Slashdot Mirror


WB Took Pains To "Delay" Pirating of Dark Knight

Jay writes "The L.A. Times is reporting on a new studio tactic — not to prevent piracy, but to delay it, as was the case with special tactics used with Dark Knight. 'Warner Bros. executives said the extra vigilance paid off, helping to prevent camcorded copies of the reported $180-million film from reaching Internet file-sharing sites for about 38 hours. Although that doesn't sound like much progress, it was enough time to keep bootleg DVDs off the streets as the film racked up a record-breaking $158.4 million on opening weekend. The movie has now taken in more than $300 million. The success of an anti-piracy campaign is measured in the number of hours it buys before the digital dam breaks.'" You know what else helps to have a big opening weekend? Making a good movie.

75 of 642 comments (clear)

  1. well... by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If the movie's a stinker, the word will travel at the speed of a mouse click, ruining chances of making back money." So you can't get money for a shoddy product? Cry me a river.

    1. Re:well... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's amazing is that these studios seem to be focused on the losses they incur from a bad movie. That's unreal: the metric is not how good a movie is, but rather, how effectively they can trick people into seeing a really bad movie. One doesn't need special effects to make a great film, just talented and creative directors, writers, and actors. It would be one thing if they only mentioned it causally, but they mention it over and over again, as if their biggest fear is that piracy will expose them as shitty film makers.

      I still remember the time when people would wait for movie critics to give their opinion on a movie before they went to see it. I also remember not wasting money on movies that received bad reviews.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:well... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I still remember the time when people would wait for movie critics to give their opinion on a movie before they went to see it.

      Which is why movie critics get advance screenings and then their (favourable) opinion gets blasted all over the mediasphere as part of the advertising campaign.

      I also remember not wasting money on movies that received bad reviews.

      Nowadays people won't even waste bandwidth on movies that receive bad reviews and this trend disturbs the studios greatly, since it shows that nobody wants to watch some of their crap, even when it is free.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:well... by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "They" are business people, and probably negligent in their jobs if they didn't focus on box-office sales as a metric

      No, "they" are thieves who are out to con you out of your hard earned money, no better than someone who "seals" your driveway with black paint, or a "drug dealer" who sells oregano.

      If they were truly buisinesspeople they would make the best product possible and sell it on their merits, like businesspeople used to do. There have always been thieves in the business world, but it seems that these days thieves vastly outnumber the honest businesspeople.

      Dislcaimer - I haven't seen the movie. Maybe it is a good movie, but if these people are worried that it sucks and want to keep its percieved suckage out of your mind, the people who are selling it (not necessarily the people who made it) are thieves, not honest businessmen.

      When did stealing from your customers become ethical and normal, anyway?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:well... by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they were truly buisinesspeople they would make the best product possible

      As determined by who? The criteria: "how many people have gone to see it," — is not at all a bad one... Heck, I think, it is the best one.

      [...] like businesspeople used to do.

      Market success is what has always driven business people. There is simply no better criteria known today — the only alternative is having some sort of committee, that would review products (from toothpicks to movies) and decide, whether or not to let them be sold. I assure you, that system would suck much more...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:well... by MadKeithV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Having just seen the movie in question, I have no doubt that the death of Heath Ledger has really fired up the media buzz around the movie, but it also happens to be one of the best movies I've seen for a while.
      In the end it's going to be an enormous success because past all the buzz the movie didn't suck either so people will keep coming to see it past the opening week.

    6. Re:well... by amabbi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why so serious? I don't buy the logic that the tragic death of one of the actors led to the current box office success of The Dark Knight. By that logic, The Twilight Zone movie, in which one of the lead actors was killed on-screen, would have been a box office monster... which it was not.

    7. Re:well... by Stook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "they" are thieves who are out to con you out of your hard earned money, no better than someone who "seals" your driveway with black paint, or a "drug dealer" who sells oregano....

      If they were truly buisinesspeople they would make the best product possible and sell it on their merits, like businesspeople used to do.

      And what merits would these be? The cast? The producer? Critic reviews? Name me 5 critics whose opinion you trust.

      I can remember a revolutionary movie a few years back that I would have laughed at and never seen... "Starring Lawrence Fishburn, Keanu Reeves and one of the old Power Rangers..." That movie turned out to be the Matrix, and it's because of the advertising that I saw it.

      Bottom line, as a consumer, it's your job to research the product you want to purchase. If your research is their advertising, then suck it up and deal with the crappy movie. You've just behaved exactly how they wanted you too. There are more than enough places around to get a good idea of what the movie will be like before going to see it.

      If you don't ask/look at what they're putting on your driveway or can't tell the difference between a bag of KB and oregano... I've got some great swampland in Florida you've got to see...

    8. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As determined by who? The criteria: "how many people have gone to see it," — is not at all a bad one... Heck, I think, it is the best one.

      That depends on the time scope. If you want to measure the full attendance it takes years. You don't have years if your main concern is you yield.

      [...] like businesspeople used to do.

      Market success is what has always driven business people. There is simply no better criteria known today

      The problem is that if it's the only criteria, the business may miss out on the true masterpieces, simply because nobody wants to run the risk of striding off the beaten path.

      There are plenty of examples of movies that took years just to break even but are called classics nevertheless.

    9. Re:well... by kaizendojo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are thieves for doing the job they were hired for?!? Gee let's pillory the number of /.'ers here who put a catchy subject line in for a borign thread! Get real; no one is dragging you into a the movie house. If you decided to go see a movie and then made a judgement that YOU weren't entertained, then tough. There are no gaurantees in entertainment, like MOST of life. If you hire someone to seal your driveway with no credentials and no license, then it's YOUR frigging fault for being an idiot. If you buy drugs from someone you can't trust (and who you don't smoke it with FIRST ) then it's YOUR fault. I am so freaking sick and tired of people bitching about the world owing them a living. TAKE SOME DAMN RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF!!

