The Wolverine Movie Leak: Truth And Consequences
Apr 2, 2009 by Bruce SimmonsThink there are no consequences to downloading movies illegally? Think again.
Just in case you had’nt heard, on the eve of April Fools Day a workprint of X-Men Origins: Wolverine found its way to the internet and hundreds of thousands of downloads occurred before 20th Century Fox could stop it. Though at first one might think “So what?” – there’s more at stake than just having a flick run free on the internet prior to its official release date.
When I first saw this, I held back. It was April Fool’s day. But as the hours passed, so did the proof that this was indeed real.
I shook my head in disbelief.
How Can A Movie Get Leaked?
Does that really matter? There are so many different people that handle a DVD of a movie in post-production before it hits the theaters, it’s amazing we don’t see this more often.
With the number of folk who have access to a post-production version of a movie, when do the necessary additional security measures kick in that studios may have to take? Will those measures cost us, the fan, more in the end?
Sure we might grumble at the studios, but who is really to blame?
Have You Thought About the Little Guy?
I suppose that for some, the idea of seeing a movie before it’s actually released to the public is some sort of thrill (or something). While these folks gloat about having seen a film early (and illegally), I’m sure they don’t think about the impact their cumulative actions have on others.
The “others” are those people who put in 10 to 14 hour days over the course of a couple of years creating a movie. The “others” are also the second tier people who depend on a film to be released for their livelihoods… Movie theater owners/employees, for example.
For all these people, an advance pirate copy that makes it online dilutes the hard work they’ve put into something, and takes away from the “event” status of a big blockbuster release date. A release date that has had many countless hours of effort put towards deciding how to best present the culmination of all that hard work.
As this travesty went viral, Twitter.com was aflame with people stating that the Wolverine movie had found its way to the internet.
Some cheered at the travesty thrust upon Fox. I get where you’re coming from. Fox sure doesn’t have the best track record in how they’ve handled some franchises or other matters. But if you think this through, it’s just not Fox that gets hurt. It’s shameful to ponder the idea that we might really wish harm on a person’s livelihood.
So the buzz lit up big time.
Shortly thereafter folks were out there boasting about having grabbed some popcorn and sitting down to watch their newly stolen digital media.
Yes… I Said Stolen
If you go to the trouble of hunting down what you know is an illegal copy of the film, you knowingly stole it. And don’t tell me you didn’t know. To add insult to thievery, some of you were stupid enough to brag about it on various social networking sites. Good for you! Now at least if Fox and the FBI decide to pursue this legal issue to that level, you’ve made it very easy for them to find you. Even if you didn’t brag about it, you left a digital trail to the torrent files and subsequent activity is clear as day to the packet sniffers.
As it stands, the copy of the film that made its way online did not have the majority of its visual effects complete, had missing scenes and a temporary audio/music track. So I’m sure that made for an AWESOME viewing experience.
Some Actually Posted Reviews
To further implicate yourselves, you then thought you would be super cool and leave your reviews and opinions on what you saw on various bulletin boards and websites. Most website admins removed your misbegotten opinions, choosing instead to take the high road regarding this scenario. Good for them.
Fox stated in a press release on April 1st that the FBI and the MPAA are actively investigating this crime and that:
“The source of the initial leak and any subsequent postings will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
Oh yes. This little stunt can lead to some jail time. I have a feeling someone may find themselves with some new best friends fairly soon.
When All Is Said And Done
It seems that it may be pretty easy to track down who did this. Maybe instead of firing him or her, the studio should garnish their wages for all eternity for profits lost.
If you think it really doesn’t hurt studios, think of this: Eli Roth didn’t release Hostel: Part II in Mexico because it was already leaked there and you could buy it for twenty-five cents. What was the point of opening there then?
You think that if you alone “stole” a movie, who would it hurt? It adds up. One of my favorite examples of adding up is an article I wrote about saving electricity. If every light switch wielding person (estimated 211 million – it’s just a ball park for this example) in the U.S. left a light bulb burning in an empty room for only 5 minutes, as a collective, that adds up to around 2,000 years of wasted energy. It all adds up and we can make a difference.
