• Sickofcomplainers
    Now don't get me wrong, I'm not for stealing or piracy but I just find it funny how everyone is so offended by pirating. Before you get all insulted by people watching the movie before hand, find out the statistics on piracy. Did you know that due to the MPAA and the lawsuits producers are allowed to start that these companies like fox are actually making more money on the movie than they originally would have? Yes thats right. Wolverine may have been the exception because so many people downloaded it, but when a movie like iron man is released on DVD there are about 50,000 people who download it. When these producers win a lawsuit against these torrent site they win up to $10 million. Most copyright cases end up in millions in restitution. Well assuming those 50,00 people had all bought the dvd instead, that would result in 50,000 people * $20 a person = 1 million in sales - tax and disc costs = less than the companies win in lawsuits. So please shut up.
  • RightBrain
    I agree with "Mark" in a previous post: "I want quality.. i reward quality."

    In the days of vinyl you bought the quality albums, otherwise, you bought cheap singles.
    Later came cassettes. Again you bought or re-bought the quality (It doesn't matter who the artist is. Just what ever you consider "quality") and made home copies of the rest.
    Then came CD's. Again, I re-bought the quality and then I dowmoaded cheap (or free) of the rest.
    Same goes for movies. VHS came out, I bought the quality movies, dubbed the rest.) DVD came out, I bought the quality copied and downloaded the rest.
    My point is this. I feel I've paid my dues. Everytime a new technology becomes available, I am expected to re-buy my libraries. I don't mind buying and even re-buying quality, but buying crap is just a waste.
  • Roger Ebert
    I have also been one of many who have seen the leaked X-Men Wolverine movie.I have to say it had decent points but to say the least it is a total flop for comic,movie,and all around marvel fans.The way Deadpool was in the movie totally kills the way he was in the marvel universe.Weapon X1 was a cool villian but not Deadpool.If they change the story points for that and say it was a clone of Wade Wilson then it may pull back towards being good.I hate that hollywood can get their hands on things we love so dearly and ruin it. I think Fox/Marvel need to pull back big time and reevaluate the whole comicbook movie area.They can truly salvage this movie if they will push back the date and seriously do some reshoot and script work.I know they did some but I am really curious as to what those changes maybe.Please say its deadpool not being weapon X1 and deadpool actually being cloned to make him.Deadpoll is one one the coolest Marvel characters and it really pisses me off they gave him laser eyes,baraka blades,teleportation skills with no device and took away his way of speech.They basically killed everything he was about.So I say GO TO HELL AND BURN FOX/MARVEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • First of all, someone needs to show some concrete proof that downloading movies, results in reduced ticket sales.

    Personally i don't go to the theaters very often because of the price. I would rather pay 20 dollar a month to have netflix, and have movies delivered to my house.

    When i want to watch my favorite TV program, i watch it online. Illegal download? No i want it on nbc.com or abc.com with 5 minutes worth of commercials instead of 20 minutes worth if i watched in on TV.

    I download music, because i cant afford to buy the albums of the 600 artists i am now a fan of. I buy CD's and go to concerts because i was able to learn about new music instead of listening the commercials and lack of quality on the radio. Because of my "sinning" i introduce music to many of my friends, who would have never known about them through commercial means.

    Lets face it.. we get crappy products because the industry, both movie and music, fills their products with crap and advertisements. I cant even watch a DVD or go to the theater without watching TV advertisements for television programs. I cant even skip to the main menu of a DVD, because i have to watch previews to other movies.

    I also watch movies and TV shoes on Hulu. I tell my friends about my favorite shows, i put articles and links on my website.

    For the same reason nobody wants to pay a for a newspaper, i don't want to pay for an over priced movie or album. I want quality.. i reward quality.

    So the little guys are being hurt, not by evil pirates, but by the commercialized industry that recycles the same old garbage year after year. The internet is what is keeping the industry alive. Money is being made left and right, but they simply just take a bigger slice of the pie.

    So they can complain about illegal downloads all they want. Without the internet, the good and the bad that comes with it, nobody would watch movies or listen to music. The times are changing people, time for everyone to face reality and adapt.
  • MarcusFenix09
    After watching the movie at the cinema, I wish i would have illegally downloaded it.
  • Yep.. it seems pretty simple indeed. Just like following the speed limit!

    Yet somehow, it never ends up that simple. Having been a "packet sniffer," I get what you're saying. Yet... someone will screw it up and complicate the system.

    Bruce
  • Dan
    I agree re: deterrence, have it there, will discourage some folks, but it won't do much.

    And we agree that a significant percentage of society views this as not a big deal. Not surprising, most folks don't have a dog in this fight, and its hard to feel bad for the symbols of Hollywood (overpaid performers). But the studio does care, and a lot of other people are affected, people who's yearly income isn't measured in millions.

