Federal prosecutors said Albert Valente, 28, of Lakewood, took a copy of the movie from a post-production facility where he worked and gave it to a friend, Jessie Lumada, 28, of Long Beach.

      See, Federal prosecutors!! No, Lucas didn't hire a PI to take pictures and then file suit in civil court on his own dime. This is a fucking federal case!

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    5. Re:Who pays for this? by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dear Mr. bigtallmofo (#695287)

      I represent the firm of L. I. Tigious and Associates. This firm is counsel to Danjaq, L.L.C and United Artists Corporation, the co-owners to the exclusive rights to the use of the copyrighted James Bond movies, as well as the widely recognized federally registered trademark and service mark James Bond.

      Danjaq L.L.C. and United Artists Corporation vigorously object to the content you have posted on this web forum. This content constitute direct copyright infringement of the upcoming film "James Bond: Copyprotected", and make you subject to injunction and liable to Danjaq L.L.C. and United Artists Corporation for its damages, costs and attorneys' fees. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 501(a), anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 118, or of the author as provided in 106(a), is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author." Danjaq L.L.C. and United Artists Corporation hereby demand that you immediately cease and desist from reproducing, distributing, performing by means of digital audio transmission, displaying, discussing, or in any other way infringing upon their copyrights.

                Danjaq L.L.C. and United Artists Corporation are prepared to pursue all available remedies to protect its intellectual property rights. However, Danjaq L.L.C. and United Artists Corporation will refrain from taking immediate legal action upon condition that you provide written assurances by October 2, 2005, that you have ceased and desisted from reproducing, distributing, performing by means of digital audio transmission, or discussing the copyrighted movie "James Bond: Copyprotected". Your written assurances must also state that you have removed all forum content relating to the unlawful use of the James Bond trademarks or copyrights.

                We await an immediate response from you or your counsel.

                                Sincerely,

                                L. I. Tigious and Associates

      --
      ... in Siberia, where Putin killed a fish with a speargun. He later claimed it was killed by Ukrainian separatists.
    6. Re:Who pays for this? by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 2

      The answer to that is obvious: as taxpayers you and I do.

      A better question would be "why" are these kinds of investigations done

      I dont know for sure, but here are a few ideas:

      1) These guys broke the law. In fact, they just broke the newly passed one where you can be incarcerated for several years for early movie leaks via the 'net: you can be sure that the MPAA and the rest of the movie industry is just itching to make an example of them.
      2) although illegal movie distribution via the 'net isn't going to slow down anytime soon, the movie industry would probably feel the wrong message is being sent by sitting back and doing nothing with more visible movie cases like this.
      3) Who do you think lobbies for these kind of laws to be passed anyway?
      4) closely related to number 3, who do you think makes major campaign contributions to those who sponsor these kind of bills?
      5) Bigger crimes (and yes, this is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a larger copyright crime) and crimes against rich/important/powerful people/companies get more attention from "the authorities." Anyone care to guess at the clout of the movie/music/entertainment industry with lawmakers and/or "the authorities"?

      I understand the point you are trying to make and don't really disagree with the premise behind it but, honestly, money talks and the more there is, the louder the voice.

      I'm not saying I like it, but its almost always true.

      We now return to our regularly scheduled programming....

      --
      uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
    7. Re:Who pays for this? by MacFury · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

      Well, I don't need to imagine...I see it happen alot. I could provide the police with the names, addresses, phone numbers and even pictures of people who have stolen from me and vandalised my property. They won't do anything about it. However, if I take matters into my own hands...I could (and most likely would) get fined or sent to prison.

      I do not trust any police officier that I don't personally know. In fact, I trust them much less than a typical stranger. Atleast with a typical stranger I can be relatively sure they don't have the power to royally screw over my life like a cop.

    8. Re:Who pays for this? by Hosiah · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Y'know, I had my car stolen a few years ago when we lived in Las vegas. It was ripped off from the parking lot of my apartment while we slept. The same evening, the exact same make and model of car (but it wasn't ours) was also found abandoned in the *other* end of the apartment complex's parking lot, in trashed condition. Clearly, the car thieves knew how to steal only one make of car, ditched it when it ran out of gas, took off walking, and - what luck! - found ours.

      We called the police about it and their whole attitude was "So what? F#ck you!!!". They wouldn't even send a unit out, not even to look at the dumped car. It's things like this I think about (and I think most /.ers think about) when I see stories like this.

