Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Movies Star Wars Prequels News

Eight Charged in Episode III Early Release 573

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the tommy-we-got-hosed dept.
ewhac writes "Earlier this year, an advance copy of 'Star Wars: Episode III' was released to the Internet a day before the film's official worldwide opening. Yesterday, the US Attorney handed down charges to the eight people believed responsible. Using forensic markers embedded in the advance-release "screeners," law enforcement were able to track down the leaked copy and the people who came in contact with it. As a result of the early release, Episode III only managed to earn $380 million at the box office."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eight Charged in Episode III Early Release More

Eight Charged in Episode III Early Release

Comments Filter:

  • Not exactly.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rolan ( 20257 ) * on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:33PM (#13669878) Homepage Journal
    As a result of the early release, Episode III only managed to earn $380 million at the box office.

    More like: "As a result of Episode I and Episode II SUCKING, Episode III only managed to earn $380 million at the box office."

    Leave it to hollywood to blame everyone but themselves for a movie not doing as well as they wanted it to.

    • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Radres ( 776901 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:34PM (#13669893)
      I believe the submitter was being sarcastic as $380 million is a lot of money to make in spite of the losses suffered from piracy.
      • I think you mean

        I believe the submitter was being sarcastic as $380 million is a lot of money to make in spite of the "losses" "suffered" from "piracy."

      • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by zxnos ( 813588 )
        i concur. but what is the price point at which copyright infringement becomes acceptable? $100 thousand, $10 million, $20 million, etc?

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:57PM (#13670168)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:5, Funny)

            by dusik ( 239139 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @04:12PM (#13670362) Homepage
            >> "there very well could have been over 300 million spent in production/marketing/advertising/other overhead"

            Actually, the breakdown is:

            $379 999 999.00: production/marketing/advertising/other overhead
            $1.00: script

          • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:3, Insightful)

            by timmarhy ( 659436 )
            in many cases the amount the film takes at the box office means jackshit. your forgetting all the toys,dvds and other franshised material they sell, which in many cases outstrips the boxoffice takings. in fact these days many films sounds tracks make more money then the film does.
            • in fact these days many films sounds tracks make more money then the film does.

              I understand your point that films make a lot of money on the side that isn't counted towards the film's gross, but your statement is waaaaaay of base.

              Pretend that there is no cost to create, market, and distribute a soundtrack because the hollywood accountant weasles have included that in the film's budget to prevent a writer who took a cut of the profits from seeing anything. (Not absolutely feasable, but it helps keep t

        • NO GODDAMNED EWOKS! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Thud457 ( 234763 )
          Copyright infringement would be publicly acceptable if it had resulted in Episodes I, II & III never being made.

          Also Matrix Reloaded & Revolutions.

        • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Radres ( 776901 )
          Is it worth enforcing Draconian laws, eliminating the right to privacy of the common man, spending millions of taxpayer dollars, etc. in order to enforce an unpopular law so that film studios can make even more money on something so non-essential to life, all the while abusing their position of power to overcharge consumers?

          Why does it make sense that popular athletes, actors, and musicians make hundreds of millions of dollars while scientists researching diseases and solutions to the energy crisis make far

          • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:3, Insightful)

            by skiflyer ( 716312 )
            Ok, but we live in a Capitalist system... so if this is what you want I think you know the answer...

            That's right, start up a company which prints CDs and DVDs for $2 and don't sell them for $30 or $15, open a movie theatre where tickets cost less than $10 and buy an NFL team, and charge less than $100 for admission.

            Or, boycott, and get enough people to boycott with you and see how the industry reacts, they can lower prices or go out of business depending. It's a pretty simple system, act within it, don't st

            • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Radres ( 776901 )
              I can't do any of those things because the barrier of entry is too high due to the practices of aforementioned conglomerates.

              Maybe people should stop stealing from them when they stop price fixing.

              • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:5, Insightful)

                by skiflyer ( 716312 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @04:53PM (#13670752)
                How is there a barrier to entry on a boycott?

