Most Movies On P2P From Insiders? 318
An anonymous reader writes "AT&T Labs has determined that a significant majority of movies on P2P networks are the result of leaks from movie industry insiders (New York Times, free reg req'd). They not only point to the obvious cases (movies online before theatrical release, like The Hulk or Star Wars AOTC), but also examine other cases. The researchers examined 285 movies from P2P networks and used the quality of the file to determine whether it was some guy with a video camera or not. Choice quote: 'Our conclusion is that the distributors really need to take a hard look at their own internal processes and look at how they can stop the insider leaks of their movies before taking measures that might hamstring consumers' technologies and rights.'"
And this is this news to who? (Score:5, Funny)
Should say: from the duh dept. Umkay?
(fp)
Re:And this is this news to who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Choice quote: 'Our conclusion is that the distributors really need to take a hard look at their own internal processes and look at how they can stop the insider leaks of their movies before taking measures that might hamstring consumers' technologies and rights.'"
They care about hamstringing consumers' rights and tech? If the result of "leaked" movies is more control for the industry, I would be suprised if they're not giving employees who "leak" films big fat bonuses.
Let's see. Get a few extra $million at the box office or leak a film and take another giant step towards total media domination. You know what they'll choose. It's not like they shy away from spending $millions lobbying to get similar results.
Re:And this is this news to who? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is the old saying of of "Information wants to be free." Major movie releases are mega-hyped events where the content is something that is kept out of public view until the designated day, hour, minute of a moment, but within the process has to pass through the hands of thousands of people. It takes only one person to make an unauthorized copy at that level to get it onto the P2P networks.
Re:And this is this news to who? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And this is this news to who? (Score:5, Interesting)
Old rant about unsustainable models... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that as that by expanding into the home market, they gave up a lot of their uniqueness. When the cost of creating a copy of a movie for home use was high, they could make money because they could do it cheaply. However, as the cost to distribute lower quality formats falls, the "value" the studios offer to home users pluments.
Now, I'm certainly not denying the studio's invested a lot of capital and "own" the movie, but think of it like this: I go see a famous comedian in a club, and remember/write down all his jokes. I can go tell those jokes to my friends, or type them up and email them across the internet. Chances are, even though they are still funny, they are much better when you see the actual comedian perform them.
There is a reason film and music companies are called "media" companies. The idea is that they provide the "medium" which conveys content to end-users. Medium used to be expensive, now it's cheap. Their business model is broken, they spend tons on content and are trying to profit of the medium.
Re:Old rant about unsustainable models... (Score:3, Interesting)
AT&T, on the other hand, may have their eyes fixed directly on what they sell. They sell bandwidth.
Re:Old rant about unsustainable models... (Score:3, Insightful)
42" plasma =~ $4000
Decent Home Theater =~ $2000
So, we're talking 6 grand before you get into the incidentals. That's not exactly mass-market pricing. And I'm sure if you live in an apartment, your neighbors will love the rumbling bass and subsonics...
Re:And this is this news to who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do I really believe the RIAA is putting kiddie porn on p2p networks? Well, I've never, EVER actually come across kiddie porn on any p2p's, but then again I've never looked for it. Considering how highly illegal it is (much moreso than sharing a song... kiddie porn is right up there with crashing jetliners into buildings), I have a hard time believing anyone would be so stupid as to voluntarily share kiddie porn on a public network... unless it greatly benefitted his business model. So, I firmly believe IF there is actually kiddie porn on KaZaA, etc, that the RIAA is 100% responsible for it being there. They got the children naked, they took the pictures, they stuck them online, and they are bringing it to the government's attention. That way there is evidence to justify the Children's Peer to Peer Protection Act of 2003 (banning p2p software). Who is producing all the lobbying material (videos, booklets, etc) advocating shutting down p2p networks because of kiddie porn? The RIAA. And idiots like Orin Hatch (who, as a musician is currently getting $10+k in royalties per year, and should recuse himself from such debates due to the conflict of interest) have already taken up the RIAA's cause.
So, the bottom line is that "every time you download a song, the RIAA sexually molests a child" is not too far from the truth.
Machiavellian? Maybe so, but the fact that they're willing to sue 12 year old kids to sustain their worldwide monopoly doesn't make it much of a stretch to presume that they'd stick kiddie porn online if it meant possibly getting rid of all file sharing once and for all.