  7. Um... It was still wrong by El+Cubano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. ONLY 380 millions? by despe666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  9. Uploading VS Downloading by RUFFyamahaRYDER · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I find it interesting that the only people who are getting in trouble for Internet piracy are the ones who are doing the uploading, but the people doing the downloading do not get in any trouble like in this case. I seem to remember the same kind of thing happening to people on P2P networks. The ones the FBI (or whatever agency) goes after are the massive uploaders, not the downloaders.

    Am I wrong here? If not, anyone know why they mostly go for the uploaders and not the downloaders? Are there different laws here? Just curious...

    1. Re:Uploading VS Downloading by freshman_a · · Score: 5, Informative


      If not, anyone know why they mostly go for the uploaders and not the downloaders?

      I believe the reasoning is that the ones uploading are the ones copying and distributing said movie, and in turn the ones violating the copyright notice. The copyright notice says something like you can't copy and distribute this material, and downloading a copy isn't really violating that so it's probably easier to win the case against the uploaders.

      --
      Slackware
    2. Re:Uploading VS Downloading by bloodmusic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  10. What is it with US and the word "illegal" by Psionicist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is not a troll or flamebait in disguise, it's an honest question.

    Whenever US mainstream media writes about piracy they use the word "illegal" over and over again. For example, the link in TFS, SFGate writes "illegal release". Same thing with NYTimes, Washington Post etc... "illegal filesharing" this and "illegal piracy" that. Whenever a new release group is shut down the media use these words along with "stolen", "illicit" (you get the idea).

    Why? I live in Sweden. Our mainstream media sure talk about piracy alot, but I have never seen them talk about "illegal" trading etc, even if it is against the law. I have never seen the word "stolen" in the context of piracy either, in Swedish newspapers. Is this something normal for US papers? Do they write about "illegal murder", "illegal robbery" etc too? Or is this just sligtly modified PR?

    Thanks.

    1. Re:What is it with US and the word "illegal" by Lenins_beard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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"

    2. Re:What is it with US and the word "illegal" by lilmouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      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 :-D

      --LWM

    3. Re:What is it with US and the word "illegal" by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Filesharing isn't necessarily illegal, for example you might actually have the consent of the copyright holder. A band might choose to distribute their music using a peer-to-peer technology.

      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.
    4. Re:What is it with US and the word "illegal" by besenslon · · Score: 2, Funny
      Amerikkan Kon$umer Empire

      See what this Kommunist's open source produkt Koffice did with your spelling.

    5. Re:What is it with US and the word "illegal" by Macadamizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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"

      But at least with eminent domain you get paid. A better example of "legal robbery" would be asset forfeiture laws related to drugs and the like, where the cops can take your car or your house, without ever even charging you for a crime -- all they need is a reasonable belief that such a crime is occuring in your house or car. Some cities even allow forfeiture of your car if you are caught soliciting a prostitute -- and those forfeitures have been upheld in court. That's legal robbery.

      --

      "That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
  11. None of you get it by xeon4life · · Score: 3, Informative

    The poster was using sarcasm.

    That $380 million means it made the top 7 highest grossing films ever:
    7. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) $380,176,196

    Get it now?

    --
    Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
    1. Re:None of you get it by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Get it now?" I think so... but $380M is a lot of money! Why are they complaining about it???

    2. Re:None of you get it by MexicanMenace · · Score: 5, Funny

      This must be the first time sarcasm was misinterpreted online ever.

  12. Correct by Solr_Flare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:YRO? by siliconjunkie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gee, someone broke the law, got caught and somehow it has something to do with "my rights online?"

    The 'YRO' (Your Rights Online) section of /. has always served as the place where issues involving the Internet and the law (and how these legal issues affect individuals who use the Internet) go. What is it that you do not understand?

  14. Torrent, anyone? by Progman3K · · Score: 4, Funny

    I keed, I keed!

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  15. Also from the article... by Hrolf · · Score: 2, Insightful
    FTA:

    "In an unrelated case, Ronald Redding, 37, of Linthicum Heights, Md., was charged Tuesday with giving his copy of "Million Dollar Baby" to a friend. Redding faces a misdemeanor charge of willfully infringing a copyright by distributing the film."

    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.

  16. Re:Doesn't seem right to me by ispepalocacoc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    No, entrapment is quite different. This would be entrapment if they gave them the screeners and then instructions on how to rip it and provide the content online.