                Or is it that even at their fixed prices enough consumers are willing to pay the fees such that the different industries you mention that your boycott wouldn't have a chance in hell?

                I concur, the prices are obscene for the most part, I wish they'd go down, given current technology there's no reason they shouldn't go down... actually, given technology of the last 50 years they never should've gone up, the entertainment industry has been making people fabulously wealthy for a very long time... arguably rewarding people over and above their hard work. The advantage of filming once and distributing millions of time, or recording once... etc.

                But, the prices are only so obscene because the consumer is willing to pay. If we stop paying, they'll either fold up because they truly cannot operate on those margins (unlikely) or they'll lower prices... fact is, right now, enough people aren't there.

                I'm sure it's been said, or will be shortly, but there is no "right" that you have to the RIAA's brand of pop music and there is no right that you have which entitles you to see Star Wars Episode III for a price you see fit. It's a product, they've set a price, accept it or don't, vote with your money.

                With current technology do we all think we could come up with a better model that would distribute money more fairly, give more people a fair slice of the pie and cost consumers far less? Yes we do, and hopefully with enough time the startups who have done this will catch on and we'll all have new distribution methods, but the old one is still raking in enough cash that it's not going to get out of the way just yet.

                • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by Radres ( 776901 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @05:01PM (#13670833)
                  I'd like to add a corrollary that it's not just through theft that technology is cutting in on entertainment industry profits (and "stabbing them in the eye"), but it is also by lowering the barriers to entry. There is no need for an RIAA when all you have to do to make a record is get $5,000 for studio time, rip the songs to MP3, and set up a web site to distribute the music (or go through iTunes, Napster, or a similar channel). It will be a while still before the independent filmmaker can do the same, although we have seen some very successful independent films in recent years.

            • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by srw ( 38421 ) * on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @05:07PM (#13670902) Homepage
              Or, boycott, and get enough people to boycott with you and see how the industry reacts,


              Some of us have been doing this for a few years already. How has the industry reacted? They interpret the lower sales (or lower than projected growth) as losses due to "piracy." I have never once heard the RIAA or MPAA suggest that their lower-than-expected growth was even partially to do with people boycotting them and spending their money on independant releases. All I hear from them is how much "piracy" is hurting them.

          • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by rjstanford ( 69735 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @04:49PM (#13670708) Homepage Journal
            Is a movie or music CD that costs less than $2 to print really worth $30 or $15? Is it really worth $10 a ticket to go to a movie theater? Is it worth close to $100 to go to an NFL game?

            According to millions of people, the answer to your questions is, "Yes." It may not be worth that much money to you - hey, don't buy 'em and save the cash. But for many, many other people, its worth all that and more. Otherwise they wouldn't keep buying those movie tickets, NFL season passes, et cetera. When they stop, the prices will come down or the services will change. Until that point, its not like only 50 people a week are paying to go to football games...

        • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Goo.cc ( 687626 ) *
          This is Slashdot, my friend. Copyright infringment is always acceptable, unless we are talking about GPLed software.

      • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by interiot ( 50685 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @04:07PM (#13670308) Homepage
        Wikipedia has a list [wikipedia.org] of the worldwide gross for each episode... Revenge of the Sith was the second highest grossing of all of them. So most statements about piracy or suckiness should be said in a sarcastic way, yes.

        • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by evilviper ( 135110 )

          So most statements about piracy or suckiness should be said in a sarcastic way,

          Statements about money lost due to copyright infringement, yes. Statements about suckiness, no.

          The highest grossing movie of all time (not star wars) is a very sucky movie to be sure.

          There are many, many, many times that a terribly crappy movie makes lots of money. There are also many times that a very good movie makes practically no money. Since quality is not tied to profit, suckiness can't be dismissed so easily.

    • More like: "As a result of Episode I and Episode II SUCKING, Episode III only managed to earn $380 million at the box office."

      How about...
      Even though Episode I, Episode II, and Episode III sucked it managed to earn $380 million at the box office - giving it the 7th highest box office gross in US history.
      • How about...
        Even though Episode I, Episode II, and Episode III sucked it managed to earn $380 million at the box office

        To be a little more concise, how about...