Re:And this is this news to who? (Score:3, Insightful)
The boss has plausible deniability. Even if the conversation was recorder he only said "Damn Company X and their fleet of trucks", he didn't tell the employee to pour sugar in their tanks. It was all a terrible misunderstand
Re:And this is this news to who? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And this is this news to who? (Score:4, Insightful)
The opposite is far more likely, AT&T is a major provider of connectivity threatened by potential legal responsibily for facilitating file trading. They have significant self-interest in making these statements (true or no), moreso than any university, and the MPAA no doubt realizes it.
Re:And this is this news to who? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And this is this news to who? (Score:2)
It's very much clear that DVD Rips of movies that aren't available on DVD yet. Jeez, have of them have copyright and "property of ..." overlays.
On the otherhand, any telescreener is clearly someone who knows a friendly cinema manager who will let them do captures after-hours. Films captured during public screenings are rare and understandably so. I haven't seen someone standup or talk in one of these since I saw a friends copy of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles over a year before it's UK theatrical release!
Re:And this is this news to who? (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree with this as well as AT&T's asessment. Actually, I believe that most movies are "inside jobs" but not as inside as they seem to believe.
They based their conclusion on the quality of the bootleg. Now, I've seen a bootleg that had quality so remarkable that I would swear that it must have been created by an insider with a method of transferring it digitally. That is, until someone *walked* in front of the movie screen. How's *that* for an analog hole?
So I was fooled by a remarkable quality big screen to video camera recording. Now, I still believe that this particular instance was an inside job because this was no ordinary camera piece of recording equipment and, aside from the guy who barely poked his head into the viewing area, I think that the theater was otherwise empty.
I think that most bootlegs are recorded by people who work at the movie theater. We will see a day when watermarks are being inserted into the movie itself.
Re:And this is this news to who? (Score:5, Informative)
They [vcdquality.com] already [vcdquality.com] watermark [vcdquality.com] many major movies, and will continue to do so.
This will, of course, not be effective.
When will they learn?
-dave-
Don't subscribe to NYTimes? (Score:3, Informative)
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
When "Hulk" hit the small screen early, Hollywood hit the roof. Two weeks before this summer's film adaptation of the angry green giant opened in theaters in June, copies started showing up on file-sharing networks around the world. The film cost Universal $150 million to make and distribute, but anyone with a fast Internet connection, a big hard drive and plenty of time could see it free.
Hollywood is desperately worried that it will soon face the widespread illegal copying that has bedeviled the music industry -- and that prompted record companies to file lawsuits last week against 261 people accused of illegally distributing copyrighted music online. Piracy of works in digital format, like DVD's or high-definition television is, in theory, so simple that whole movies could be zapped around the globe with a click of a mouse -- a prospect that Jack Valenti, chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America, has told lawmakers "gives movie producers multiple Maalox moments."
But the early debut of "Hulk" was not the work of the armies of KaZaA-loving college students or cinephile hackers. The copy that made its way to the Internet was an almost-complete working version of the film that had been circulated to an advertising agency as part of the run-up to theatrical release. And "Hulk" is not alone.
According to a new study published by AT&T Labs, the prime source of unauthorized copies of new movies on file-sharing networks appears to be movie industry insiders, not consumers. The study is "the first publicly available assessment of the source of leaks of popular movies," according to its authors.
Nearly 80 percent of some 300 copies of popular movies found by the researchers on online file sharing networks "appeared to have been leaked by industry insiders," and nearly all showed up online before their official consumer DVD release date, suggesting that consumer DVD copying represents a relatively minor factor compared with insider leaks.
"Our conclusion is that the distributors really need to take a hard look at their own internal processes and look at how they can stop the insider leaks of their movies" before taking measures that might hamstring consumers' technologies and rights, said Lorrie Cranor, a researcher at AT&T Labs and lead author of the study.
The production and distribution process provide a better choke point, Ms. Cranor said, than antipiracy measures that could hamstring consumer electronics devices and computer networks. "If you're not going to worry about the insiders, it's kind of pointless to worry about the outsiders," she said.