    Definition:
    • entrapment, in law, the instigation of a crime in the attempt to obtain cause for a criminal prosecution.
    --
    I Love Alberta Beef
  17. Re:Doesn't seem right to me by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    No. Entrapment is the police repeatedly asking you to do something illegal. Putting tracking devices in movies does not ENCOURAGE you to break the law. A good example of entrapment would be something like sending you a copy of the DVD screener and then sending an undercover officer to your door telling you he'll give you $10,000 dollars to make him a copy.

  18. In an unrelated case.... by vrv1 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Towards the bottom of the article:

    In an unrelated case, Ronald Redding, 37, of Linthicum Heights, Md., was charged Tuesday with giving his copy of "Million Dollar Baby" to a friend. Redding faces a misdemeanor charge of willfully infringing a copyright by distributing the film.

    Does this mean I cant lend a DVD that I buy legally to my friend?

    1. Re:In an unrelated case.... by shark72 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Does this mean I cant lend a DVD that I buy legally to my friend?"

      The way the article was written, I can see why you'd ask, but this version of the article dropped an important word: screener. The AP version of the article is more accurate:

      "Separately, the U.S. Attorney also charged Ronald Redding, 37, of Linthicum Heights, Maryland, with misdemeanor copyright infringement for giving away his "screener" copy of "Million Dollar Baby," which was sent to him for Academy Awards voting. He agreed to plead guilty, the U.S. Attorney said."

      Your rights to loan or resell your regular old DVDs have not been trampled upon.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  19. That's a start ... by legLess · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nice start. Hopefully soon everyone else involved in the production and distribution of that awful thing will be spending time in the big house.

    --
    This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. NO GODDAMNED EWOKS! by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Copyright infringement would be publicly acceptable if it had resulted in Episodes I, II & III never being made.

    Also Matrix Reloaded & Revolutions.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  22. At the risk of getting my geek card burned... by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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
    1. Re:At the risk of getting my geek card burned... by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *sarcasm*
      Yes! That's right! And lets just change the law so the penalty for jaywalking is a summary execution. So we should have a copy outside every school sniping kids who jaywalk. That way the only ones that survive will be the ones that obey the law without question
      */sarcasm*

      Man we are heading into a scary world that people think disproportionate punishment is acceptable.

      Also, copying something is not theft. Theft deprives the original owner of the property. If I steal your loaf of bread we don't both eat, you go hungry. If you can't make this distinction. Copying something makes it worth less if you try to sell it by increasnig supply. The difference is huge even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  23. Proof of what likely caused the movie's loss. by kinglink · · Score: 3

    Episode 2 was released early a week early.. So by their logic every day it's released early loses them money right?

    So now math time, 320 Million for Episode II Episode 3 gets 380... so each day a movie is out costs 10 Million.

    So now let's apply that, there was a work print of boiler room I saw approximetly 6 monthes before it came out. By this math it's 1.2 Billion dollars that work print stole from that movie.

    Every time that the MPAA claims losses for early releases and stuff like that I laugh, because it's ridiculious, don't they realize that it's getting meantioned for free by news organization, it means the film is wanted, I had a copy of Episode 2 5 days before it's release, I didn't watch it, some of my friends did, we all went to a Midnight (technically illegal, but they still don't stop those?) showing the night before of the official release and we still payed the over inflated prices.

    Now let me show you true math, the effects of overblown hype.

    Matrix 1 171 Million was received as a great movie,
    Matrix 2 281 Million was received as meh.
    Matrix 3 139 Million

    So what do we see here? A great movie can overinflate the sequal by almost 200 percent. But a poor second movie will cut the profit of the hype by 50 percent or make the original numbers even lose money.

    Now which is more likely? Episode II's early release lost it money, or the fact that Episode one was received as pure crap costed them almost 100 Million? (episode I easily broke 400, for 430 Million gross in america

    And then Episode 2 was seen as a decent movie (not great so it's not going to double the money of the original) so 50 million MORE came in for episode 3?

    Now proof of how a good movie helps?
    Lotr Fellowship 315m
    LOTR Two Towers 340m
    LOTR Return 377m.

    So which do you think is it? piracy or the fact that a movie wasn't as good as the hype? I think these figures start to show you a different picture.

    And if anyone doubts this?