In closing, Fox said this:
“We are encouraged by the support of fansites condemning piracy and this illegal posting and pointing out that such theft undermines the enormous efforts of the filmmakers and actors and, above all, hurts fans of the film”
We at Screen Rant will never support this kind of behavior and we will not tolerate anyone posting their own review or experience in the comments.
‘Nuff said?
Source: BBC News
Around the web:
Loading ...
Do you guys remember that the internet used to be a pay per minute thing here?? Remember the “750 free minute trial!” days? lol
@ Ken J, did it really use to be like that? I’m just a sophmore in college so i don’t remember that far back.
“What? So theft is justified if it’s just “digital?” Theft is theft”
@ greenknight333
There are plenty of posts advocating that “stealing is stealing no matter what”. My post simply aimed to point out that this mentality makes it impossible to discuss this topic with an open mind. I’m glad I was effective, in that many others see that taking an ideological stance on theft is ignorant and counterproductive.
“We are not all fat, lazy and wasteful”
I never said you were dude; it’s statistically speaking and unfortunate but true ever the same. Cultural conditioning effects ideologies. Also…. Uh… I live in North America….
@ Bruce Simmons
You definitely missed my points, sorry for not making them clearer. I’m simply saying that having an absolute mindset about any topic makes for a poor discussion and view of an issue. I was simply pointing out that “stealing is stealing is stealing” is a ridiculous perspective. Self protection is human nature.
“Man, I’m betting ‘terse’ is not a nickname you’ve garnered over the years!”
You had me rolling, I’m sorry Screen ‘rant’ but I’ve been in essay writing mode all month. I’ve had to push out 2-3 essays a week. It is ridiculous!
@ Vic
“we’re talking about freaking ENTERTAINMENT here as greenknight pointed out, not life and death issues.”
Exactly…. My point…. Glad we agree that there are different circumstances and that applying an ideological viewpoint to all of them is naïve (“Theft is theft”).
“As to dropping $12 on a quality movie, there are TONS of reviews easily available online before you decide to go, or you can wait a few days and depend on word of mouth both from people you know and online.”
When did I ever say otherwise? Still…. a good or bad review is subjective just like I said. Art is subjective. “Good” is an opinion. Same goes for a friend’s opinion.
“Your argument there also falls apart because a lot of people FLOCK to see crap movies, even after opening weekend -if that’s your validation then maybe all these so-called pirates should…”
When did I say that was my validation? And that only BUILDS my argument because my point was that people are drawn in by exciting previews and then disappointed. Big Blockbuster Films with good marketing can draw in a crowd even is the actual film is mediocre. At the same time, a good film, with mediocre marketing can draw in a crowd and perpetuate its stay at the box office. A good recent example: ‘Taken’.
My validation is to watch a preview twice. The second time trying to pick it apart, ignoring the dramatic music, fancy editing and the like and try to discern if there is really any quality in there. It’s getting much harder nowadays. But just because the mass majority likes a film doesn’t mean you will and the opposite is true. Just because your friends like a film doesn’t mean you will and of course the opposite is true. Subjectivity.
You have to see for yourself but where I think many people get upset at is that you can’t even gauge the true nature, tone, quality or anything for a movie from the previews half the time. They are totally misleading in a lot of cases. Because of that people are saying “screw it, I’ll download it and if it’s good I’ll go see it.”
‘Wolverine’ looks beautiful – ignoring this Deadpool mess – it looks like everything it should be but what do I make that assumption from? You guessed it, the preview. I cannot wait to sit in the theater and experience Wolverine and Sabertooth ‘done right’, with the likes of Gambit & Deadpool thrown in. It appears to have a good story, tone, director, quality action sequences and anything else I could expect from a multi-million dollar silver screen incarnation of one of my favorite comic book characters – but there is no guarantee. If I go to the theater and this movie sucks I will be appalled. I think a lot of people are tired of being disgusted, mislead and let down. That’s my argument and I don’t see how it falls apart.