    10. Re:well... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Market success is what has always driven business people.

      Yes, but business people don't fool themselves into thinking market success == good product. No, they are quite well aware that they are often trying to achieve market success with an inferior product. They are well aware that they are essentially tricking people into buying it. If they weren't aware, they wouldn't be able to work around the product's flaws with marketing.

      The point is that the business people are driven by money, and they are well aware of the obvious fact that making money doesn't necessarily mean making the best product by any metric. It means making money. That's all.

      Only completely credulous consumers, the kind that thinks the quality of an OS is proven by number of installations, actually believe this is a good metric of quality. The business men selling it know that it isn't, but "quality" isn't something they care about other than the extent to which it affects sales. And hey if advertising can increase the apparent quality of the item to cover the gap, then that's just fine.

      Would you suggest that a product which is garbage but has a good advertising campaign is actually a better product? Because the advertising drove the sales, and you're saying market success == best product, so this is a natural consequence of that line of thinking.

      There is simply no better criteria known today -- the only alternative is having some sort of committee, that would review products (from toothpicks to movies) and decide, whether or not to let them be sold. I assure you, that system would suck much more...

      Only because of that "decide whether or not to let them be sold" nonsense.

      If more people actually read independent reviews of products, and used that to decide whether or not to buy a product, then yes this system would be much better. Because schlock that only gets sold because some marketing department came up with a clever way of making the product not look like crap would be less successful.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:well... by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is that the business people are driven by money, and they are well aware of the obvious fact that making money doesn't necessarily mean making the best product by any metric. It means making money. That's all.

      Do you want a cookie for this? Marx (you read him, have not you?) has "condemned" businessmen long ago by exposing the simple fact (quoting by memory): they make nice things not out of benevolence, but out of the desire for profit. If it were profitable for them to make shredded glass, they would've been making shredded glass.

      What he — and you — didn't realize (or choose not to say), is that this system works far better on balance, than anything else. Especially the alternative forced forward by Marx' followers.

      Only because of that "decide whether or not to let them be sold" nonsense.

      "Nonsense"? Very well, then — we already have the system, you want: various organizations try to test/evaluate new products and issue their opinions. The "enforcement arm", banning "schlock" from the market, is the only "missing part".

      If more people actually read independent reviews of products, and used that to decide whether or not to buy a product, then yes this system would be much better.

      Yes, of course. But, at the end, a product's success will still be measured by its market success — among "the masses".

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:well... by gaspyy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not fair.

      I'd venture to say that you haven't seen The Dark Knight. Judging from the media hype, I thought that it's all because Ledger's help too.

      However, having seen the movie, I can safely say that Heath Ledger outshines everyone else in the movie. Maybe they (the producers) have altered the music or the editing or whatever, but the movie seems to be about the Joker rather than about Batman.

      Health's Joker puts Nicholson's (and Burton's) version to shame and it deserves all the accolade. It's an intense, scary character.

    13. Re:well... by WhiplashII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you suggest that a product which is garbage but has a good advertising campaign is actually a better product?

      While on it's face this seems to beg the answer no, there are times when the correct answer is yes. For example:

      If I make a drug that saves the lives of all cancer patients, 100% success rate, but can't market my way out of a box, I save no one.

      If Joe makes a drug that only saves half the people, but he can market like no one else, he saves millions of lives - and makes enough money to buy my product, and market it as well.

      Creating the great product is only half the work - matching up products with customers is a lot harder than people think. When I am evaluating a new business venture, the first question I ask is "how will you get customers?"

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    14. Re:well... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you want a cookie for this? Marx (you read him, have not you?) has "condemned" businessmen long ago by exposing the simple fact (quoting by memory): they make nice things not out of benevolence, but out of the desire for profit. If it were profitable for them to make shredded glass, they would've been making shredded glass.

      Well gee, if I had known that you were already aware that your stated belief that market success was a good metric for saying what the best product was was flagrant non-factual bullshit, I never would have bothered saying something so obvious. So no, I don't want a cookie, I want you to stop saying BS you know isn't true. Market success != good product. It's not even the 'best' available metric. You know it, I know it, Marx knew it, the business person pushing the product knows it.

      "Nonsense"? Very well, then -- we already have the system, you want: various organizations try to test/evaluate new products and issue their opinions. The "enforcement arm", banning "schlock" from the market, is the only "missing part".

      It's nonsense because nobody was asking for an enforcement arm to prevent a bad product from being sold in the first place.

      And yes, we do have the system of reviewers. And I say THAT, despite its many faults (mostly concerning bias which the businessman putting forward the product is never free from), is the best available metric for what is the best product. At the end of the day, which do you think is the better judge of, say, the quality of a car: The sales totals for that car, or the Consumer Reports review of that car? I say the latter, without hesitation.

      Yes, of course. But, at the end, a product's success will still be measured by its market success -- among "the masses".

      And therefore that's the best metric? No. Not at all. It's a stand-in for a good metric used by the apathetic. And you're apparently aware of this. So why you said otherwise, I'll never know or care. But at least we both agree it was wrong.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    15. Re:well... by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are thieves for doing the job they were hired for?!?

      If they were hired to deceive, then yes. If they believe in their product, they're not thieves. If they don't but sell it anyway, they are. If I hire you to shoplift does doing your job make you a thief?

      Like I said, I haven't yet seen it, but Linda said it was a good movie. But even if it is a good movie, if the people selling it think it sucks, they're thieves.

      If you hire someone to seal your driveway with no credentials and no license, then it's YOUR frigging fault for being an idiot.