    But we'll have to agree to disagree on controls. Right now they are trying inadequate things, references to safes and sign out sheets, saber rattling. It won't cost a dollar to go through the communications methods at these companies and determine whether any monitoring safeguards are in place for each method. The safeguards themselves (e-mail appliance, web filter, firewall, end point DLP) could cost less then $100,000. Add a competent security guy to work for the studio and check out all the vendors, do the monitoring another $100,000.

    The movie has been downloaded at least 1mm times so far, so at $7 a ticket that's $7mm in lost revenue (low side estimate doesn't include all downloads, DVD dist., etc.).

    A couple hundred grand spread out over all those ticket prices, and cost cost passed on to each movie goer isn't even a penny.

    Thanks for the response, made me think.
  • Hey Dan,

    Deterrence is moot these days, since laws are inadequately backed to enforce.

    And the proper measures, are so cost prohibitive to the end movie viewer that they are probably not worth it because the cost to do so many layers of transfer monitoring would be passed to us.

    As we've seen from comments above, to most, this "event" is an acceptable practice.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have to head down to my local grocery store and snag a bottle of ketchup to "try" before I buy one.
  • Dan
    We published some thoughts on preventing this from happening in the future. Obviously Hollywood can't sustain this type of leak.

    Deterrence is fine, but Hollywood, the recording industry, and everybody else have to start approaching this from a new angle, because deterrence alone is ineffective.

    http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2009/05/w...
  • DarthMalnu
    I'm having a hard time deciding whether art is dead, or thriving more than ever in the age of "computers = everyone can do anything". This also links to the age old conundrum if art should even have a price. I've always felt wrong about charging someone for my irresistable creative expression, but on the other hand if I could make a living off of my art, then I can focus and hone it into something even greater than my expectations. Since the dawning of television, the problem has come down to one thing: fame. Since people no longer need to leave their homes for entertainment you have to be famous enough for them to care. Which means you have to be famous enough for other people to invest their money in you. Internet downloading has done wonders for the struggling unknowns, and therefore art in the common man is finally taking steps forward. However, some people make their living by being a name and a face, and that has to be respected as well. I didn't go through three grueling years of theatre school to be a millionaire, but I would like my art to be seen by the terms I intended, and to either be respected or ignored. Nobody has the right to say "I took it cause it costs too much". If you want a movie that was intended to be watched through the internet, make one. I am making it my goal in life to not raise my kid as one of these internet brats... I don't care if he shoplifts or holds up a liquor store... but man, people put their souls into these performances... I guess people who don't act or make films don't really understand.

    ....sorry, just a rant I had to put somewhere other than my head.
  • Ken J
  • Ken J
    Oh yes, the internet only exists for the sake of piracy... right...

    We all know the internet is for pron... :-D
  • noidninja
    The Movie Industry and the MPAA will continue to bemoan their poor fates and how much money all these poor A+ actors are losing, and the people who are involved in making the actual movies (Don't worry about them, they've got Unions) at the same time continuing to bury their heads in the sand and deny the internet exists for anything but piracy. Did online music destroy the poor bedraggled music industry? Hardly. Millions upon Millions of people buy music legally from Itunes and other services. People don't want to spend money on gas, ever-increasing ticket prices for ever-worsening movies, exorbitant rates such as 5 dollars for a 50 cent box of candy, and so on, in a crowded theatre, full of screaming babies, and ruckus teenagers snickering every other minute while you try to watch a film. Get with it, movie industry! Itunes, Rhapsody, Hulu, etc., etc. They've got the right idea. They're making money! Why aren't you? Someone get some baby wipes. I smell some rear-ends that need to be cleaned and some tears that need to by dried up.
  • Ken J
    Yah, good thing they did, Half Life 2 is truley a masterpiece and you can tell those developers put all their heart and effort into it. just play it with commentary mode turned on and you will realize that at EVERY turn, they put everything into consideration before they designed an inch of this game. They considered where the player will most likely focus their attention at any given moment to perfectly place where things will happen or where the next passage would be, they considered how the other characters' reactions would affect how you interpret the next part, they consider what sounds to put where and when you reach where so you don't get distracted when you don't need to but at the same time get the full story, etc. etc. etc. So to steal that game is a real insult to people who really care about giving quality entertainment to their consumers.

    I can't wait for Half Life 2: Episode 3, which I will BUY, even preorder.

    Funny thing, the developer has come out and said that they realized they've made a big mistake with the naming of the episodic content. They should be called Half Life 3: Episode 1, 2, and 3, not Half Life 2: Episode 1, 2, and 3, since they are episodes of Half Life 3, not 2, lol. But it's too late to change it now, lol.
  • Jack Brown
    Holy cow! I never knew they caught the guy. That's really interesting. Thank you for the information.
  • Ken J
    Once a criminal always a criminal.
  • You're on the money Ken J:

    The Half Life 2 hacker was Axel Gembe, of Schonau, Germany.