        Even though George Lucas has irreperably raped Star Wars, Episode III still managed to earn $350 million more at the box office than it deserved.
        • True. In fact through a third party I had access to the rip on 0 day. I still have yet to see the movie because of the suckage that was Ep1 and 2. So . . . yeah, I believe them media types. Piracy kills little fuzzy kittens and all that.
          -nB
    • The article doesn't even say anything about that at all. The submitter is responsible for the editorial there.
    • Not to mention, "a small number of people actually thinking it was good and recommending it to their friends". Of the dozens of people I know that saw it within the first couple weeks, only two said it was "very good", and they both went to see it 2 more times each. They also thought Episode I and II were good, though. Everyone else I knew that saw it thought it was "OK, but better than the 1st and 2nd".

      I didn't see EpIII until this past month, and I was most certainly not wow'ed by it. Overall, better than
    • As a result of the early release, Episode III only managed to earn $380 million at the box office."

      Because it sucked balls. I blame the overuse of technology. I appreciate the fact that ultra-accurate digital timer overlays exist, but that doesn't mean George Lucas has to use them. I mean, really. That just isn't the sort of thing I want to see in my movie.

    • You hit the nail on the head. I CHOSE not to see Episode 3 because Lucas blew chunks on 1 and 2. I suppose I could have downloaded it, but why would I want to waste my time tracking down a sucky rip when I wasn't willing to spend a couple of bucks at a theater? (I would waste more of my time downloading and then watching than I would just going to the theater.) My time is valuable to me, and I won't waste any more of it on the SW franchise even if Lucas hand delivered a signed DVD to my doorstep.

      -Chris

    • Re:Not exactly.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thepotoo ( 829391 ) <thepotoospam AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:50PM (#13670076)
      Hell, 380 million isn't exactly bad.

      IMHO, it's about 300m more than episode III deserved. If Serenity does half as well, we'll be vitually guarenteed of the two sequel movies being made, and of the show comming back.

      BUT, just to play devil advocate... So I was going to go see SW3 and shell out my hard earned cash to Lucas like everone else. But, I stumbled on a fast FTP with a high quality screener to downloaded. As a result, Lucas lost a couple bucks.

      Just goes to show, hollywood may have a point despite what us /.ers say.


  • Everything that has transpired here has done so according to MY design!

  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by KSobby ( 833882 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:34PM (#13669898)
    Didn't they suffer enough watching the movie?

  • Oh poor Hollywood. (Score:5, Funny)

    by baronvonwalz ( 887463 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:35PM (#13669900)
    It ONLY managed to make $380 million dollars....still putting it in the top 10 movies of all time. Now because of those "evil pirates" George Lucas might not be able to build another gigantic animation studio.
    • Yes, you don't seem to be thinking about who this really hurts. Now Lucas can only afford the gold plated toilet seats for his mansion, not the platnum ones. As as anyone can tell you, those gold seats can be a little chilly in the morning.

      Perhaps we can hold a telethon for him.

      --
      this sig is in lower case to save space

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by kannibal_klown ( 531544 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:35PM (#13669901)
    This just in. Hollywood legend George Lucas will NOT, I repeat NOT, be able to afford his new gold-plated shark tank this year.

  • Who pays for this? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:35PM (#13669907)
    I would like to know who pays for these investigations. There are all kinds of crimes that go uninvestigated but somehow they have time and resources to use James Bond tactics to track down someone that released a movie on the Internet.