@ zibe
“Personally I think that High Kalibur has made the most since so far.”
Thanks! Glad I made sense to someone!
“Now I understand that there are some who think they are being done an injustice by the entertainment industry. If want to make an impact don’t buy it, but don’t steal it either. Criminals have very little credibility when it comes to making a difference.”
Good point.
@ TheDragon
You also have very good points.
No business model is immortal, capitalism or more accurately, the quasi-free market economy that we have demands that products change to meet consumer demand. Cinema is changing too slowly but I don’t see how that warrants stealing.
@ Jeff
“@ HK, very well thought out comment. I know i have stated i have downloaded movies before and i know that instantly creates a rift between many of us. However, you analysis was spot on. There are indeed two types of pirates. Great debate going on here, i think this is a debate that will be going on for years to come.”
Thanks man. This definitely is an intriguing topic.
@ Bruce Simmons / Vic / Screenrant
This is by far the most productive discussion I have witnessed on SR. Just a though but would it be possible to create a forum on this website…..? I’m sure there are plenty of other posters who would have good points and similar topics to discuss….?
For all you who D/L’D Wolverine: BE THERE APRIL 29TH BUB! *SKINT*
Yah, it was retarded, and it was dial up back then too, so you can’t talk on the phone when you’re online. People complain that they’ve been trying to call and it’s always busy, lol. It was slow, and also very unreliable. Getting kicked off the internet was VERY common. The worst was AOL. If you used AOL, the “goodbye, goodbye” audio clip it plays when you get signed off becomes ingrained in your head. I swear I heard “goodbye, goodbye” while I dreamt, lol.
And yah, it was pay per minute, so it gets pretty expensive if you wanted to be online for a long time. And everything took a long time to load since it was only 28.8kbps or later it was 56kbps. Yes, I used to use it at 28.8, and I even remember when it was 14.4kbps. Now we are up to 3Mbps t12Mbps… lol.
I just kept using AOL’s free minute trials, cancelled it when my minutes were up, then signed up again with a new trial, lol. I paid for the per minute stuff every now and then when I didn’t have any free trial discs on hand, and it isn’t worth it. And even the monthly plans had minute caps of usage, so you had to make sure not to use it more than that every month or you paid extra. I personally liked MSN’s service the most out of all of the dial up services I used. Now MSN is just a web portal and messenger, back in the day it was a full fledged online service provider, lol.
Oops, forgot to say @ Jeff for that last comment. He asked about internet.
For all those who think its OK to download the Wolerine film,
I have a question .
If you downloaded the film
Would you be willing to tell Fox that you have done so ?
Would you leave your Name,Phone Number and address?
If its truly OK to do this ,
Then if you confess NOTHING will happen.
RIGHT?
I just can’t wait until a major movie has the cajones to release a movie simultaneously on all formats. There are a couple movies that released the DVD the same day as the theatrical release, but I can’t be too sure of the results since the movies weren’t buzzworthy enough to make a difference.
It’s a far cry, but I’m guessing movies will go the way of music, where they will be released on all formats simultaneously, but you will have to pay for the high quality version (i.e., the most incentives will be put to the theatrical version). Why not sell the DVD right at the theater when you come out so you can take it home with you then? If people liked the movie, they would buy a copy to take home with them. Either that or pay for the high-quality home version over the internet.
If Fox had intentionally leaked this, they would have leaked a poor quality but finished version. I believe it was an inside job, but not intentional to create hype.
Regardless of the quality of the leak, I am an intelligent enough movie-watcher to know not to make judgments on something that I know isn’t finished, and I’d still anticipate seeing the final version (on any format) to see how good of a job they did in finishing it. Most of the unfinished shots/deleted scenes end up on a DVD as bonus material anyway. To me, it doesn’t matter when I’m aware of the behind-the-scenes magic.
