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
Didn't they suffer enough watching the movie?
"It's difficult to meditate on amphetamines." - Joe Walsh
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.
This just in. Hollywood legend George Lucas will NOT, I repeat NOT, be able to afford his new gold-plated shark tank this year.
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.
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.
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.
I keed, I keed!
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
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?
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... 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
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.
"Get it now?" I think so... but $380M is a lot of money! Why are they complaining about it???
This must be the first time sarcasm was misinterpreted online ever.
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.