    • Re:Who pays for this? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by blugu64 ( 633729 )
      ya know it's probably a civil lawsuit...meaning that it's quite probably that the police/law enforcement didn't investigate anything, instead the studio paid for the investigation...just a thought anyway

    • Re:Who pays for this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AthenianGadfly ( 798721 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:56PM (#13670158)
      I don't think it's so much that there are other crimes that aren't investigated... after all, if they only went after the most serious crimes, burglary, arson, and assault would never be investigated because there will always be homicide cases that need more resources. It's even fine with me if the government invests its resources in going after people who infringe copyright. However, if they're going to be involved in this kind of thing, I should be able to expect that the local law enforcement and DA's office will be helping me investigate and charge the next person who infringes the copyright of one of my original songs I recorded in my home studio. It's an old problem: the rich get most things for free from the government (or for the cost of lobbying and campaign contributions), but that doesn't make it any more acceptable. The government shouldn't be able to cherry-pick the cases that they want based on how much money it gets them in campaign contributions or publicity - imagine if your house was broken into and a large amount of valuables stolen, but the police wouldn't come out to look at it because you didn't donate enough to the last election or you weren't in a high enough tax bracket.

      • Re:Who pays for this? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MacFury ( 659201 )
        imagine if your house was broken into and a large amount of valuables stolen, but the police wouldn't come out to look at it because you didn't donate enough to the last election or you weren't in a high enough tax bracket.

        Well, I don't need to imagine...I see it happen alot. I could provide the police with the names, addresses, phone numbers and even pictures of people who have stolen from me and vandalised my property. They won't do anything about it. However, if I take matters into my own hands...I

      • Re:Who pays for this? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Hosiah ( 849792 )
        Y'know, I had my car stolen a few years ago when we lived in Las vegas. It was ripped off from the parking lot of my apartment while we slept. The same evening, the exact same make and model of car (but it wasn't ours) was also found abandoned in the *other* end of the apartment complex's parking lot, in trashed condition. Clearly, the car thieves knew how to steal only one make of car, ditched it when it ran out of gas, took off walking, and - what luck! - found ours.

        We called the police about it and the

    • Re:Who pays for this? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )
      Well, the FBI deals with cases over $5000, which would be 0,001% of the earnings. It doesn't exactly take much to pass that limit. Besides, it's not the police that is using "James Bond tactics", it is the movie studios. They are the ones that place these trackers, keep track of where they are and probably present the police with "Here's the evidence, go round them up". It's nothing new that justice can sometimes be "bought", there's no law stopping you and me from hiring a PI to investigate something the c

    • Re:Who pays for this? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @04:06PM (#13670297) Homepage
      Dear Mr. bigtallmofo (#695287)

      I represent the firm of L. I. Tigious and Associates. This firm is counsel to Danjaq, L.L.C and United Artists Corporation, the co-owners to the exclusive rights to the use of the copyrighted James Bond movies, as well as the widely recognized federally registered trademark and service mark James Bond.

      Danjaq L.L.C. and United Artists Corporation vigorously object to the content you have posted on this web forum. This content constitute direct copyright infringement of the upcoming film "James Bond: Copyprotected", and make you subject to injunction and liable to Danjaq L.L.C. and United Artists Corporation for its damages, costs and attorneys' fees. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 501(a), anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 118, or of the author as provided in 106(a), is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author." Danjaq L.L.C. and United Artists Corporation hereby demand that you immediately cease and desist from reproducing, distributing, performing by means of digital audio transmission, displaying, discussing, or in any other way infringing upon their copyrights.

                Danjaq L.L.C. and United Artists Corporation are prepared to pursue all available remedies to protect its intellectual property rights. However, Danjaq L.L.C. and United Artists Corporation will refrain from taking immediate legal action upon condition that you provide written assurances by October 2, 2005, that you have ceased and desisted from reproducing, distributing, performing by means of digital audio transmission, or discussing the copyrighted movie "James Bond: Copyprotected". Your written assurances must also state that you have removed all forum content relating to the unlawful use of the James Bond trademarks or copyrights.

                We await an immediate response from you or your counsel.

                                Sincerely,

                                L. I. Tigious and Associates

  • Um... It was still wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:35PM (#13669910)

    As a result of the early release, Episode III only managed to earn $380 million at the box office.

    Nice editorializing there. Yeah, the movie made a boatload of money. That does not change the fact that the people who screened the movie violated the agreement under which they received the screener copies.

    Personally, I don't think that the US Attorney should be involved in what amounts to a contract violation. This should really be a civil matter, but it is still wrong.