If a magician told me how he did his trick before he performed it instead of after, my attention would just be focused on how well the magician fooled everyone. I know it’s an illusion, but knowing how it was done does not distort my picture of the original illusion. I just see it from a different perspective, and yet I’m still entertained at how well the magician kept it an illusion.
@ Ken, it’s crazy to think that we’ve come that far. I can’t imagine what it’d be like to have that as your internet, especially with the speeds we have today and getting so used to having those speeds.
@ Gary, downloaders would never do something like that. They love the anonymity of the internets and feel it’s a faceless victim less crime.
@Scotty, the day a movie company decides to release a DVD the same day as the theatrical, will be an interesting day. And i agree with your comment about the finished product, while it’d be cool to see the movie without the effects, you miss a good portion of the movie these days. It just wouldn’t feel so complete without the missing effects. But some people will do anything to see a movie early.
@Scotty
The day they do concurrent releases will be the beginning of the end for movie theaters IMHO. Personally I’d jump at the chance to see a movie on opening day in my own home on my 60″ HDTV and surround sound, where I can control the volume, no people will be talking that I have to shush, etc.
Vic
Vic @ ATM Machine argument, if dollar bills flied away on a breeze from the machine about, say, a mile away, and you saw it on the ground, would you pick it up and keep it? Of course you would. Hey, finders keepers, right?
The thing is, most people feel that downloading a movie like that won’t hurt anybody in the long run especially if the movie is good, because if they like it, they will still go see it at the theater in the end.
The real douches are the ones who do it because they want to spoil people, etc. or make a profit from it – and yes, the people who distributed it in the first place. And guys like that Fox News reporter who wrote about it.
@Phil
That’s not a valid extension of my analogy. The argument has been made repeatedly that the availability of the technology makes it OK. So the person would be standing near the ATM waiting for the money to come out specifically because they knew it was malfunctioning.
People aren’t mistakenly stumbling upon some website while NOT looking for movie downloads, suddenly finding the movie downloading onto their PC. They’re going out of there way to seek this out, as in my analogy.
Vic
@Jeff
Strange thing is with all of the attention given to the speeds, the thing that makes the most difference between the internet then and now is how it’s always on without needing to dial-up and taking up the phone line.
Of course you notice the speed difference while downloading stuff, but while “surfing” not so much since content back then was much thinner. Meaning websites typically had very few pictures, all of this java and flash stuff was not popular, so you were able to surf around without much of a problem. Well, with a “good” dial up connection. Even if you have a 56kbps modem and a 56kbps internet account, sometimes you dial in and will get connected at much lower speeds. So yah, that was kind of a pain too, disconnecting and reconnecting if you get a bad connection, lol. Oh, and sometimes when you try to dial in, it’ll be busy, lmao.
Yah, it was pretty ridiculous. People take internet for granted now-a-days.
The movie “Bubble” was released on multiple formats simultaneously.
Some interesting points here:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-01-18-bubble-theater-threat_x.htm
They’ve even done research on the idea:
http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6420014.html?nid=2705
Folks, this stuff is already underway:
http://ppx.popsci.com/security/view.php?symbol=SIMULEASE
Bottom line is that theaters are going to take the most damage in all this, not the studios, so cinemas need to seriously step up their game to make the theater experience more appealing to a broader audience. I agree that 3-D is a step in this direction.
@vic RE: book theft
Haven’t you ever borrowed a book from a friend? Is that theft? It will likely result in a direct loss of sales for the publisher considering you’ve already read the book, why buy it?
I’m really sick of people calling this theft. Downloading a digital copy of a film is more aligned with someone making a copy of something for a friend, or loaning something to a friend than theft. We just have a much larger pool of friends with the internet.
Think about it this way. If a friend has a book that you want to read, and they let you borrow that book, should they be prosecuted as a distribution channel?
The biggest pain to me is not how slowly hollywood is adapting their business model to the digital age, but how outwardly resistant they are to changing to the degree that they need to in order to succeed in a market that has left them behind.
