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