      If I break into your house it's "YOUR frigging fault for being an idiot" and not having better security? You make my point for me - honesty seems to be out of style these days. You seem to not care about dishonesty. I bet you cheated your way through college; after all, it was the professor's fault for being too stupid to catch you.

      I am so freaking sick and tired of people bitching about the world owing them a living

      Your attitude sickens me. My employer owes me a living, and I owe him my time. That's the contract. If I pay you for X and you deliver Y, you have stolen from me, plain and simple. If I pay you for a thing, you OWE me the thing I paid for.

      If you rip me off I will take the responsibility of calling the police and having your theiving ass put in the jail it belongs in.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    16. Re:well... by mikael_j · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I make a drug that saves the lives of all cancer patients, 100% success rate, but can't market my way out of a box, I save no one. If Joe makes a drug that only saves half the people, but he can market like no one else, he saves millions of lives - and makes enough money to buy my product, and market it as well.

      The problem with this is of course when you and Joe create your drugs at the same time and part of the reason (or perhaps entirely the reason) for why your product isn't selling is because Joe is better at marketing than you are. You had a clearly superior product but Joe simply managed to convince people that his product was better (or the only available drug on the market, just like there are quite a few Windows users out there who still seem to think that you can't have a computer without Windows on it, didn't mean to turn this into an anti-Windows flame but it''s a good example of how successful marketing can be at making people believe something that isn't even remotely true).

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    17. Re:well... by kaizendojo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If they were hired to deceive, then yes. If they believe in their product, they're not thieves. If they don't but sell it anyway, they are.
      So apparently you have some device that can determine the true intent of a human from afar? Please, let the rest of us mortals know where we can find one.

      If I hire you to shoplift does doing your job make you a thief?
      How is this even relevant?!? Shoplifting is illegal. Doesn't matter whether you hired me or not, if I agreed to it and did it - I am now a thief. When I get arrested somehow your logic says I can tell the cops, "But officer, I never had evil intent, I was just doing my job." Women deceive for personal gain all the time. It's called 'makeup'. You going to round them all up too?

      Your attitude sickens me. My employer owes me a living, and I owe him my time. That's the contract. If I pay you for X and you deliver Y, you have stolen from me, plain and simple. If I pay you for a thing, you OWE me the thing I paid for.
      Your logic sickens me (or lack of it).

      Show me on the ticket where everyone who buys a ticket is guaranteed to be entertained. You bought entrance to the movie. You got entrance to the movie. Where have you been deceived? NOWHERE BUT YOUR OWN MIND. You paid for X and you got X. You didn't pay for a guaranteed good time.

      (Christ, you must be a wonderful friend to set up on a blind date. "I fully expect to get laid and have the best time of my life or else I've been wronged - and you're at fault!!")

      If you were STUPID enough to make a judgment about a 1:45 hour movie based on seeing 60 second OR LESS of it, then you deserve what you get. Would you purchase (not *SHOP FOR*, but *BUY*) a car based on looking at it in a picture? Would you contract to buy a house based on a newspaper ad and otherwise sight unseen?

      And BTW, your employer does NOT "owe you a living". They owe you wages for time worked. Try telling your Boss that and see how fast the words, "At-Will Contract" come out of his or her mouth. It's attitudes like this that are responsible for the "World Owes Me" generation we're so fond of sponsoring in this country...

    18. Re:well... by rpillala · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what merits would these be? The cast? The producer? Critic reviews? Name me 5 critics whose opinion you trust.

      Mick LaSalle (http://www.sfgate.com)
      Filthy (http://bigempire.com/filthy)
      Stephen Greydanus (http://www.decentfilms.com)
      Roger Ebert (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com)
      ...I had one more and forgot it.

      By "trust" I don't mean I always agree on what's good or bad. Rather, I believe that these critics give an opinion whose basis I can usually understand, and which is free from any pressure to sell me the movie. An honest review that pans a movie sometimes convinces me that I want to see it. Similarly, some positive reviews dissuade me from seeing some movies. Critics don't have to share all my personal tastes to be trustworthy.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    19. Re:well... by Bandman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with assigning labels like "good", "bad" are that they're relative, and arbitrary anyway.

      The problem with "better" or "worse" is that the targets can be arbitrarily changed. Is shredded glass bad? Depends on whether you want cookies or fiberglass.

      There's no single metric to aim for.

    20. Re:well... by gregbot9000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lot of people confuse the best product for the situation with the best product possible. This is where a lot of the criticism for products comes from IMO. A product that lasts ten years and cost $200 is not better then a product that will last 5 and cost $120 if I only need it for 4 years. just like a movie to see with a date can be absolutely drivel, it's not like I'm thinking about the movie anyways.

    21. Re:well... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When all you teach in schools is survival of the fittest, should we be surprised when they come out with me-first attitudes?
      You can argue all you want to say murdering is bad, and invoke arguments like "having a non-violent society is paramount to the survival of the species on the whole", but you cannot make an argument more convincing than "most people agree this is bad, and most people agree survival of our species is good, therefore murder is bad". IE, there's no irrefutable evidence with which you can clearly show the murderer to be wrong. Like why the survival of the species is even good in the first place. The murderer could argue that our survival is bad for the environment, and so he is simply seeking to save the environment from ourselves.

      All you have is arbitrary opinion from various sources, the enforcement of which comes from those sources in the majority, with the most power. As in, "Might makes Right".

  2. Honestly, now... by Ikonoclasm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do they really think those 38 hours bought them anything? Do they honestly believe that their profits would have been reduced had a crappy cam recording been available 38 hours earlier? I'm sorry, but I'm just not capable of managing that level of suspension of disbelief. Seems more like a set-up for a later date in Congress where movie execs get to testify that they spent $x million to stave off the camming and all they were able to manage was 38 hours. I wonder just how dedicated they were to these "delaying tactics."