No matter what steps are taken in an attempt to prevent this from happening, it’s going to happen. There will ALWAYS be this open channel of distribution for those that are interested in watching at home, and for free. Hollywood can either continue to blindly lash against a technology that their decision makers have proven time and time again they don’t understand, or they can modify their market strategy to monetize elsewhere, and BECOME the open channel of digital distribution.
Honestly, I think response would be significantly better if they embraced the latter. If they don’t at least come to a drastic compromise, we’ll watch the studios topple one by one.
downloading an illegal copy of a movie is all wrong plain simple whether your reason is by curiousity or trying to save movie ticket payments is not an excuse… If it Fox idea of making the movie getting more buzz, its a high gamble wherein hugh jackman will loss bigtime coz he put 10 years of his earnings to this one. right now hugh jackman can really relate to wolverine’s character coz i think he was betrayed here yet he dont know it was but in time, we will know. you know what im still watchin this movie on may not because of fox but because of mr jackman and the rest of the little people who sweat into this film…
@TheDragon
Borrowing a book, whether it’s from a friend or the library is done with their PERMISSION, bud. What is it about the difference between taking something without permission and with permission that you guys can’t seem to grasp???
Lend a book/DVD to a friend – the item has been PAID for.
Book from the library – library has PERMISSION to lend out the book.
Download a movie from a Torrent site – NO PERMISSION from the owner of the copyrighted material.
Talk about rationalization and denial. Seriously.
I’m not saying there SHOULDN’T be digital distribution of films. I’m just saying any time you “borrow” something without permission in the eyes of the law you are stealing that item. And I don’t buy the “it’s just a copy” rationale. Copyright law was created specifically for that situation – doesn’t matter if there’s no physical media (paper, disc) – it’s the intellectual property that is protected.
Vic
@Vic
So, you’re telling me that your friend that loans you the book or DVD has PERMISSION from the publisher to do so?
You’re wrong.
Do you understand that most digitally distributed media has been encoded from perfectly legal and legitimate copies? People buy them, rip them, and put them on the internet. So, since the original person BOUGHT the album or movie or whatever in the first place, does that make it LEGAL? Technically not.
No one EVER EVER EVER EVER is granted permission from the license holder to loan something out. Video rental places have to pay regularly, not just for acquisition of the media, but for a license to distribute.
So that means, that by your guidelines, loaning a book or DVD to a friend, is completely ILLEGAL and if you’ve ever done it, you should be treated as a criminal for distributing content you’re not allowed to distribute.
LOL, I appreciate the discussion, but I still disagree.
I purchased my copy of the DVD – I paid for ONE copy of the intellectual property of the owner. When I lend that to someone that single copy is now being viewed by someone else. There’s no duplication there – it’s still the single copy. Only the one copy can be viewed at a time and only the one copy is out there, limiting the number of people that can see it based on the single purchase.
I do see what you’re getting at, though.
Best regards,
Vic
@TheDragon, let me ask you this, when you sell a dvd on Ebay do you have to give a certain percentage back to the movie company? Your the owner of that single copy now. People who decide to rip and put music online are breaking the law because what they are doing now is creating more copies of that song. I could put a song on my iPod and let my friend borrow it to listen to that song, but i cant make a copy of the song and give it to him to put on his iPod. If Vic wanted to have a kick ass song playing in the background of his website he could do that as long as he bought the song, but if he put the song up to download that would be illegal
Ah,
The THEFT occurred when the uploader took the rough cut movie out of it’s controlled environment intentionally. That person is the one who stole it.
The technical crime is on the downloader for knowingly coming into possession of something you know is not only copyright protected, but is not due out for private consumption (purchase) for another few months.
The argument has been made repeatedly that the availability of the technology makes it OK.
Perhaps if someone is in possession of a nifty RFID receiver and they start snagging financial information from the guy next to them, is that OK? I mean, the technology is already there. It’s super super easy. Right?
I don’t mean to distract from the subject, but have you ever noticed you don’t own the software on your computer? It’s licensed to you. I’m not sure how ownership of DVD’s is viewed.
It’s a similar function of legality.