The insiders might be workers in production or promotion, or even Academy Awards screeners, to whom the studios send thousands of advance copies of DVD's each year. "The movie industry ought to treat everybody within its influence equally, from studio executives and investors, down through movie editors, truck drivers and out to the critics," concluded Ms. Cranor and her coauthors, AT&T Labs researchers Patrick McDaniel, Simon Byers and Dave Kormann, and Eric Cronin of the University of Pennsylvania.
Ken Jacobsen, senior vice president and director of worldwide piracy issues for the motion picture association, said he had not yet seen the report, but added that its conclusions seemed off.
"The industry experience is the awards screeners are a source for piracy," he said, but primarily during the Oscar-judging season. "The industry experience also is, on a rare occasion, a copy gets out of a postproduction house and enters the pirate marketplace. And the industry experience is that a majority of movies enter the pirate marketplace as a result of illegal camcording" in theaters. Digital piracy, he said, is "a serious problem for us now."
Still, large-scale swapping of high quality, full-length films and HDTV programs is out of the reach of all but the most wired consumer b
Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, It's not like they ever print stories of interest to /. readers so why should we try to support them in even a meager way.
Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't subscribe to NYTimes?
Yeah, It's not like they ever print stories of interest to /. readers so why should we try to support them in even a meager way.
What's stupidest about this is that not only is there free (as in beer) registration, but several nice slashdotters have set up logins over the years that everyone on slashdot could use (they published the login name and password). The coolest thing is no one ever changed the passwords on these accounts.
If you really want to karma whore, you could always create a new user and publish its name and password. Honestly, i do not know why submitters do not just link to the archive version of the nytimes story, whcih never requires a login to see.
Every time a nytimes story is used on /. I see the same 100 goddamn posts. Whining about registration, suggesting registration, suggesting archive urls, giving usernames to use to login... it's all a binch of malarky. Everyone who reads slashdot knows the deal with nytimes. Why they don't link the archive version to at least preempt the whining is beyond me.
Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? (Score:3, Funny)
People say "I don't care if it is free, they sell my information to advertisers and the NSA and the Aliens!" Who says you have to give them valid information?
It's great fun to see what restrictions they put on your date of birth. Can I be born yesterday? How about tomorrow? Can I be born in the 1600's? I believe New York Times will not let you enter a birth day any earlier than 1800.
My NTY user is a 182 year old Female Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Engineer.
Re:Don't subscribe to NYTimes? (Score:5, Funny)
FS ANOTHER NYTIMES LINK (Score:5, Informative)
/me crosses fingers.. (Score:4, Funny)
[insiders putting] movies online before theatrical release [..]
Hopefully someone working on Duke Nukem Forever [3drealms.com] is reading
Re:/me crosses fingers.. (Score:5, Funny)
>> Forever [3drealms.com] is reading
The most upto date version was already leaked on Kazaa. It consisted of one file: duke.nukem.4ever.plan.txt. The contents were as follow:
--- start duke.nukem.4ever.plan.txt ---
Step 1) Announce Duke Nuken Forever
Step 2) ???
Step 3) Release game
--- end duke.nukem.4ever.plan.txt ---
For the boys over at 3D Realms, step 2 is: MAKE THE DAMN GAME
Re:/me crosses fingers.. (Score:2)
--- end duke.nukem.4ever.plan.txt ---
You forgot a step:
Step 4) PROFIT!!!
Say what you want, but they have a better track record than the Bitmap Bros. in releasing chipsets...
Re:/me crosses fingers.. (Score:2)
MPAA is acting, but slowly. (Score:5, Interesting)
So while the MPAA is responding quickly to detected threats, they aren't seeking to estort money like the RIAA.
Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's like saying since blacks are a minority in the US, they should be put into gas chambers because Germans did it to Jews. I'm not a "Free Kevin" fanatic, but Mitnick's been punished far more severly than justified because the FBI wanted to set an example and the legal system couldn't cope with the buzzwords. Using him as an example of what should happen to people who commit computer crimes is perverse.
In my opinion, computer primes should be prosecuted based on their "real-world" equivalents. Having someone download MP3s off of you should be considered giving 10 or 100 illegal song copies out ($600 max), not the $150,000 the RIAA persues. Mitnick was punished too severly because the judicial system got too hung up on the threat of computer technologies and the potential for harm, rather than looking at the trespassing charges for what they really were.
Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. (Score:2)
Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. (Score:2)
Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. (Score:2, Interesting)
AND??? Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:MPAA is acting, but slowly. (Score:5, Interesting)
1) They are nice and safe at home, watching the RIAA go after purported acts of piracy (aka fair use + us patriot act + dmca) and fail miserably.
2) They are still making money - and until profits drop below some invisible level they've set, I doubt they will do more than let the MPAA use their search bots/ip loggers to see what people are sharing.
3) Movie traders are not your average Kazaa user (no insult to Kazaa users, but its' still a noob's p2p), in most cases they are sharing files in private networks and hubs amongst friends.
4) They realize, to catch everyone sharing movies will cost them billions of dollars and so far they have been acting fairly obliviously to the reality of HOW many people are sharing the movies.
They will start attacking users when the RIAA finds a tactic that works and doesn't take 600 years to implement (like the RIAA's current plan would). If they want to start lowering the piracy levels, they will have to install metal detectors in ALL movie theaters worldwide, and have 'screeners' only watched by test groups in theaters - not handing out copies to thousands and expecting them not to use a vcd ripper and share the movies.
They could also digitally add a digital watermark to the entire screener, or even include 'extra' scenes, or a few extra seconds here and there to certain regions of screeners distributed and once a ripped release is released, they could see which region's version is releasing the screener - from that point they could focus on each that region and do the same thing, but make a variant for each user after they narrow it down - eventually they would know who exactly is sending out these screeners. With the advent of CG video, the movie companies could do a scene say with a table that has a white table cloth, and just put a different pattern, color on each version for each region - they would not have to modify the whole movie, just that pattern or color in one scene.
My point? They're not trying that hard, because they're not 'that' worried, yet. IMHO, if they really had a clue about the global sharing of movies/games/programs/music/literature, etc, they would be shocked, because guess what..... these people who download, still rent movies/goto drive-in's/goto walk-in's and all around still spend money because even dvd's or a proper rip, cannot compare to the big screen for a good movie.
There are hundreds of agencies looking for pirated material though, so people should not be 'too' comfortable sharing/downloading these movies (especially if they are located in the US or an area that obey's US law/has strong copyright laws). Programs like Peerguardian (search google and you'll find it for dl) are good for blocking tcp-only connections to you, when they try to download and verify the file is 'real' but if all they are looking for is a files-size and name, then it wont help either because that's not hard to get.
Be careful out there ya'll.
Gosh darn them (Score:5, Interesting)
What kind of cockamanie marketing scheme is that?
Re:Gosh darn them (Score:2)
One way to do this would be to release the movies via P2P and then complain about it. If it ever gets out of hand, they can still take legal action, whereas if they had publicly pre-released it, they would be SOL.
Re:Gosh darn them (Score:5, Insightful)
Bravo for those kids with cellphones, I say!
Don't be ridiculous (Score:2)
Why the hell would they release an entire movie on P2P to generate buzz, when a preview does the same thing without giving people the WHOLE DAMNED THING!
It sounds to me like you're just trying to justify the illegal downloading of movies on P2P networks. You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid, because that argument is a load of bunk.
Re:Don't be ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever heard of previews?
Savvy people know the previews are FOS. In fact, generally the better a movie looks in preview the more likely that it is going to truly, deeply suck. Many movies give up the best three scenes in the whole movie in the preview. Then you go watch the movie and find that everything else in the movie sucks.
Its probably better for everyone to have people p2p the movie and watch it small screen. I usulaly don't watch p2p movies, and am more inclined to buy a dvd than rent or watch
Advertising wave of the future (Score:5, Funny)
You might even make a buck by suing someone not "in the loop" who does it.
A possibly better way to advertise products might simply be to have better products.
But then, I'm known for my unorthodox ideas.
Cheap screen test. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that explains it! (Score:5, Funny)
Academy C onsideration (Score:5, Insightful)
Either don't pass them out, put a tighter reign on them, or don't complain when they get on p2p before the dvd release.
Metallica (Score:3)
"bad mixes" and "metallica album" is a (Score:5, Funny)
Yer kiddin' me (Score:5, Interesting)
In other news fire is hot to touch.
Re:Yer kiddin' me (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yer kiddin' me (Score:3, Interesting)
Believe it or not, I've seen a few Chinese DVD's with complete menus and everything,but with a few quirks that indicate that they are not commercial grade legal DVD's. Sometimes it is really, really hard to tell - especially since not all real DVD's are printed and some have the same thin sticky-labels as the pirated variety.