    They tried to get him to the U.S. by offering him a job, and hence a job interview... but he didn't take the bait. (This after he sent an email bragging about his stunt. I wonder if he's related to Friedman?)

    He was put on probation in Germany for the crime, but the U.S. couldn't touch him because he never came to U.S. soil.

    Old habits never die. Gembe is now under the legal spotlight again for his part in a massive 2003 denial of service attack and folk are wondering if this time, he's going to be extradited.

    LOL.
  • Ken J
    Actually Jack, unless I'm remembering something completely different, they DID catch the hacker that leaked Half Life 2. It was some guy in Germany. I read that they pretended to be interested in hiring him as their IT security guy to lure him to a meeting so they can arrest him, but German authorities found out about it and arrested him themselves instead of letting our FBI get him. That's what I read about that, not sure if it's correct or not...
  • Jack Brown
    I'm done talking about infringement, etc. because I think people are talking about different things at this point. I know I was, so anyway.

    Have they figured out how this was leaked? Was it an insider or was it a case of intrusion?

    I don't know if anybody remembers, but Valve Software's game "Half-Life 2" was leaked, and after investigation of what many had assumed was an inside job, they found an improperly configured IIS server had been rooted and the game build had been copied by an outsider. The hacker was never caught, IIRC.

    I wonder what the source of the workprint leak will turn out to be.
  • Ugh. Please don't bring Dawkins into this.

    Vic
  • handsoma
    @Joe:

    Can't say I agree with that. Right and wrong may be decided upon by society within the atmosphere of their every day experiences and interactions, but such a consensus should never govern the end result. Questions of morality get highly complex and should be vigorously scrutinized the greater this acceptance becomes.

    @Bruce:

    I won't argue with you on the tracking part, perhaps more so because I couple it with the verification of the crime as it were. As to the cost effectiveness: I should have just made that my thesis, because I agree it is a money thing.. though isn't everything?

    I do maintain, however, that illegal downloading can't and won't be stopped. I say this purely from understanding the voracity of the public and the adaptive and creative nature of those who will always seek to circumvent the system.

    As to your comments on morality: fear not! and don't be gloomy! What you say is actually a debate of moral relativism vs. universal moral truths.. a topic that isn't going to be slain or solved in discussing the publics penchant for victimless crimes - in this case downloading a movie on the internet.

    So you're not a lumbering, depressed dinosaur, good sir! Richard Dawkins actually discusses the evolution of the moral zeitgeist quite well, and despite how glum things may appear, the moral zeitgeist is flowering and trudging forward with all the vim and vigor it should.. just not when it comes to movies / music / software and all the other free goodies on display in this bizarre bazaar know as the "net".
  • JOE:

    That is more the truth of it. Momentum of what people do dictates the outline of acceptance.

    Here's a fascinating take on the momentum of society: A friend of mine had an accident. He was the 2nd car through an intersection under the green light and he got center punched by a speeding car and my friend took out two other cars. In the end, while he was still in the hospital, he learned that the accident was deemed his fault.

    Why? He went through the green light when it was not safe to do so, hence the a**h*** who ran the light got off. Eff me.

    That kind of society is what's developing here. I'm not arguing it. When those who do "wrong" create the momentum of a premise, well then, what can we say. It is what it is.

    (I have to quote the word wrong... it's a loosely defined term as this conversation is defining perspectives.)

    ---

    HANDSOMA

    "harder to track effectively or legally"

    It's not harder to track. Just harder to prove, or not cost effective.

    Sadly, it is preventable. I work within a system that has incredibly inscrutible controls and the data we handle will NEVER get out of our multi-user network BUT, the costs of creating such a system would be stupid by industry standards, not to mention tacked on to what we already pay. I don't think they'd dare.

    Two words? Special Feature... oh crap!!! I've been saying them so fast, I thought it was one big happy word!

    ---

    So then I question the statement, NOT YOU HANDSOMA, but if one considers themselves moral, except in certain moments, then do most consider the state of being moral a part time endeavor where partial credit counts for the overall scheme?

    I see where you're coming from. I do.

    So the moral person is a dinosaur that is going extinct as the temptations on the Internet create an environment of "ease of use". Egads, are we going back to the day of "the apple"?

    This is somewhat depressing. But then, it seems, I'm a lumbering, depressed dinosaur.
  • Manowar
    @ Handsoma

    I coulnd't have said it any better...

    And I totally agree with your last sentence. I hate DVD's that have crappy special features or none at all. Better off just buying a pirated version.