    • Correct (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Solr_Flare ( 844465 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:45PM (#13670010)
      Very true. I think the little jab at the end about the early release was uncalled for(although not surprising) but the truth of the matter is these people violated the law.

      This was not a case of simple bootlegging either. For those who never saw a copy of this version, it was an extremely good rip. Once some aspect ratio issues were corrected you pretty much had a DVD quality copy with an exellent stereo sound track.

      I know in my area the bootleg was rather prevelant. Seemed like ever other person had a copy. People who weren't big Star Wars fans or hated the prequels got/bought copies to see it instead of going to the theater. And star wars fans got copies so they could watch it over again in their homes instead of seeing it again in the theaters. All of which I'm sure did in fact impact sales a decent bit.

      Still, this certainly isn't the sole cause of th emovie not meeting expectations, but other slashdotters have already covered that to death.
    • Here's the point: MPAA's entire rationale to make movie copying a federal crime instead of a civil contract violation (as you state) is that they are supposedly losing millions (or even billions) of dollars to people who only watch the copies rather than pay for theater tickets. Since Hollywood is still raking in the gigabucks as usual, their argument deserves extreme skepticism.

      Big Entertainment has made the FBI into their personal goon squad, and US citizenry gets stuck with the bill. As always, politicia

  • ONLY 380 millions? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by despe666 ( 802244 )
    I'm not sure I agree with the logic that the movie did bad at the box office because of an early release on Internet. Internet releases tend to be of lesser quality and people who really like Star Wars will have gone to the theatre anyways. I think Lucas only has himself to blame. With the crappy Episodes I and II, it's no wonder there was no rush to the theatres to see Episode III.
  • As a result of the early release, Episode III only managed to earn $380 million at the box office.

    Actually, Episodes I and II were so crappy I didn't even bother seeing III. I'm sure I'm not the only one who felt that way. Way to go, George!

  • Wouldn't embedding something in the movie and then giving the movie to people to watch--all while waiting for them to break the law... is this not entrapment?
    • No, entrapment is quite different. This would be entrapment if they gave them the screeners and then instructions on how to rip it and provide the content online.

      Definition:
      • entrapment, in law, the instigation of a crime in the attempt to obtain cause for a criminal prosecution.
    • No. Entrapment is the police repeatedly asking you to do something illegal. Putting tracking devices in movies does not ENCOURAGE you to break the law. A good example of entrapment would be something like sending you a copy of the DVD screener and then sending an undercover officer to your door telling you he'll give you $10,000 dollars to make him a copy.

    • "Wouldn't embedding something in the movie and then giving the movie to people to watch--all while waiting for them to break the law... is this not entrapment?"

      No... not hardly. Use a technological measure to track a stolen item is similar to putting a LoJack in your car. Installing a LoJack in your 911 and then leaving it in a parking lot -- even if you leave the doors unlocked and park it in the worst neighborhood in town -- is not entrapment. It may be risky behavior, as is distributing Academy Aw

    • Re:Doesn't seem right to me (Score:5, Informative)

      by Durandal64 ( 658649 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @04:02PM (#13670255)
      No. Entrapment involves an agent of the state soliciting that someone commit an illegal act. As an example, the following qualifies as entrapment.

      UNDERCOVER COP: Hey man, you wanna buy some cocaine?
      HAPLESS FOOL: Sure!
      [FOOL gives COP money for cocaine, and COP gives FOOL cocoaine.]
      COP: You're under arrest, fool!

      The cop in the above example was the person who suggested breaking the law, so that qualifies as entrapment. The following, however, does not.

      HAPLESS FOOL: Hey man, can I buy some coke off you?
      UNDERCOVER COP: Sure!
      [FOOL gives COP money for cocaine, and COP gives FOOL cocoaine.]
      COP: You're under arrest, fool!