Re:Yer kiddin' me (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw Johnny English DVD-rip (like 2 weeks after it was out in the theatre) with a subtitle file included in the
They even ship the fucking movies with the extras if you want them (menus, trailers, behind the scenes, etc).
Heh heh. (Score:3, Funny)
Examined movies? (Score:5, Informative)
Why? They could just have checked VCDQuality [vcdquality.com] and saved alot of time/bandwidth.
is this a suprise?? (Score:3, Insightful)
pm
paper is here: (Score:2, Informative)
So internal leaks are _not_ copyright violations? (Score:5, Interesting)
Surely this is not a relevant discussion. As the first poster said, of course insider leaks are a big part of the (illicit) distribution process. That was also the case before P2P, for counterfeit rings.
The question is surely a commercial one: can the studios survive free exchange of their wares, and if so, how will they manage and profit from it, and if not, how will movies be made in the future. Cause one way or another, free media is the way it's going to be, legal or illegal.
Personally I like going to the movies, and I like high-quality DVDs, and I find P2P useful only for stuff that I simply can't buy, like Episodes of BTVS (sorry!) that are not yet on DVD. But as soon as they are, I go out and buy them.
The smart people will learn how to use P2P to their own advantage. I predict future hits along the lines of Blair Witch, low budget, unexpected, distributed exclusively by P2P before it hits the big screen...
I bet you'd be busted for accepting stolen... (Score:2)
Re:So internal leaks are _not_ copyright violation (Score:2)
Nope, it is the client's fault as soon as they realize (i.e. are told in a certified mail letter by your lawyers) that they're in possession of stolen code that they really shouldn't have. At that point, they're prohibited from using it any further. They're entitled to use it for as long as they in good faith believe that they're standing on solid ground, but once th
Re:So internal leaks are _not_ copyright violation (Score:5, Interesting)
The "Industry" (or as someone expertly put it the *AA's) want legal means (DRM, taxes on blank media, etc, etc) to take away computer user's rights when dealing with all media, not just media copied from them.
What the AT&T Study basically said, is that it doesn't matter if you make it illegal to sell hardware to convert a DV recording into a DVD or VCD without a license, since the content being distrubuted is being authored in-house by the studios or their contactors.
It's like allowing a taper at a rock concert to plug straight into the soundboard instead of using mics in the audience. Both are illegal (unless permission is granted, a la The Dead, etc) copies of material, but banning the sale of high-quality microphones to people not in the music industry wouldn't stop the board recording from being made.
The US Governemnt, however, has a sad history of limiting the quality of a product for "our protection", examples include GPS (we get the crummy one, the military gets the good one), crypto (fixed now, but remember when 56-bit was barely legal), and so on.
Re:So internal leaks are _not_ copyright violation (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course it is, if he knowingly misused copyrighted code. Even if your employee didn't tell him the code was stolen, the client has a responsibility to make sure he is operating within the bounds of the law. Ignorance of the law is rarely a successful defense.
Yes, you're probably right about P2P being used for exclusive releases. There's precedent for it. Films used to be held for years before being released for private viewing on cable, satellite or DVD, if ever. Now I see more films made for exclusively for home viewing than ever make it into the theaters. A logical extension of that would be to just eliminate the DVD and send the data direct. That's all satellite and digital cable do anyway
What irritates me is that the entertainment industry as a whole has gotten so accustomed to profit levels that would be considered miraculous in most other industries. Most large-scale manufacturing operations (those that, say, make blank CDs for pressing) operate on a tiny fraction of that kind of margin. A few percent over cost is considered a good year. True media piracy, and simple file-sharing of copyrighted material, all those things would become very uncommon if a. the entertainment monopolies were broken up under Antitrust law and returned to a competitive market and b. media cost to the end user returned to levels inline with what they are willing to pay. The consumer armed with a choice of vendors should ultimately determine pricing: that is what antitrust law is all about, and why monopolies are very bad for the consumer. Illegally inflating profits via a monopoly position, and then claiming that you are being stolen from when people find a way to not pay is somewhat hypocritical.
The thing to remember is that the entertainment industry is just that, an industry, a business. And the history of business, in every country on the planet, has shown that when businesses achieve near-absolute control of their marketplace, the invariably abuse that market. They just can't resist, and furthermore they come to believe that this is their rightful position. What makes the MPAA/RIAA cartel so extreme in this regard is that they are trying to make the government guarantee them their monopoly.