    1. Re:Honestly, now... by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It doesn't matter what they actually believe, it's what they can trick congress into believing.

    2. Re:Honestly, now... by GigaHurtsMyRobot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good point, sir. Who is happy seeing a movie like that in crappy camcorder vision? Not I.

      I went to the midnight show and saw it in glorious high-definition... but I've watched the crappy camcorder version twice, since. That's not piracy, imho.

    3. Re:Honestly, now... by philspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I was all excited to see bootlegged batman on my TV on opening day, all fuzzy and jumpy recorded an hour prior. In fact I camped out the night before at my local bootlegger. Imagine my dissapointment when he didn't get so much as a spanish version.

      After I heard it would be 37 hours I was like "no way am I going to wait THAT long" and promptly bought tickets. Because you know, if I'm going to watch a shitty bootleg of a movie, I'm going to do it in the first day of the movie's release.

    4. Re:Honestly, now... by Holi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      your definition is fucked then. The camcorder version is most definitely piracy. Just because you went and saw a movie in the theatre does not mean you get a copy for your home.

      Look I am a huge downloader of music and movies but I am not gonna lie to myself and say I have done nothing wrong. Honestly I just don't care.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    5. Re:Honestly, now... by causality · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am a law breaker. I've smoked marijuana for 12 years. It's not 'wrong' just because it's prohibited by some ink on paper.

      ... by people who lied and continue to lie about the reasons for prohibiting it, who consider your body to be theirs so that they can tell you what you may or may not do with it, who make crimes of things that are not crimes to justify searches and the expansion of police power and the creation of additional bureaucracies and the government-sponsored advertisements telling parents how they should raise their children and what they should say to them (something that would never have been accepted a generation or two ago), knowing that the black market for such contraband is here to stay and will always be a steady source of income for criminal organizations which justifies more bureaucracy and more police power ad nauseum. Bill Hicks had it right, "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom is what it is, okay, keep that in mind at all times, thank you."

      It has one additional effect. Once you realize that they're a bunch of lying sacks of shit when it comes to one set of laws, who will tell you anything they think you'll believe in order to get you to accept their dreams of increased state power, well, once you realize that it erodes the entire concept of generally having respect for the law. You can respect the law when it serves its purpose, which is to prevent any person or group from depriving another person or group of their rights without due process (that is the criminal law's sole legitimate purpose, by the way). You cannot rationally respect anything that is routinely abused and made into a tool to further someone's authoritarian, collectivist agenda.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:Honestly, now... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pirated games provide the same play as bought games, unlike pirated movies. Very few individuals have home theaters with huge screens and zillions of speakers to rumble the floor.

      I do not believe that pirated DVDs eliminate very many movie goers. Those who would be satisfied with a camcorded copy of a movie on the opening weekend wouldn't have gone to the theater anyway.

      It's a different argument that pirated DVDs made later as copies of the real release DVDs could put a dent in sales of said release DVDs. These clowns are talking of the first 38 hours, and I do not believe they made any difference to movie theater tickets. They do not know their own market.

    7. Re:Honestly, now... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...and then society decides whether you were right or wrong.

  3. What about after the pirated copies were out? by omeomi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FTA: "it was enough time to keep bootleg DVDs off the streets as the film racked up a record-breaking $158.4 million on opening weekend. The movie has now taken in more than $300 million."

    So, they credit those 38 hours for the record-breaking $158.4 million they made on opening weekend, but they've made another $150 million since the pirated copies have been available (according to the article). So, the pirated copies becoming available didn't seem to have much of an affect, did it?

    1. Re:What about after the pirated copies were out? by PIBM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, as they said in TFA, preventing copies from reaching out is mostly helpfull when you have a dud in your hands. If the movie's bad, and people learn it before the weekend, the opening event will be very bad and you lose tons of money. If they don't know about it yet, they'll all go to the theater and get ripped off...

    2. Re:What about after the pirated copies were out? by kidgenius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, that's not what they said. What they said was they were able to keep the film from being bootlegged, DESPITE an incredibly successful opening. With that many people watching it, it's a shock that a cam copy didn't come out SOONER.

    3. Re:What about after the pirated copies were out? by Deathlizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering that TDK broke the 2nd Week record, I'd say that it pretty much shoots down that "piracy kills sales" theory.

      Another thing. I saw a Pirate version of TDK after seeing it the first day. I can say without any doubt that the Pirate version ruins this movie. If you watched this movie pirated, you'll probably think it sucks. It just doesn't work the same as it does in the theater, since they use detailed shots and surround sound extensively to build up tension and effect, especially in the shock moments of the film. Basically, this movie deserves your money, so do yourself a favor and watch it in a Theater.

  4. Cams by Spad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone really download Cam copies of movies these days? Especially for dark, special effect-filled, high motion movies like Dark Knight where most Cams are basically unwatchable.

    I'd be surprised if Cam copies had *any* actual impact on movie ticket revenues; I know if I was so desperate to see a movie that I couldn't wait for the DVD release (Or DVD rip), I'd pay the £6 to watch it in the cinema in decent quality on a big screen.

    1. Re:Cams by Xtravar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're curious about a new movie but don't care about it enough to pay for a ticket... why not watch a cam rip?

      Of course most people want to see Batman in person and not a cam rip, but for less anticipated movies (and less special effects movies) the eye candy is not that important.

      Like let's say a new movie like "Sex and the City" is out, and you're half interested for whatever reason, but you would never pay $9 for a ticket to see it. Obviously, nobody sees that movie for the graphics, right? You load up Bittorrent, download the cam rip, and watch it without leaving your house. The bonus is that nobody has to know you wanted to see it. Or maybe there's a girlfriend involved who wanted to see it, and you only watch it with her because it's in the privacy of your home, and save $18 then.