      The above is not entrapment since it was not the cop who suggested breaking the law. This is how they bust child molesters and kiddie porn peddlers. A police officer can sign on to AOL with a screen name like "13NHORNY", go into a chat room and literally be bombarded with solicitations for kiddie porn and meeting proposals. So they say, "Sure I'll meet you" or "Yeah gimme some porn!", arrange to meet the guy and bust him right there. All while avoiding entrapment because the perverts are the ones approaching them.
  • I've seen a couple of posts already that seem to be confused by the "Only made $380 million at the box office" comment. Is the seventh highest grossing american film of all time.

    So, sarcasm. For the record
  • I saw SW episode 1 - it sucked really bad. I skipped both Episodes 2 & 3 because of that and I have been assurred that I missed nothing. Why would anyone have gone to see this in the theater? Why would anyone have even downloaded it for free on the internet?

    I've seen better movies than SW episode 1 made by amateurs with a video camera and a free weekend.

  • Uploading VS Downloading (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RUFFyamahaRYDER ( 887557 ) <slashdot AT kelsdomain DOT com> on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:43PM (#13669989) Homepage
    I find it interesting that the only people who are getting in trouble for Internet piracy are the ones who are doing the uploading, but the people doing the downloading do not get in any trouble like in this case. I seem to remember the same kind of thing happening to people on P2P networks. The ones the FBI (or whatever agency) goes after are the massive uploaders, not the downloaders.

    Am I wrong here? If not, anyone know why they mostly go for the uploaders and not the downloaders? Are there different laws here? Just curious...

    • Re:Uploading VS Downloading (Score:5, Informative)

      by freshman_a ( 136603 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:57PM (#13670167) Homepage Journal

      If not, anyone know why they mostly go for the uploaders and not the downloaders?

      I believe the reasoning is that the ones uploading are the ones copying and distributing said movie, and in turn the ones violating the copyright notice. The copyright notice says something like you can't copy and distribute this material, and downloading a copy isn't really violating that so it's probably easier to win the case against the uploaders.
    • There are comparatively few uploaders, and hundreds, possibly thousands of downloaders, so it's easier. Plus, if they stop the uploaders, there will be nothing for the downloaders to download.

  • What is it with US and the word "illegal" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Psionicist ( 561330 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:43PM (#13669993)
    This is not a troll or flamebait in disguise, it's an honest question.

    Whenever US mainstream media writes about piracy they use the word "illegal" over and over again. For example, the link in TFS, SFGate writes "illegal release". Same thing with NYTimes, Washington Post etc... "illegal filesharing" this and "illegal piracy" that. Whenever a new release group is shut down the media use these words along with "stolen", "illicit" (you get the idea).

    Why? I live in Sweden. Our mainstream media sure talk about piracy alot, but I have never seen them talk about "illegal" trading etc, even if it is against the law. I have never seen the word "stolen" in the context of piracy either, in Swedish newspapers. Is this something normal for US papers? Do they write about "illegal murder", "illegal robbery" etc too? Or is this just sligtly modified PR?

    Thanks.
    • I think its a good thing, better the media run a story on arrests for illegal filesharing than a story on arrests for filesharing. At least in the first case there exists the possibility of legal filesharing...
    • I haven't decided whether it's another symptom that our mainstream media has been reduced to parroting the talking points spewed by PR groups or if it's another symptom of our increasing ignorance of what's going on in our society that people don't know what's legal and what's not(which is partially to be blame on the lawmakers, though). If I had to bet, I'd say both.

    • Re:What is it with US and the word "illegal" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lenins_beard ( 914874 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:56PM (#13670150)
      It's only "Legal Murder" and "Legal Robbery" if the state's doing it, but we use colorful euphemisms like "Capital Punishment" and "Eminent Domain"
      • It's only "Legal Murder" and "Legal Robbery" if the state's doing it, but we use colorful euphemisms like "Capital Punishment" and "Eminent Domain"

        But at least with eminent domain you get paid. A better example of "legal robbery" would be asset forfeiture laws related to drugs and the like, where the cops can take your car or your house, without ever even charging you for a crime -- all they need is a reasonable belief that such a crime is occuring in your house or car. Some cities even allow forfeiture o

    • Re:What is it with US and the word "illegal" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by lilmouse ( 310335 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:56PM (#13670154)
      Not exactly PR, but very close - and very good, too! Better to call it PP - public perceptions. The words you use can make a big impact. Get people to assosciate "file sharing" with "illegal" and half the battle's already won.