    Daredevil 105m
    Elektra 24m

    All data was obtained by IMDB, it's Box Office Gross in America only.

  24. Re:Doesn't seem right to me by Durandal64 · · Score: 5, Informative

    No. Entrapment involves an agent of the state soliciting that someone commit an illegal act. As an example, the following qualifies as entrapment.

    UNDERCOVER COP: Hey man, you wanna buy some cocaine?
    HAPLESS FOOL: Sure!
    [FOOL gives COP money for cocaine, and COP gives FOOL cocoaine.]
    COP: You're under arrest, fool!

    The cop in the above example was the person who suggested breaking the law, so that qualifies as entrapment. The following, however, does not.

    HAPLESS FOOL: Hey man, can I buy some coke off you?
    UNDERCOVER COP: Sure!
    [FOOL gives COP money for cocaine, and COP gives FOOL cocoaine.]
    COP: You're under arrest, fool!

    The above is not entrapment since it was not the cop who suggested breaking the law. This is how they bust child molesters and kiddie porn peddlers. A police officer can sign on to AOL with a screen name like "13NHORNY", go into a chat room and literally be bombarded with solicitations for kiddie porn and meeting proposals. So they say, "Sure I'll meet you" or "Yeah gimme some porn!", arrange to meet the guy and bust him right there. All while avoiding entrapment because the perverts are the ones approaching them.

  25. Re:YRO? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Along with the submitter's quip:

    As a result of the early release, Episode III only managed to earn $380 million at the box office."

    Apparently Slashdot thinks because the movie earned $380 million, it's completely okay to illegally bootleg the movie early. What an stupid justification. It doesn't matter if you think the movie did well, the creator of the film still has rights.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  26. Is this symbolic? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Is this symbolic? by sholden · · Score: 3, Funny

      If all movies were being killed by piracy, all movies would have below average ticket sales.

      That would be a little difficult, with the definition of average and all...

  27. In regards to Ronald Redding by JayBlalock · · Score: 2, Informative
    Mentioned as having been brought up on a Misdemeanor for giving away a copy of Million Dollar Baby...

    I did a little Googling and found this Stuff article which talks about these cases. And, it appears, the article we were reading omits one vital word: Promotional. It was a promotional copy that he gave away, and in violation of a contract he had signed.

    So it's really nasty that they're going after him for this, since no one ever asks for promo copies back, but they're within their rights. And it's a totally different case than if he had just given away a copy of a retail DVD.

    --
    Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
  28. Misread by Hikaru79 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Aw, darn. When I first read the headline I thought that maybe George and the crew were finally being dealt with. Wishful thinking :(

  29. Re:Unethical is not illegal. by Oligonicella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  30. Re:Episode VIII by Kelson · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's 2019. After George Lucas' death two years ago, the new owners of Lusacsfilm showed less restraint in exploiting the franchise. Next week, the Star Wars channel launches. There's already enough material for 24-hour-a-day marathons for the first month, after which they plan to launch the fall season of Star Wars, including Star Wars: Miami, Star Wars Nights, Star Wars: Las Vegas, and Everybody Hates Darth.

    In other news, Microsoft's Linux distro has taken over about 60% of the desktop market, and the Sony Apple is taking living room entertainment centers by storm. This year's hot music item is the iPod Nanite (it's implanted in your ear). The fifth round of browser wars have heated up, though, with Operavigator trying to break SafariFox's stranglehold over the web.

    The big rumor, of course, is that BSD is dying.

  31. Re:Last Fucking Straw by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  32. Only $380 Million by thesnarky1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  33. Time to take responsibility by CelestialWizard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I in no way defend or support the theft of property and subsequent distribution, both the Recording and Movie industries need to take some responsibilty.

    I realise that in this instance Revenge of the Sith was a huge success and made number 7 in the top 10 grossing movies of all time. However, both the MPAA and RIAA continually push that priacy hurts them. In the case of Sith - let's all be fair and honest - the movie was absolute rubbish. Perhaps if they made better movies (and music) more people would buy them.

    Another little tidbit..... revenues are going up for music - inspite of p2p distribution and other online sales stores. I wonder why less and less people are going to the movies??? It's a clear example of the market in action - you produce rubbish, people won't pay to see it. The number of people that would sit there and download movies is quite small compared to the worldwide audience of potential theater goers.

    Make better movies, get more people into the theater, make more money.

  34. fallacy! by FrankBlues · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!