Still, this should come as no surprise to anyone with a functioning brain stem. The Sherman Antitrust Act, and laws written for a similar purpose, were enacted to provide the government with tools to correct extreme aberrant behavior in the private sector. It seems to me that the MPAA and the RIAA both come under that heading, with the RIAA taking the lead in outrageousness.
Probable corrilary of this finding.. (Score:2)
Re:Probable corrilary of this finding.. (Score:2)
Re:Probable corrilary of this finding.. (Score:2)
Which is why you wait until the jerk who sits next to you and checks his voicemail on speakphone has forgotten to log out before grabbing it from his machine.
Of course signed, watermarked schemes tend to be crackable, as the SDMI folks found.
Re:Probable corrilary of this finding.. (Score:2)
Re:Probable corrilary of this finding.. (Score:2)
'nuff said
Same with the game industry (Score:3, Interesting)
It's gotten so bad that at many third-party developers I've had the chance to work with and talk to, all development work must be done on-site, and no development or QA hardware or recordable media (CD-R, DVD-R, external hard drives, etc.) may be taken in/out of the office.
Furthermore, many protocols such as outgoing FTP, etc. are blocked, and exceptions need to be handled on a case by case basis.
Re:Same with the game industry (Score:3, Informative)
Also it's not that hard to tunnel ssh sessions over http, so unless you completely isolate the boxes from the internet if somebody -really- means mischief they'll probably be able to figure out a way to do it...
Samir Gupta is a TROLL (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Key part of the article (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this cannot be stressed enough. Yes, people are downloading your movies. No, you aren't losing money. I love owning DVDs, but I also download like mad. My monthly DVD budget doesn't change based on the number of movies I download, but the movies I buy sure does. I can list off a large number of DVDs I've purchased after downloading them first.
Re:Key part of the article (Score:2)
Re:Key part of the article (Score:5, Interesting)
A key difference between grabbing MP3s and grabbing movies online is that there's a percieved value difference between CDs and DVDs. Most people believe CDs are a rip-off at their current prices, while most believe DVDs represent a good deal. People are willing to still go out and buy a DVD even after seeing a movie (for free or in the theater) because they believe there's value in their purchase.
Even when presented with a way to download near-perfect copies of movies, I believe people will still turn to DVDs or legal download options (if they exist) than to copying.
For those of you who don't download many movies, the stuff that's available isn't all camcorder quality. For example, the recent Matrix movie leaked to the net was a digital rip I believe (well it looked and sounded bloody amazing on my TV anyway). I still saw the movie in the theater and will buy the DVD -- I'm sure there's more like me.
Re:Key part of the article (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a key reason I do download movies. Let's face it, Hollywood can crank out shit like there's no tomorrow, but at the same time you get some good stuff once in a while. I could rely on critic opinions or imdb ratings, but that's a highly error-prone method.
For example, have you ever looked at the DVD insert on Fight Club? Listed on there are all the "critical reviews" from movie critcs ab
Well DUH! Of course it's Insiders! (Score:3, Informative)
In the DVD production process, there would be multiple copies of the movie, at the subtitling studio, at the dubbing studio, at the scene selection encoding studio, and at the assembly point where all the extra stuff meets up with the dubbing and subtitling.
URL for report (Score:3, Informative)
The real roots (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The real roots (Score:2)
Expecting that it be made "impossible" to do the first RIP is as unlikely as it being made "impossible" to break into your house.
The ONLY possible deterrent is to make the "crime" illegal. Reguardless of where it starts or who subsequently propigates it.
This article and
They're violating the DMCA! Call the MPAA!!! (Score:5, Funny)
They watched 285 unauthorized copies of movies! That adds up to $3.7 billion dollars in fines per researcher, and a minimum of 784 years in prison!!!
For Your Consideration (Score:4, Interesting)
But you don't understand (Score:2)
The looks on their little faces are just so precious.
KFG
Lack of Control (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how much money it takes to replace the pride and joy an insider gets from seeing the movie out on the net before the 1st screening, but i bet it's less than the amount the MPAA would writeup as a 'loss' if they caught the person involved in the distribution.