    The movie industry has been milking the public for years. Paying 20 million per quality actor per film!!! Why not pay all actors 50-75% less and drop the cost of movie prices and DvD's?

    If prices were fair, there would be very little piracy. Hence, the extent of piracy is directly proportionate to the Movie industry's greed.

    FYI, I own over 400 DVD's and maybe only 5% are burnt copies.
  • handsoma
    This is my first time to this site, I meandered here through a few google searches of the "Wolverine" leak controversy that I just heard about. I see this thread on "Piracy" and I would like to contribute to the conversation:

    Now I think someone pointed this out, but I will again: downloading music/movies/etc is not theft, it is copyright infringement and that is what you'd be charged for. If tracked, the enforcement agencies on this issue (MPAA and other watchdog groups) send letters to the isp of the person involved and it goes from there.

    When you consider the nature of the beast you quickly realise that piracy can't be stopped and won't be. Torrents and other technologies are making it easier to do and harder to track effectively or legally. Who's willing to throw the money at a real campaign to prevent this? Tax payers? Not a chance. It is unpreventable and the movie industry has to adapt to it or live with it. Not to mention that teenage kids will easily push the technology and methodology to supercede any actions taken against piracy.

    So we come down to the moral question. Some people here are vehmently opposed to those who download, others mildly supportive, some indifferent. You have to consider some who download WILL go watch in theatres and/or purchase the dvd. Some will download and watch the movie who would otherwise never bother to see it or rent it. The latter of the two is something to consider - I admit I have downloaded or have watched downloaded movies - but the closest theatre to me is 4 hours away. I've seen and enjoyed countless movies that I would otherwise have never glimpsed. Do I feel bad about it? Honestly no, and I have never really considered it a "moral conundrum" shall we say, but I am otherwise a moral person. Judge me if you like. Let me say this though, I DO buy DVDs of movies I like (usually after having downloaded) - why? Two Words that I think can be, and have been to some degree, the movie industries counter-balance to piracy: Special Features.
  • Joe
    I just skimmed through these posts and I see that some people seem to think that "just because everyone is doing it, doesn't make it right". I say this is false, what is right and wrong is decided by society, so if everybody is doing it then it is right.
  • greenknight333
    @ Walwus

    I AM CALM !!!! :) ..no veins throbbing mecilessly in my forehead but I was mumbling a few four letter words :) ...kind of like the Dad in A Christman Story..I tend to take it a little personally when people generalize about who and what people do sitting behind thier keyborads at home. Your post never came across as a joke in the least. That's one of the problems with posts on threads like this. Unless the humour is obvious it can be horribly missed. Thanks for the complement on the language...er.. I think..unless you were being sarcastic..Nver let fear and common sense stop you from responding to posts on ethically charged threads like this one..

    Cheers
  • John "Kahless" Taylor
    Well guys, I just did a google search on:

    copyright laws downloading

    The first link took me right there. I sure hope this settles this argument.
  • Ken J
    @walwus, it's actually very easy to track downloaders. The problem lies in the fact that it costs the government money to prosecute people, so they typically ignore the individuals downloading and focus on the "big fish" like people constantly sharing large numbers of movies and other illegal files. My friend was one of them and she was actually arrested and prosecuted for it. But it was because not only did she download a lot, but she kept them on her shared folder so they were constantly being uploaded.
  • Walwus:

    Actually, it's incredibly easy to track downloaders. I managed a network for several years, and the amount of logs and other tracking services in place is nuts. But everything you do leaves a glowing trail to packet sniffers to follow.

    The problem is proving.

    A college student was found guilty of downloading copyrighted content, but the appeal won out because they could not prove that she was at her computer when the material was downloaded to her personal computer.

    Eh...

    So remember, you weren't at your computer when your computer downloaded "stuff" and you'll be just fine! On the other hand, there are those (On other sites) that out and out admitted to DL'ing it. Not sure how that would play out.

    I seriously doubt they'll go after the downloaders. The bigger issue is the person responsible for uploading it. That person, who was in a trusted position in the chain of processes, needs to ... well, you get where I'm going.
  • Walwus
    Good grief John, how in the world did you find that? I too searched their website for a couple of hours and it was just too convoluted to make heads or tails of anything. When presented with different information such as yours, I have no choice but to agree with you. I’m not a pig headed fool and have stated many times to show me the law, which you have done nicely. I find it humorous though that the question on their FAQ is a simple yes or no and they use several sentences and never use the words “Yes” or “No”. Only with our government lol.

    However, there has not been a court case brought against the downloader, only the uploader or sharer. This is possibly because it’s too difficult, time consuming and expensive to track down the downloader.
blog comments powered by Disqus