      Other examples of really good PP include the gambling giants getting it called "gaming" in the news - gaming has positive connotations; gambling is bad.

      Another interesting one was the battle over what to call the proposed Social Security funds a few months back. "Personal" retirement accounts sound good, so Bush&co were using that phrase extensively, even when news organizations were going with more neutral phrasing.

      Following mainstream US media news is generally not worth it. Much better to read the free newspapers going on about the evils of the Amerikkan Kon$umer Empire. At least there, there's no pretense of impartiality :-D

      --LWM
    • A lot of it is CYA. This is why the word "alleged" is so common when US news programs discuss police activity- it implies that the news is not making any judgement as to whether or not the suspect is guilty or innocent. If they used a stronger term in either direction they could be accused on failing to impartially present raw facts (this does happen sometimes- in Japan handcuffs on persons in custody must be blurred out, because they imply guilt).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • None of you get it (Score:4, Informative)

    by xeon4life ( 668430 ) <devin @ d e v i n t o r r es.com> on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:45PM (#13670008) Homepage Journal
    The poster was using sarcasm.

    That $380 million means it made the top 7 highest grossing films ever:
    7. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) $380,176,196

    Get it now?
  • When asked if there were plans to indict or sue any more of the people responsible for illegally sharing this movie, an RIAA spokesman was quoted as saying "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" [ytmnd.com]

  • Torrent, anyone? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Progman3K ( 515744 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:46PM (#13670029)
    I keed, I keed!
  • Is this in reference to the early release with the time codes on it?
    I can't believe anyone that wanted to see the film would have opted to watch that version. It had big time code numbers obscuring the screen. Even the adjusted versions that blurred out the areas where the timecodes had been were distracting.
    I admit I downloaded the preview images of those releases to see what was up but I plunked down my money and saw it in the theater.
    I actually meant to go back and see it again, but never got around to i
  • FTA:

    "In an unrelated case, Ronald Redding, 37, of Linthicum Heights, Md., was charged Tuesday with giving his copy of "Million Dollar Baby" to a friend. Redding faces a misdemeanor charge of willfully infringing a copyright by distributing the film."

    There's got to be a felony involved in there somewhere. Wanton distribution of Clint Eastwood? Willful spreading of mawkish sentimentality?

    Seriously, though, I like the way they imply that you can get arrested for giving away a copy of a DVD you finished wat

  • http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=150 [vgcats.com]

    I like the panel that says "part of my soul just died". Maybe this will explain the loss in profits :P

  • In an unrelated case.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vrv1 ( 867214 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:52PM (#13670109)
    Towards the bottom of the article:

    In an unrelated case, Ronald Redding, 37, of Linthicum Heights, Md., was charged Tuesday with giving his copy of "Million Dollar Baby" to a friend. Redding faces a misdemeanor charge of willfully infringing a copyright by distributing the film.

    Does this mean I cant lend a DVD that I buy legally to my friend?

    • Re:In an unrelated case.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by shark72 ( 702619 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @04:10PM (#13670339)

      "Does this mean I cant lend a DVD that I buy legally to my friend?"

      The way the article was written, I can see why you'd ask, but this version of the article dropped an important word: screener. The AP version of the article [yahoo.com] is more accurate:

      "Separately, the U.S. Attorney also charged Ronald Redding, 37, of Linthicum Heights, Maryland, with misdemeanor copyright infringement for giving away his "screener" copy of "Million Dollar Baby," which was sent to him for Academy Awards voting. He agreed to plead guilty, the U.S. Attorney said."

      Your rights to loan or resell your regular old DVDs have not been trampled upon.

  • "Won't someone PLEASE think of the film execs!?!?"