      I'm just throwing out scenarios here, but there are plenty of reasons to watch cam rips. Maybe you're poor, or don't have a HD home theater, or whatever.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
  5. Re:Preserving our rights by omeomi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here in Spain what you call piracy is LEGAL if you don't earn money with it. And so it was on your countries not so long ago. We just preserved our rights.

    I don't think copying films or other media and redistributing them--even for free--has every been legal in the US. It's still legal to make personal copies, or make copies in an educational setting, but I think it would be pretty hard to argue that you have a "right" to copy and redistribute films for free.

  6. only 300mil by MikeyG79 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow - 300million and they are worried about a thousand people watching poor quality pirated copies. Bet it wouldn't even be 1mil less in earnings

  7. Double dare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a double dare for the pirates to break the 38 hour record next time. What a useless tactic.

    This is priceless:
    "If the movie's a stiff, and word gets out too early that it's a stiff, it's devastating to the business model," Garland said."

    In another words, if we can keep the movie audience quiet for several days, we will rip off enough people to cover our costs and make some extra dough.

  8. Considering the release date in Germany... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Considering that the movie is not going to be released in Germany until late August, there isn't much of a chance to prevent bootleg copies from being available before the theatrical release. Let's see how that strategy works for them.

  9. I never understood screeners by Piata · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I never understood the appeal of screeners. If I'm not interested enough to see a movie when it comes out in theaters, I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD. Watching a shaky cam with terrible audio at some awkward angle and half the screen covered in subtitles is not even worth the bandwidth needed to download it.

  10. You know what else helps by Britz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    have a big opening weekend? Making a good movie. ... or getting your star killed.

    Also:
    (from Wikipedia):
    Warner Bros. created a viral marketing campaign for The Dark Knight, developing promotional websites and trailers highlighting screenshots of Heath Ledger as the Joker. After Ledger's death in January 2008, however, the studio refocused its promotional campaign.[3][4] The film was released on July 16, 2008 in Australia, on July 18, 2008 in North America, and on July 24, 2008 in the United Kingdom. Prior to its box office debut in North America, record numbers of advance tickets were sold for The Dark Knight. The film has broken multiple box office records, and achieved an overall approval rating of 95% on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

    That's called good ol' fashioned marketing.

  11. Opening weekend vs. bootleg copies? by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do people actually choose between watching a bootleg copy of a movie, and watching it in the theater in the opening weekend?

    I'd expect bootleg copies to be in direct competition with dvd's, maybe hurting the value of tv rights, and perhaps even some of the last days the movie is on the big screen when you go there just to watch a movie, rather that a specific movie.

    But on the opening weekend? It seems like an entirely different experience.

    1. Re:Opening weekend vs. bootleg copies? by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But on the opening weekend? It seems like an entirely different experience.

      If I watch a bootleg, I can do it at home and not have to deal with idiot parents who bring their babies and toddlers.

  12. Controlling bad information. by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds to me like the only thing the studios are interested in is controlling the bad information. The studios want people ignorant as to if this is a good movie or not on opening night. Then a large group of people will risk their money to see it first, and the studio rakes in the dough even with a bad movie. From this perspective, T+38 hours is a hell of a lot better than T MINUS 2 weeks.

    --
    AccountKiller
  13. Earth to studios by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Internet is worldwide. All audio/visual medias can be transfered via the internet.

    Update your business model and do world-wide releases.

    Marketspeak: you'll have more chance of ripping off people this way, especially on the opening weekend.

  14. Re:Couldn't they make DVDs by Grey_14 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    heh, I went to a 12:01 showing of TDK, during both the watchmen trailer and the opening WB logo for the movie, you could have heard a pin drop in the theater, people were incredibly silent, after that I was far too absorbed in the movie to notice anything else around me. :P

    (And yeah I know, going with the hardcore fan crowd isn't always possible, but it sure is nice)

  15. Not The Same People by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The people who put up their $150+ million to set the box-office record for the "Dark Knight" are not the same people who would be watching bad camcorder videos. The latter don't mind waiting an extra 38 hours, and certainly do mind $12/ticket.

    Every download or bootleg DVD != movie ticket.

    Maybe if the movie and music executives finally understand that the pirates are not potential customers, they'll focus on improving the satisfaction of actual customers, and thus earn more money. Instead, they are beating a horse that's not only already dead, but is rather decayed at this point.

    1. Re:Not The Same People by Retric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know someone who stopped paying for movies and just downloads them now. So some download or bootleg DVD = movie ticket.

    2. Re:Not The Same People by Cruciform · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And then you have the people like me, who don't want to see it in a theater full of food-crunching, seat-kicking morons. I could probably download a cam of it, but I don't have any interest in that either.
      I'll wait till the blu-ray release and watch it at home (rental, because HD/blu-rays are just way overpriced)
      Of course if I could watch it at home the same day as theatrical release the studio would likely have a better shot at making more money off me. I bet they'd make a lot more off of simultaneous releases than me just renting it at blockbuster in 3 months.

    3. Re:Not The Same People by Collective+0-0009 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And these aren't nerds only anymore. Now my sister is in on the action (she is kinda a nerd), but so are all of her housewife friends - they all know how to get free movies, they trade them, they download telly-tubby dvd's for the kids and all that crap. So yes, it is starting to affect movie ticket sales. However I don't want her and her 3 boys at the movie theater anyways.

