Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Oscar Screener Copy of Movie Found Online

This is topic Oscar Screener Copy of Movie Found Online in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001014

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-13-2004, 11:10 AM:

Here's the link

Here's the text of the story...
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A copy of the romantic comedy "Something's Gotta Give" that was sent to an Oscar voter has surfaced on the Internet, prompting a probe by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Academy officials said Monday that they learned last week about the unauthorized online copy of the movie starring Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton, which ranked fifth in last weekend's box office tally.

The development was a setback for the anti-piracy campaign by the film industry and the academy. Last year, the academy banned the distribution of so-called "screener" DVDs and videotapes over concerns about bootlegging, but partly lifted the ban after complaints from filmmakers, producers and independent production companies.

The studios changed the policy in October to allow the shipment of encoded videocassettes to Academy Award voters only. A federal judge in December, however, granted a temporary injunction lifting the screener ban in a lawsuit brought by independent production companies, which argued the policy put them at a disadvantage for awards.

The studios then sent screeners to thousands of other awards voters, including groups such as the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the Screen Actors Guild and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which presents the Golden Globes.

The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that visible and hidden markings on the videocassette copy on the Internet identify it as the one sent to Carmine Caridi, a film and television actor who appeared in the "The Godfather: Part II" and television's "NYPD Blue."

The academy required its 5,803 eligible Oscar voters to sign forms promising to protect their screener tapes before they were received. About 80 percent of voters signed and returned the forms.

An excerpt of the form reads: "I agree not to allow the screeners to circulate outside of my residence or office. I agree not to allow them to be reproduced in any fashion, and not to sell them or to give them away at any time. ... I agree that a violation of this agreement will constitute grounds for my expulsion from the Academy and may also result in civil and criminal penalties."

The Times said Caridi, 69, couldn't be reached for comment. His telephone number is not listed.

Bruce Davis, the academy's executive director, declined to identify the Oscar member being investigated. Davis said a phone call was made to the member who said he would call back to explain the matter more fully, but the member never did. The academy has sent a letter seeking an explanation for how the screener copy wound up on the Internet, but has not received an answer.

Sony Pictures Entertainment, whose Columbia Pictures produced and distributed the movie, notified the academy last week about the online screener copy.

"We did everything we could to ensure the secure handling of all of our screeners sent to members of the academy," Sony spokesman Steve Elzer told the Times. "We are very concerned about this situation, and have turned over all relevant information to the academy."

Sony officials said they'll decide whether to pursue legal action once the academy's investigation is completed.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-13-2004, 12:48 PM:

So how is this a setback to the piracy efforts? Seems to me it's proof that screeners SHOULD be banned, for mainstream films at least.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 01-13-2004, 01:43 PM:

All they would do then is argue over what constitues a "mainstream" film. They should do it by how many prints have been released. Something like 500 prints or less they can send the screeners out to all the groups. Between 500 and 1000 prints, they can only send them to a select group. Some kind of compromise needs to be worked out.

I really hope that they fine this Carmine Caridi person and throw his ass out of the Acadey. That will sent out the right kind of message.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-13-2004, 01:58 PM:

quote:
I really hope that they fine this Carmine Caridi person and throw his ass out of the Acadey. That will sent out the right kind of message.

Well, whatever Valenti's goon squad does to this fellow will set the premise for everything to come. If the guy gets off even lightly, the anti-piracy effort will collapse.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-13-2004, 02:28 PM:

Agreed that they need to find and prosecute whoever pirated that tape (who may or may not be the intended recipient of it).

As I've said before, screener tapes are a dumb idea and I'm really surprised that anyone involved in production (directors, producers, etc.) would want Academy members to be viewing "films" at home on television instead of in a proper theatre or screening room. If Academy members are too lazy to go to proper screenings, they shouldn't be Academy members (or film critics, etc.).

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 01-13-2004, 03:32 PM:

quote:
If Academy members are too lazy to go to proper screenings, they shouldn't be Academy members (or film critics, etc.).

Absolutely!

I know I'd hate to have such a burdensome privilege. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Dino Panagiotopoulos (Member # 1579) on 01-13-2004, 04:43 PM:

Just like everyone has said, Screener tapes are a dumb idea and to me, along with inside jobs with film to DV transer, is probably the biggest cause of piracy in the US. Valenti wont admit that so they just turn around and blame the exhibitors for all the problems. Now that their brilliant idea of not banning these tapes has backfired, Id really like to see what their next steps are in the "War Against Piracy".

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-13-2004, 04:46 PM:

It wasn't entirely their idea to lift the ban, they did have some help from the federal courts.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-13-2004, 05:36 PM:

I just hope this development will wake up the MPAA and let them know the CRAP code they put on prints means nothing. The MPAA is just messing up the show for honest, paying customers.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-13-2004, 06:02 PM:

What I thought was pretty interesting was...

quote:
...visible and hidden markings on the videocassette copy on the Internet identify it as...

I know everyone here said the studios should start doing that with the screener videos... I didn't realize that they had. Apparently, neither did this bozo. Now we can only hope they make an example out of him.

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 01-13-2004, 06:49 PM:

Can someone explain the logic of inserting visible & hidden codes for ONE person per video, when they insert these huge bloody dots for thousands per print.
Why not insert a hidden idedtifier on 35mm. Every one will then be happy.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 01-13-2004, 08:08 PM:

The whole screener thing stinks. It is an honor to be allowed to vote, and if someone is not willing to go to a screening, he shouldn't vote.
Certainly it is better to identify the screener from which the copies/downloads were made than not, but what good will it do?