  • That's a start ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by legLess ( 127550 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @03:54PM (#13670126) Journal
    Nice start. Hopefully soon everyone else involved in the production and distribution of that awful thing will be spending time in the big house.
  • 380 MILLION

    The average person could have 1/380th of that, put it in the bank and live on it just about forever (with intrest). If I could earn that much for making a crappy film I'd be over the moon
  • I have a challenge for all of you guys who love to sneer about how Star Wars sucked and those of you that cheer for the pirates:

    Become a content producer yourself. You sure as shit seem to know a lot about it. Your knowledge is so deep that you ought to easily be able to write, finance, direct, and distribute a film that is more popular. Go for it! What's stopping you?

  • At the risk of getting my geek card burned... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Captain Sarcastic ( 109765 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @04:00PM (#13670218)
    ... I say "Good!"

    It wasn't their property to broadcast onto the internet. Whether their actions cost the studio $10 million in lost ticket sales or increased the the movie's profits by $10 million is irrelevant.

    These bozos committed theft, pure and simple. Throw the book at 'em.
    • *sarcasm*
      Yes! That's right! And lets just change the law so the penalty for jaywalking is a summary execution. So we should have a copy outside every school sniping kids who jaywalk. That way the only ones that survive will be the ones that obey the law without question
      */sarcasm*

      Man we are heading into a scary world that people think disproportionate punishment is acceptable.

      Also, copying something is not theft. Theft deprives the original owner of the property. If I steal your loaf of bread we don't both e

  • Proof of what likely caused the movie's loss. (Score:4)

    by kinglink ( 195330 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @04:00PM (#13670219)
    Episode 2 was released early a week early.. So by their logic every day it's released early loses them money right?

    So now math time, 320 Million for Episode II Episode 3 gets 380... so each day a movie is out costs 10 Million.

    So now let's apply that, there was a work print of boiler room I saw approximetly 6 monthes before it came out. By this math it's 1.2 Billion dollars that work print stole from that movie.

    Every time that the MPAA claims losses for early releases and stuff like that I laugh, because it's ridiculious, don't they realize that it's getting meantioned for free by news organization, it means the film is wanted, I had a copy of Episode 2 5 days before it's release, I didn't watch it, some of my friends did, we all went to a Midnight (technically illegal, but they still don't stop those?) showing the night before of the official release and we still payed the over inflated prices.

    Now let me show you true math, the effects of overblown hype.

    Matrix 1 171 Million was received as a great movie,
    Matrix 2 281 Million was received as meh.
    Matrix 3 139 Million

    So what do we see here? A great movie can overinflate the sequal by almost 200 percent. But a poor second movie will cut the profit of the hype by 50 percent or make the original numbers even lose money.

    Now which is more likely? Episode II's early release lost it money, or the fact that Episode one was received as pure crap costed them almost 100 Million? (episode I easily broke 400, for 430 Million gross in america

    And then Episode 2 was seen as a decent movie (not great so it's not going to double the money of the original) so 50 million MORE came in for episode 3?

    Now proof of how a good movie helps?
    Lotr Fellowship 315m
    LOTR Two Towers 340m
    LOTR Return 377m.

    So which do you think is it? piracy or the fact that a movie wasn't as good as the hype? I think these figures start to show you a different picture.

    And if anyone doubts this?

    Daredevil 105m
    Elektra 24m

    All data was obtained by IMDB, it's Box Office Gross in America only.

  • In regards to Ronald Redding (Score:3, Informative)

    by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @04:07PM (#13670309)
    Mentioned as having been brought up on a Misdemeanor for giving away a copy of Million Dollar Baby...

    I did a little Googling and found this Stuff article [stuff.co.nz] which talks about these cases. And, it appears, the article we were reading omits one vital word: Promotional. It was a promotional copy that he gave away, and in violation of a contract he had signed.

    So it's really nasty that they're going after him for this, since no one ever asks for promo copies back, but they're within their rights. And it's a totally different case than if he had just given away a copy of a retail DVD.

  • Misread (Score:3, Funny)

    by Hikaru79 ( 832891 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @04:27PM (#13670512) Homepage
    Aw, darn. When I first read the headline I thought that maybe George and the crew were finally being dealt with. Wishful thinking :(

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close