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.
I'm just glad the summary had this added on: "You know what else helps have a big opening weekend? Making a good movie." I mean, seriously, the successful opening weekend probably had next-to-nothing with the "extra vigilance" and had everything to do with the fact that the movie is, top to bottom, fantastic. Make a good movie and people will pay to see it. Make good product and people will pay money for it. It's not rocket science. But, of course, they'll tout the success of the movie and the "extra vigilance" as proof that piracy hurts their other movies which don't have similar record-breaking opening weeks. Never you mind that those movies aren't half as good as The Dark Knight - their success suffered because of those filthy pirates! sigh...
"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."
Let's be fair... those words did not come from the studio, they came from the CEO of a biz that "monitors" file sharing networks--my guess is that no studio would publicly agree with that particular sentiment.
As Morty Seinfeld once said, "You know what sells clothes? Cheap fabric and dark lighting."
You know that sell movies? Dead leading actors and professional film critics on your pay roll.
"They" are business people, and probably negligent in their jobs if they didn't focus on box-office sales as a metric. Like it or not, the movie going public likes CG-fest blockbusters, and, as long as that's the case, the studios are going to focus on those.
If they were that serious then they could stop the 'scourge' of cammed movies at source. Equip cinemas with an IR light emitter just below the screen, pointed at the audience that spreads beams across the cinema, digital camcorders will pick these up and make the movie unwatchable. If cammers start using IR filters on the cameras, upgrade them to field-emitters (or was it wave-emitters?) that send out a signal that distorts whatever the CCD 'sees'.
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
On the other hand, going to see smaller, less mainstream movies can be particularly wonderful. In the most extreme example, my ex and I had the cinema to ourselves when we went to see Secretary; but I've managed to see a fair few films with so few other people in the cinema that it really does repay the investment.
On the other hand, only one person needs to decide to relate their thoughts on the film and everything else to their friend on the other end of a cellphone to spoil it for everyone. It should be legal to shoot those people where they sit, frankly.
(With a crossbow, of course, to avoid further disruption. Or a bow and arrow. Maybe even slit their throat or garotte them.)