Then again, we need to focus on just that. The legality of it. A lot of laws can be construed in many fashions.
A lot of laws are not enforced. But they are used to “add insult to injury” when some perpetrator commits one crime… they suddenly find themselves facing multiple other technical charges in relation to the crime.
I think that’s where this legality truly comes into play. For now, the little guy is left to slide down his own path.
I see it all the time. A co-worker of mine seems to live by steal and let steal and I am not sure just how much software, music or movies in his possession are really his, IE: That he purchased. He permeates his existence with this behavioral pattern. He tried borrowing a few music CD’s from me and I’m like, ah, no. I don’t approve of how he comes into “ownership” and I won’t contribute to it either.
So while we argue who’s in trouble, who’s in the wrong, the obvious issue here is the massively different moral scales people employ in their day to day lives.
But for those who take that which isn’t theirs, are you OK with someone else taking something of yours in the process?
My core truth about this, FOR ME, is I don’t steal and I’ve been told by various factions that taking something without paying for it, is stealing. But then again, I’m old school, and I consider myself to live by a certain code of honor.
But that’s just me, and obviously, I could be wrong! But I thought I’d toss that out for digestion!
@Bruce
Yes, I’m 100% perfectly ok with that. I’m a programmer, and if I release a finished product, it’s either Creative Commons, GPL, WTFPL, or any number of other free distribution licenses.
So yes, I do practice what I preach.
Yes, but its your right to give it away for free. But Fox isnt giving away the movie for free. Lets say i got some of your software and started selling it myself, would that be cool with you?
Now it’s very clear that you have no idea whatsoever what the topic being discussed is, Oscar.
No one has had to pay for it. I DO agree that it’s wrong and illegal to profit on someone else’s work. Which is not up for debate in this case.
@TheDragon
What if instead of making it freeware, you depended on the sales of your software to pay your rent? And then found your application being given away for free online? Why would people pay you for that software if they could just download it for free?
Sure, you can say “support,” “updates,” etc., but don’t you think that having it online free would deprive you of sales? Wouldn’t that be an infringement on your intellectual property which you have a right to profit from?
Let the dead horse beating continue…
Vic
Same morals. And yes i do know what the topic about, more than you apparently. Fox holds the copyrights, do they seem like they are ok with the film being leaked?
@Oscar
Just stop. The question that had been posed was this: “But for those who take that which isn’t theirs, are you OK with someone else taking something of yours in the process?” Which I responded to, outlining that I do practice what I preach. Which went out to the profiting on someone else’s work argument. Which isn’t anywhere in this matter. No one is profiting on this. No one is claiming it as theirs, and it’s not the same morals at all. As you’ll find EVERYWHERE you look on this topic, paying for piracy defeats the point.
@Vic
Are you aware that Red hat Linux makes their entire profit from charging for support?
If you depend on your software to pay your rent, and the market doesn’t flow with your charge scheme, you either need to find a new day job, or find a way to make your software profitable.
Valve’s steam service, for example. Valve releases their games, and the games of several other companies through Steam. The most amazing games I’ve ever played have been games like Team Fortress 2, and Left4Dead. These two games are made valuable, and worth paying for by providing a solid online element. You can pirate these games, but you lose pretty much every important aspect of the game.
Again, I turn to my original argument. It is not the market’s job to bend to the corporation’s will, it’s the other way around. It is up to the movie studios to find ways to make their product profitable in a changed market. Anyone will tell you that vilifying your market, and hunting down your market and making them your enemy is bad business.
Again, it’s up to the owner of the property (Fox) to decide if it should be free or not, not the consumers…
@TheDragon lol, you dont seem to understand the god damn argument. The copyrights belong to Fox, Fox decides what to do with it, they dont want their fu*king movie being watched online. You keep giving examples of people giving away stuff for free including yourself, but thats up to you. ITS YOURS YOU GET TO DECIDE!!!!!! Just how you brought up people letting other people borrow their copies of books. Its not stealing because it is their property now. Damn what else do you want, a cookie?