      --
      I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
    4. Re:Not The Same People by domatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suspect a lot of people do what I do. I have ShowTime/HBO/etc. I just wait for movies to show up on the premium channels and watch them then. About once every three years or so there is something that will actually get me out to a theatre like Lord Of The Rings. The rest of the time I couldn't be fussed to either go to a theatre OR download it. Even cheap and legal downloads are currently more trouble than it would be worth to me.

    5. Re:Not The Same People by Collective+0-0009 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You should go try some of the new "pub" theaters. I just tried one for the first time. Pervious to that I was the same as you about going to the movies (and have the home theater to prove it). I hated the cramped seating, morons eating and whispering and so on. This new theater has a full bar and restaraunt. Every other row of seats was removed and they put in tables for your drinks and food. It was really nice (the theater not so much, but the whole experience). There are a few more distractions (waiters, people eating even louder food) but the uncramped conditions makes up for it (no seat kicks!!).

      --
      I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
  16. Re:Preserving our rights by holmedog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh come on, mod the parent flamebait? If he had said US'ians instead of Europeans everyone would have laughed and modded it +5 funny.

  17. How do you know what a good movie? by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The great irony of this, is that everyone on the board thinks that the studio can just arbitrarily make a good movie button.

    "well, just make a good movie", betrays a total lack of understanding for the arts.

    No one really knows a canned formula for making a good movie. A studio can do everything that it thinks will make a movie, best writers, best directors, best actors, and that doesn't guarantee a good picture at all. If you had 100 guys in a room, each of which with their own ideas, how do you know which of those is going to make a movie that will gross 300 million dollars? Clearly, if it was so easy to make a hit movie, then, don't you think they would do it. And, even if they did have a formula to make hit movies, half of the people on this board would be complaining that movies are formulaic.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:How do you know what a good movie? by HairyCanary · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There may not be a canned formula for making a good movie, but there sure is a number of well known formulas for making *bad* ones. I think that when most people say "make a good movie" they really mean "don't deliberately make a crappy one." There will always be stinkers, but they should be *creative* stinkers at least.

    2. Re:How do you know what a good movie? by vell0cet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another problem is that the general public also doesn't know what a "good movie" is. I bet you more people saw the godawful Batman & Robin (to date, the only movie I've walked out of) in the theater than Blade Runner.

    3. Re:How do you know what a good movie? by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The great irony of this, is that everyone on the board thinks that the studio can just arbitrarily make a good movie button.

      "well, just make a good movie", betrays a total lack of understanding for the arts.

      No one really knows a canned formula for making a good movie. A studio can do everything that it thinks will make a movie, best writers, best directors, best actors, and that doesn't guarantee a good picture at all. If you had 100 guys in a room, each of which with their own ideas, how do you know which of those is going to make a movie that will gross 300 million dollars? Clearly, if it was so easy to make a hit movie, then, don't you think they would do it. And, even if they did have a formula to make hit movies, half of the people on this board would be complaining that movies are formulaic.

      You're missing the point. "Nobody ever sets out to make a bad movie," you say, and I say "Yeah, but they're not setting out to make great movies." It all comes down to project management. Does the project have the support of the money men? Do they put someone in charge of the project who will eat, sleep and breathe it? Will they trust in his judgment and limit external interference? Was the project even a good idea from the start?

      Often times these movies can be seen as flawed undertakings right from the start but politics and egotism will prevent anyone from pointing that out. Are you going to be the one to tell Hitler invading Russia in the winter is a bad idea? May as well tell your girlfriend it's not the pants but her ass that makes her ass look fat. Some fool decided to give Transformers a greenlight. Are you going to be an even bigger fool and tell them it was a bad idea?

      Some of the best and worst movies ever made have been driven by visionary men given almost dictatorial powers over the project. The Matrix as a triumph of tight focus and vision. Of course, the sequels show how directors can drive it into the ground. Lucas served as a catalyst for developing Star Wars, the give and take of the process making for a stronger product. He got too much control in the prequels and drove 'em into the ground. The LOTR trilogy is a triumph of this theory. Jackson had the drive, he gathered a brilliant team, and he achieved a miracle. That he then went on immediately after to pinch off a giant monkey turd of a Kong remake shows the theory is now flawless.

      As good as those movies can be and as bad as they can be, I've yet to see a movie produced by a committee that did any better than middling. Often times such movies would compete with the very worst results of the bigshot directors.

      Ultimately, I think the reason why we see design by committee and timid, uninspired leadership here is that we're looking at the "sons of great men" problem. When we talk of great men, the sons are rarely the equal of the fathers. If a king is good, his son is likely to be poor at best, more likely catastrophic. Founders can bring a business from nothing to world-leader in a single lifetime but when they and their fellows grow old and retire, the company can end up in the hands of bureaucrats who enjoy the profits of the business but lack an understanding of how it truly operates, of where they should be going. The very act of starting a business is a tremendous gamble, most fail. But now that the business is established, the management wants safe, predictable returns. (On the other hand, hired-gun CEO's will come in and gut the place, spike the stock, and cash out -- they don't care about the company's longevity.)

      The final point to bring up is that art is the last thing on the minds of the money people running the show. The purpose of running a TV network is advertising. TV shows are nothing more than a means of keeping you glued to the seat during commercial breaks. Execs could give a fuck less about what it is that keeps you there during the breaks, they just want to make sure it's effective. You want police procedurals? Sitcoms? Oh, reality shows are doing great, Am

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    4. Re:How do you know what a good movie? by Dancindan84 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure "Don't let Uwe Boll direct it." is a formula per se.

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    5. Re:How do you know what a good movie? by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you had 100 guys in a room, each of which with their own ideas, how do you know which of those is going to make a movie that will gross 300 million dollars?

      This "need to gross 300 million dollars" is the problem with the movie industry today.

