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.
"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.
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.
Why so serious??
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."
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?
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
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.
You know what helps to prevent piracy?
Making a really terrible movie.
There are people out there who will track you down, smear you with honey and stake you out on top of an ant hill if you catch you distributing copies of "Alone in the Dark" or "BloodRayne". It's how the community polices itself.
"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.
here come the tears...
www.purevolume.com/martyd
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
I often wonder why movie studios don't implement some sort of new technology to thwart 'cammers'.
When you see video of say, a fence, or some object with lines close together often the video is distorted when played back, you'd think there would be some way to project an image so it's able to be seen clearly by people's eyes but not able to be recorded due to a camera limitations.
Maybe a dual projector system and seeing that it's getting more common that a modern projector is film-less, all digital, it may be easier to modify it somehow.
A shakey cam is not worth the bandwidth.
However, someone using a multi-thousand-dollar camcorder, with the framerate synced to the projector's, and the audio dubbed directly from the source... It won't be as good as a DVD rip later (or Blu-Ray/HD), but if I missed it in our local theater (which only has two screens), yes, it definitely might be worth watching.
While it won't necessarily be as professionally done, keep in mind that telesync is the same process by which actual DVDs are made from a movie reel.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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.
Here in Spain
Does Spain offer asylum for refugees from the U.S. copyright regime?
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.
While I have seen almost every type of asshole on your list, I must say that I find it hard to believe that someone would pay for a movie ticket to actually work on their laptop while in the theater.
First of all, with all their "no pirates allowed" paranoia the theaters wouldn't let someone enter with their laptop.
Second, aren't all shopping malls equipped with air conditioning? They could sit on a bench and work there, for free.
If you have indeed seen such a thing, then that person was not only an asshole, but also an idiot.
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.
I'm unwilling to pay box office prices for crappo movies - I often watch bootlegs instead.
When movies are supposed to be good, however, I'm happy to give the theatre way too much money for tickets, popcorn, etc. I love going to movies and all of my fellow "pirates" do too.
I drove 40 minutes and waited in line for over an hour to see The Dark Knight at an IMAX theatre ... and it was *AWESOME*
I was happy to pay for WALL-E too.
Keep making movies that *DON'T SUCK* and people will pay to see them ... keep making pieces of sh*t and people will download them or wait for DVD.
All of the movies that I've watched bootlegs for ... either: ... I simply wouldn't have watched it, had the bootleg not existed ... *maybe* I would pay to rent the DVD
1) the movie rocked, so I went to see it in the theatre after watching the bootleg
2) the movie sucked
^ all hypothetical, ofcourse ... i've never _actually_ seen one of these so-called 'bootlegs' ...
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.
Cam: recorded with a camcorder with indirect audio (using the camcorder's built in mic)
Telesync (TS): recorded with a camcorder (although TS's are often recorded with a higher quality camera) with direct audio (audio typically from a headphone jack for the hard of hearing)
Telecine (TC): A telecine machine copies the film digitally from the reels. Sound and video should be very good, but these are fairly uncommon (expensive machines)
Screener: A DVD or VHS copy sent to various places for promotional use. Many times they have timers and/or serials numbers. Quality varies, but DVD screeners should be excellent if the person ripping it isn't an idiot.
R5: Usually made with a telecine machine from an analog source. Unlike a TC the digitization is performed by the studio itself with very professional (and expensive) equipment. The purpose is to beat the pirates to the market in 3rd world-ish areas (Russia, Africa, etc).
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.
Just wondering if pirated copies of The Dark Knight would look best using TDK media?
Smivs on the intertubes!
I am a racist bastard you insensitive clod!
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?
This concludes the FOX News Commentary on this article. Next up: Barack Obama, secret muslim, or just a terrorist?
+5, Truth
For example, McDonalds is highly successful, but no-one confuses them with gourmet cuisine. Or confuses Microsoft with ethical and innovative product development.