Can anyone think of a movie in recent times (past 2 or 3 years) that *wasn't* available on the net before the 1st screening?
Types of Rips (Score:5, Informative)
Courtesy of http://www.vcdquality.com/
CAM -
A cam is a theater rip usually done with a digital video camera. A mini tripod is sometimes used, but a lot of the time this wont be possible, so the camera make shake. Also seating placement isn't always idle, and it might be filmed from an angle. If cropped properly, this is hard to tell unless there's text on the screen, but a lot of times these are left with triangular borders on the top and bottom of the screen. Sound is taken from the onboard microphone of the camera, and especially in comedies, laughter can often be heard during the film. Due to these factors picture and sound quality are usually quite poor, but sometimes we're lucky, and the theater will be fairly empty and a fairly clear signal will be heard.
TELESYNC (TS) -
A telesync is the same spec as a CAM except it uses an external audio source (most likely an audio jack in the chair for hard of hearing people). A direct audio source does not ensure a good quality audio source, as a lot of background noise can interfere. A lot of the times a telesync is filmed in an empty cinema or from the projection booth with a professional camera, giving a better picture quality. Quality ranges drastically, check the sample before downloading the full release. A high percentage of Telesyncs are CAMs that have been mislabeled.
TELECINE (TC) -
A telecine machine copies the film digitally from the reels. Sound and picture should be very good, but due to the equipment involved and cost telecines are fairly uncommon. Generally the film will be in correct aspect ratio, although 4:3 telecines have existed. A great example is the JURASSIC PARK 3 TC done last year. TC should not be confused with TimeCode , which is a visible counter on screen throughout the film.
SCREENER (SCR) -
A pre VHS tape, sent to rental stores, and various other places for promotional use. A screener is supplied on a VHS tape, and is usually in a 4:3 (full screen) a/r, although letterboxed screeners are sometimes found. The main draw back is a "ticker" (a message that scrolls past at the bottom of the screen, with the copyright and anti-copy telephone number). Also, if the tape contains any serial numbers, or any other markings that could lead to the source of the tape, these will have to be blocked, usually with a black mark over the section. This is sometimes only for a few seconds, but unfortunately on some copies this will last for the entire film, and some can be quite big. Depending on the equipment used, screener quality can range from excellent if done from a MASTER copy, to very poor if done on an old VHS recorder thru poor capture equipment on a copied tape. Most screeners are transferred to VCD, but a few attempts at SVCD have occurred, some looking better than others.
DVD-SCREENER (DVDscr) -
Same premise as a screener, but transferred off a DVD. Usually letterbox , but without the extras that a DVD retail would contain. The ticker is not usually in the black bars, and will disrupt the viewing. If the ripper has any skill, a DVDscr should be very good. Usually transferred to SVCD or DivX/XviD.
DVDRip -
A copy of the final released DVD. If possible this is released PRE retail (for example, Star Wars episode 2) again, should be excellent quality. DVDrips are released in SVCD and DivX/XviD.
VHSRip -
Transferred off a retail VHS, mainly skating/sports videos and XXX releases.
TVRip -
TV episode that is either from Network (capped using digital cable/satellite boxes are preferable) or PRE-AIR from satellite feeds sending the program around to networks a few days earlier (do not contain "dogs" but sometimes have flickers etc) Some programs such as WWF Raw Is War contain extra parts, and the "dark matches" and camera/commentary tests are included on the rips. PDTV is capped from a digital TV PCI card, generally giving the best results, and groups tend to release in SVCD for these. VCD/SVCD/DivX/XviD rips are all supported by
Insiders? (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I being disingenuous? (Score:2)
Research (Score:2, Funny)
Yea, I'm also doing extensive research via p2p applications. Can I please get some RIAA funding?
I heard it WASN'T the movie houses (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that while only a certain controllable group inside a studio needs/has access to the complete movie, a whole slew of folks at the advertising companies have it. So while some guy getting paid 20k a year to chop up some shots from the film to put into a coming attraction, he throws it up on the web. Because these companies are peripheral to the project but integral to the process (somebody has to put together the DVD/30-second primetime slot/Newspaper adverts) and so it is tough for the MPAA to regulate.
They could figure out who is leaking them (Score:2)
You could write a simple program to put them in and go find them.
When you find one floating around you can figure out who's copy it was and go yell at them.
