Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WB Took Pains To "Delay" Pirating of Dark Knight

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the something-to-think-about dept.

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.

38 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 tzhuge · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "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.

    3. 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!
    4. 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
    5. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I may or may not get alot off USENET. I may or may not have an unlimited account because the 50 gig a month account just wasn't cutting it. I may or may not have gotten "The Love Guru" because I may or may not actually "try" and watch anything. So a few weeks ago, I may or may not have been in my living room, folding/sorting socks with the Love Guru on in the background. It may or may not have been so bad that I actually stopped it so I could concentrate on folding my socks.

      A hypothetically free DVD quality version of a new supposed Hollywood movie, in the air conditioned comfort of my alleged home was theortically so bad that I may or may not have turned it off so I could focus on sorting socks.

      Oh, and Sock monster 5, Me 0.

    6. 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
  2. Preserving our rights by Findeton · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. 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.

      --
      ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
    2. Re:Preserving our rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shhh, Europeans know everything. Bow down before their mighty wisdom.

  3. Hey WB! by Ariastis · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why so serious??

    1. Re:Hey WB! by Osurak · · Score: 5, Funny

      Want to see a magic trick? I'm going to make these bootleg DVDs disappear.

  4. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sorry, but I'm just not capable of managing that level of suspension of disbelief.

      Hehehe. I know what you mean. I can suspend my disbelief long enough to imagine a guy in a bat costume flying and swinging around a darkened city fighting the forces of evil, but I can't figure out how a 38 hour delay makes any sort of dent in stopping piracy.

    2. Re:Honestly, now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a pretty well known tactic for games. (Basically, making the copy protection tedious to crack rather than simply hard.)

      Big budget games make the bulk of their sales during the first month, so if you can avoid getting cracked while the hype is still going, it can have a big impact.

      So, my point here is, that this is not without precedent, and I'm sure it has some kind of impact on movies too.

    3. Re:Honestly, now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The congressmen can't be that stupid right?

    4. 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.

    5. 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. 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?

    --
    ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
    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...

  6. 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.

  7. And another thing by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  8. From the article: by martin_henry · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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
    1. Re:From the article: by moxley · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow...I never though of it this way.

      What if...What if everything could be like that?

      Tell me more about this "only do things that you really want to do" philosophy....It sounds revolutionary...

    2. Re:From the article: by markov_chain · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why not make it illegal to talk about the movie? There could probably be a copyright basis somehow, and apparently it does hurt the business.

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  9. 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.

  10. Der... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  11. 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 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.

  12. 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 a_real_bast... · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, now. The Wayan brothers and Rob Schneider have to eat, y'know.

      --
      You're making me think. You won't like me when I'm thinking.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
  13. Uh, people *like* seeing movies in theatres ... by remitaylor · · Score: 5, Informative

    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:
    1) the movie rocked, so I went to see it in the theatre after watching the bootleg
    2) the movie sucked ... I simply wouldn't have watched it, had the bootleg not existed ... *maybe* I would pay to rent the DVD

    ^ all hypothetical, ofcourse ... i've never _actually_ seen one of these so-called 'bootlegs' ...

  14. le sigh by legoman666 · · Score: 5, Informative
    People need to get their bootleg terms correct.

    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).

  15. Why not stop camming? by Goffee71 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?
  16. Re:You know what else? by utopianfiat · · Score: 5, Funny

    This concludes the FOX News Commentary on this article. Next up: Barack Obama, secret muslim, or just a terrorist?

    --
    +5, Truth