      Any product that grosses even 5 times the cost to make and advertise it should be considered wildly successful, and movies shouldn't be an exception. And, there have been a lot of movies that have done this, but very few of them grossed $300 million, because they only cost between one and twenty million to make.

      The problem is that making lots of movies that gross $50 million (and only cost $10-20 million) is not what the studios want to do...they want $200-300 million blockbusters.

      As an aside, since the same production companies that make movies also make TV shows, this is part of the reason that there are so few good new TV shows. Essentially, a season of TV is about a $10-30 million dollar production and can gross $50-200 million in all forms (original broadcast rights, syndication, DVDs, etc.), but it's not as "Hollywood" as making 10 movies with one being a $300 million blockbuster and the other 9 grossing a total of $300 million and with a cost of over $400 million to make.

    6. Re:How do you know what a good movie? by Steve001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      gnick wrote:

      Unfortunately, it appears that you're not only right [B&R link], but really distressingly right [BR link]. Although (based on my rough interpretation on the rather odd box office numbers for BR and [falsely] assuming that the re-releases were free to the studio), it appears that Blade Runner was eventually profitable while Batman and Robin cost the studio almost $20M.

      I think that this is an indication of how good a movie actually is (whether the movie is great, or falls into the catagory of "so bad it's good"):

      • How long is it still remembered and enjoyed?
      • With the advent of video, how many people are still interested in buying the movie.

      Blade Runner has been out for more than 20 years, and it was only a modest success when it was released. To me, the true proof of its quality is shown by: (1) how much interest there still is in this movie, (2) how many people are willing to buy it now, and (3) how much influence the movie still has to this day.

      Many people remember the great movies of the past, and I think this is a factor that can be used as proof that they are great is that they are still remembered and enjoyed now. Although people remember Citizen Kane, how many movies released in the same year are also remembered?

    7. Re:How do you know what a good movie? by billcopc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yep, they can work in a call center like every other no-talent inbred.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    8. Re:How do you know what a good movie? by toiletsalmon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then they can get a REAL job like the rest of us. The less opportunities they have to make me want to stab my eyes out, the better.

    9. Re:How do you know what a good movie? by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I am a fan of neither the Wayans brothers nor Rob Schneider, they clearly fill a niche in the movie-going public market. If enough people are buying what they're selling to keep it worth making, they'll keep making it. It's true for everything, and that means movies, too.

      Creative or not, you can't change the foundations of capitalism to make only good movies happen. To make only good movies happen, you need to remove the market for bad movies. Critics do their job by reducing the market, but there will always be someone willing to see Little Man 3 or Hot Chick 2: Girls with Junk.

      What you really want is either the end of capitalism as an influence in film making, or a homogeneous movie-going public. I think both of these outcomes should be viewed as undesirable. Unfortunately, that leaves me in the position of arguing that in the grand scheme of things, making Big Momma's House was a good idea.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
  18. Anglophone? by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Update your business model and do world-wide releases.

    A simultaneous release would work in the United States, two-thirds of Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. (Ever notice that the major anglophone countries tend to come in pairs?) But other countries have other languages, and it takes time to line up quality voice actors for a dub job that isn't complete feces.

    1. Re:Anglophone? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The movie is done shooting and editing? Good. Translate first, then release it world-wide.

      But that takes time, and I'd imagine after spending millions (if not hundreds of millions) they'd rather get the money sooner than later if no other reason than to start getting back interest.

      I'm sure someone did a cost/benefit analysis down the line. My guess is interest and hype are the 2 major factors, though I don't know why they don't simul-release in English-speaking countries

      Release english version now:
      + Takes more advantage of hype
      + Get large money up front
      + Make interest back on early money (x%)
      + Spend less on dub because it isn't priority (y%)
      + Generate more hype (internationally) if good movie
      - Generate poor publicity if a stinker
      - Lose a little money (z%) from foreign markets

      Hold off release until all major languages dubbed
      + Won't lose as much hype internationally if movie was a stinker
      + Probably get most of z% lost from scenario 1
      - Lose some hype as it takes longer to release
      - Lose money (x%) you could have made in interest by release a few months earlier
      - Spend more money on dubbing because you want to hurry up the process (y%)

  19. Worldwide releases by ErkDemon · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You hit the nail on the head.

    They figure that it's a significant success to be 38 hours ahead of the pirates with a US movie release ... and then they don't allow the German audience any legal way to see the movie for another month? Whuh?

    So the global hype machine has kicked in, the net's full of people saying, "Man, you GOTTA see this movie!", and when the poor old Germans turn up at the cinema desperate to hand over their cash to join the party, the studios turn them away. "We don't want your money now, come back in a month's time."

    A month is a long time to wait, and it's not going to be too surprising if a bunch of twitchy germans decide that they want to watch this thing while the buzz is still there, and try to get to see it by some other route. They aren't allowed to watch in it cinemas, they aren't yet allowed to buy it on DVD.

    If they're already being hit by the marketing hype, but there's NO LEGAL WAY for them to watch this movie, what's the logical result?

    If a manufacturer spends millions building up demand for a product, and then refuses to sell it to some of their customers, not because of any intrinsic shortage of material, but as part of a clever marketing strategy, then that manufacturer has lost the right to complain when people start pirating it.
    As a general rule, you aren't supposed to advertise a product that isn't available, and you aren't supposed to manipulate markets by deliberately creating regional shortages and banning people from cross-importing. I mean, I know the media companies probably have a special dispensation that makes them immune to the WTO rules that everyone else has to play by, but just because they can legally manipulate markets in ways that would be illegal for other businesses, it doesn't make them immune to the bad karma.

    If customers think that your business is crooked, and your business refuses to supply those customers, they're less likely to feel bad about pirating your material. And once they've gotten into the piracy habit, and they've made the contacts and found the websites, and installed the software, they're going to continue doing it.