I would say this was an or
Watermarking (Score:2)
Re:Watermarking (Score:2, Informative)
The best security I've ever seen... (Score:3, Interesting)
Once on entering the facility, and again when I left, I had to stand on a little box, about four inches tall. A security guard then waved a wand over me and another physically patted me down. My notebook bag had all contents removed, inspected, and then put back in place. They did a pretty good job of putting everything back where it came from.
If everybody did things the way those guys did, I don't think insiders would be contributing much to the P2P networks.
Why would you want to download a movie on P2P? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't buy the "I want to stick it to the man!" argument. Some people are just too cheap to drop $15 - $25 on a DVD.
If you think that's too expensive, don't buy it. Affordability (or lack thereof) is not justification for downloading it illegally.
Simple, do the math... (Score:3, Insightful)
Buy the DVD : $14.95 - $19.95
Download and burn DVD : ~$200 for burner and $1.5 per disk.
Figure for a family to go see a movie ~$38.50 + concessions...It's way cheaper to buy the DVD. However, when DVD's are > $20 each - it makes more sense to copy them...
The point is, lower the prices on this stuff (movies and music) and people will pay for it. A large portion of the piracy is due to price gouging, IMHO.
Oh, and put out more movies worth seeing!
Re:Simple, do the math... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simple, do the math... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a great example of why I would never think of "pirating" a movie...You either see it when it comes out for full price, See it for $1 a month or $2 later, buy or rent the DVD, or even wait for them t
Simiple, Easy way to STOP the leaks (Score:4, Funny)
Simply make all of their employees watch a stupid preachy commercial exhorting them to respect copyrights. (And stop making us watch it. It was funny the first few times, but the joke is old now.)
movies don't have to worry as much (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's compare the two.
1) Movies come out in theaters for about 8 to 12 dollars, sometimes cheaper. This is as close to a live concert as your going to get. A live concert tickets for a major band is easily $30 dollars. Not to mention having to wait in a really long line, and deal with all the kids. Go to a movie on a Tuesday, sneak in a coke in your pockets or girlfriends purse and your cool.
2) Once out on DVD you get all kinds of extras, and a really high quaility piece of art. CDs are cds, they don't make them with surround sound or anything special. No video of live concerts or anything. And you usually have to pay 18 bucks for them, even when they have been out for 10 years! You can get all those marginally good movies for $10 bucks in those bins.
3) Movies can cast 10s of millions, while CDs could be made for near nothing. Yet they continue to sell for about the same and they just trust the user to want a collection.
I think the music industry could learn a thing or two. I don't really think we need multi-million a show tours. I don't want a million lights and gimics. I just want to see a live band for a decent price. I wish I liked phish, cause then I could get it. Why must I pay $100 bucks for a Radiohead concert. What ever happened to the arena concert?
Flawed Logic (Score:3, Interesting)
Me Too! (Score:5, Funny)
Upcoming News Story (Score:3, Funny)
MPAA Sues AT&T Researcher for Piracy
"Ms. Cranor has blatantly flaunted her piratical activities, publicly bragging that she downloaded nearly 200 movies from P2P file sharing networks," said an MPAA spokesperson, who added that the MPAA will seek $620 million in damages.
They already have a solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Each advanced copy of a video has a digitalwatermark. Each is invidiual. It's on the entire screen, and somewhat vague (your eyes will overlook it unless you stare at it, kind of like a magic eye).
If they see a leaked copy online... they can trace it back to exactly who was in charge of that copy (the watermark is often initials or a code for the individual).
So far, tests of this have been very successful, nobody wants that liability on their hands. They get access to one of these tapes, nobody wants to put them online. Since they are essentially signed.
There are several other techniques used widely in the industry. This is the big one.
It's a mild watermark. Your eyes tend to look beyond it at the picture (kind of like a bugscreen on a window).
Now the individual (previewer, editor etc.) makes it a business to keep it secure. Even screenshots.
Rough job... downloading movies (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like hard work, all those hours downloading and watching movies... I wonder what they do on their spare time ? Maybe they go to meetings, fill out spreadsheets and wait tables.
Reminds me of the Dilbert where Wally *almost* gets the job to "stress test the server by downloading high quality media files from the busiest servers on the 'net". "I was this close to making surfing porn my job" he says. Dilbert replies "I would've had to kill you."