    Business Rule #1: Create a product or service that people want or need.
    Business Rule #2: Make it easy for them to buy it from you.

  20. Pirating Nonsense by __aauygf7127 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I didn't buy a 52" HDTV to watch a DVD of some guy filming a movie in a theater. Give me a break. I also don't have the time or patience to wait 2 days to see if a torrent file is any good. I'm sure these guys lose some money to piracy but its not nearly as much as they make it out to be. Most people buying the street DVD for $5 are too cheap to and wouldn't pay the full price anyway. I'm tired of listening to multi millionaires whine about how people are stealing money from them. So skip the gold plated toilet for the new mansion and settle for the ceramic one.

    1. Re:Pirating Nonsense by Shados · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you have a 52" HDTV, you probably don't fit the profile of the people these guys are trying to delay :) Maybe with 1/5th of your disposable income....

  21. Suits and fruits by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The suits are those guys that have to go in front of a bunch of movie theater owners and persuade them to buy the movie that you made. They are going to have relationships with these people and so are going to have a pretty good feel for what those people are interested in paying for, and what they aren't. So, say, for example, you making a movie and the central part of the plot has to do with, for whatever reason, a cantaloupe. For whatever reason, the suit happens to know that the guy who owns whatever movie chain that has 100 screens, really, really hates cantaloupe, and, he knows from having lunch that a guy who owns 50 screens just said, "hey when are they going to make a movie about bananas. I think bananas are a funny fruit."

    Guess what! The suit isn't going to even try and sell the chain owner on the cantaloupe. Since he's writing you the check to make the movie, he's going to take down that barrier for himself, and come to you and say, "hey, would it really be that much worse if it were say, a banana"?

    If you answer correctly, you just picked up 150 more screens for your film. If you didn't, then, you possibly don't get your movie made.

    --
    This is my sig.
  22. one viewing of a film is enough -- bullshit by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    TFA:

    Paul Kocher, president of Cryptography Research Inc., a San Francisco company that develops anti-piracy technology, said that unlike with music, one viewing of a film -- even in blurry, camcorded form -- often is enough. "With rare exception, once you've seen the movie you're unlikely to watch it a second time," Kocher said.

    What bullshit. For a start, this guy "develops anti-piracy technology". Why the hell the journalists don't question HOW HE KNOWS THIS? Or is he just pulling it out his ass?

    Especially for a "geek" movie -- say a comic book superhero, Star Trek, etc, -- the geeks WILL certainly download blurry camcorder videos. Then, if it's not crap, they'll all troop down to the cineplex to watch it on the big screen. Then, they'll buy the DVD. Then, they'll buy the Director's Cut..... The studios whine about how the "bad buzz" went around with Hulk. "If not for those meddling kids it would have been a hit". That movie was DOA. "Dark Knight" has wonderful buzz. It wouldn't matter if you could download it the day it was out, it'd still have broken records.

  23. Where is the experimental control? by JSBiff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, the hypothesis is that delaying piracy for 2 or 3 days increases the box office take. They manage to delay piracy for about 2 days with The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight has a big opening weekend. So, they proclaim that the experiment is a success.

    The problem: Correlation does not prove causation. This 'experiment' appears to have no control - no way to measure how the movie *would* have done if there *had* been piracy. No baseline to compare against.

    I am in the camp that think that, basically, piracy has very little to do with how a movie does at the box office. I currently believe (though don't have a study to prove this, admittedly, so this is opinion) that most of the people who pirate movies, won't pay for them (there are some people, no doubt, who use the pirated version as a shareware/try-before-you-buy system, so it might have some impact there, but I personally don't know of many people who do that, so I'm inclined to estimate that as a low percentage). Along with that, it is my current belief that most of the people who *do* pay for movies at the movie theater, will do so if the movie is good, *even if* a pirate version is available, because the movie theater provides that big-screen, awesome sound system experience that most people can't afford to have at home.

    I don't know that I'm any more right than the people who think the piracy control is so important, but my point is, I don't think they've really established a strong link between their anti-piracy measures and the box office sales. I think a better indicator is that the previous Batman Begins movie was well received by audiences, and they knew that basically the same team was doing this sequel, and wanted to see another movie with this new interpretation of Batman.

  24. Re:From the article: by Bandman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a great concept, really! Not doing what other people tell you to do has a long, and glorious history.

  25. Re:From the article: by Machtyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, goodness... flamebait? Really? My point is that there are a lot of people, as some might say "sheeple", who flock to opening weekend movies like they just need to be part of the masses. This jacks up the popularity of a movie unnecessarily... which is the point of some of the posts here.

    Granted, I probably should have been more verbose and stated: "Unless you really, really want to see the movie and you're not doing it because I have this dire need to be a part of the masses but because the movie interested you."

    I usually wait to see what happens the second or third weekend. I guess you can tell that I don't buy the latest & greatest, I didn't hop the iPod, iPhone, iwhatever bandwagon, I've never watched Titanic all the way through, and I'll not likely see this latest Batman (I don't like getting into the mind of the psychotically and murderously deranged.)

  26. Thanks for the heads up; Downloading now... by Lachlan+Hunt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Great! Thanks for letting me know the low quality CAM is available already for me to watch on my awesome 3" iPhone screen. I'm off to download it. Now I don't have to pay a reasonale price to see it on the big screen in high quality with surround sound and everything. Geez, it would have been horrible to sit through that. I'm saved!

    Seriously though, I find it hard to believe that the anti-piracy campaign had any effect whatsoever upon those who intended to see it at the theatre, and those who intend to wait and download it. I'm sure the big opening weekend had more to do with the quality of the film, than the availability of a pirated copy.

    --
    By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.