The damage done by putting a unreleased film to the net is so severe that only a handful of very, very rich academy members could be sued for enough money, and I do not believe any studio is going go through all the hassle. And if some veteran actor did it, what can they do - sentence him for life?

There are enough ways to avoid persecution, let's assume an academy member is offered a huge sum of money for his screener, and a burglary or theft can be staged. Nobody can accuse the person who was given the screener.
It's all ridiculous.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-13-2004, 09:38 PM:

Since all oscar nominees must be screened publicly in the LA area then it shouldn't be a big deal seeing it as intended in a theatre
Lets see we should judge the latest IMAX cinematography on a DVD hmmmm No wonder super35 productions clean up at the oscars [Frown]

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 01-14-2004, 08:30 AM:

They found another one. "The Last Samurai" is the latest film.

Here's the story:
Click Here

---------------------------------------------
LOS ANGELES - A second movie sent to Oscar voters has turned up on the Internet.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (news - web sites) announced the discovery of an unauthorized Internet copy of the Tom Cruise (news) film "The Last Samurai" on Tuesday, a day after announcing a probe into an unauthorized copy of "Something's Gotta Give," starring Diane Keaton (news) and Jack Nicholson (news).

Both Internet postings were setbacks for the anti-piracy campaign by the film industry, which has estimated that unauthorizied movie copying costs it $3.5 billion a year.

The Motion Picture Association of America, which represents studios, last year banned the distribution of so-called "screener" DVDs and videotapes over concerns about bootlegging, but it partly lifted the ban after complaints from filmmakers, producers and independent production companies.

The studios changed the policy in October to allow the shipment of encoded videocassettes to Academy Award voters only. Two months later, a federal judge granted a temporary injunction blocking the screener ban after independent production companies sued, arguing the policy put them at a disadvantage for awards.

The academy said that Warner Bros. had not identified a source of the Internet copy of "The Last Samurai." The movie, an East-West culture clash set in 19th century Japan, was in the top ten at the box office last week and has earned more than $97 million since it hit theaters last month.

Actor Carmine Caridi was identified by the Los Angeles Times as the intended recipient of the "Something's Gotta Give" copy that surfaced on the Internet last week. He declined comment to the newspaper.

Malcolm Cassell, Caridi's agent, said the 69-year-old "NYPD Blue" actor had hired an attorney and was "mightily embarrassed," though "vague and not forthcoming" when asked how a copy of the movie sent to him may have surfaced online.

The 5,803 Academy members eligible to vote this year were required to sign forms promising to protect their screener tapes. About 80 percent of them returned the forms, which include a stipulation that a violation is grounds for expulsion from the academy.

Academy members include actors, producers, directors and writers as well as public relations specialists, sound technicians and other industry executives, artists and craftspeople.

The Oscar nominations will be announced Jan. 27 and awards presented Feb. 29.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-14-2004, 12:07 PM:

quote:
The academy said that Warner Bros. had not identified a source of the Internet copy of "The Last Samurai."

And why not? To hell with hidden codes, these tapes should have had their name burned in over the picture plain as day.

quote:
About 80 percent of them returned the forms

And yet they sent the tapes anyway?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-14-2004, 12:31 PM:

quote:
Malcolm Cassell, Caridi's agent, said the 69-year-old "NYPD Blue" actor had hired an attorney and was "mightily embarrassed," though "vague and not forthcoming" when asked how a copy of the movie sent to him may have surfaced online.

Well there you have it right there. This 69-year-old guy probably said "I don't care about this comedy drivel, it's obviously not Oscar material" and gave the video to his computer-geek grandson, who decided to impress all his friends by putting the movie online. I'd bet money that this is very close to what happened, and Caridi hasn't got a clue, which is why he's being "vague."

Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 01-14-2004, 10:01 PM:

L.A. Times reported this morning The Last Samurai Oscar screener has also been leaked.

Posted by JC Cowles (Member # 914) on 01-15-2004, 02:46 AM:

I can't believe the studios didn't wisen up to this earlier. With a personal background in loss-prevention it is common knowledge that over 80% of theft happens within a company and it's related members. If I'm shocked about anything, its that more weren't caught.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-15-2004, 03:58 AM:

quote:
To hell with hidden codes, these tapes should have had their name burned in over the picture plain as day.

Couldn`t some info about the copy be put in the black bars? How easy would this be for an accomplished pirate to remove?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-15-2004, 08:59 AM:

quote:
To hell with hidden codes, these tapes should have had their name burned in over the picture plain as day.

I vote for both actually. And keep changing the hidden codes around. Keep the pirates on their toes. Now, how long before NATO or some such group comes back at the studios and says "OK, how about you relax these dumb ass rules you've imposed on us about only having a couple of hours to turn the print around when it comes in and goes out?"

And by the way, this just keeps getting better and better!
Link Here

Text of story:
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Two additional movies sent to Oscar voters have surfaced on the Internet, with a screener copy of "House of Sand and Fog" briefly up for sale on an auction site and "Cold Mountain" available for downloading, studios said.

Miramax said Wednesday it was looking into how an Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences screener copy of its Civil War epic "Cold Mountain" was posted on the Internet.

The actual videocassette copy of the grim drama "House of Sand and Fog" was up for sale on eBay before DreamWorks SKG contacted the site and asked that it be removed.

The Los Angeles Times reported that security features on the tape indicated that it belonged to Ivan Kruglak, an academy member and president of a wireless data communications company.

Kruglak told the newspaper he didn't know how a copy of his tape was posted for sale online, saying, "I firmly believe someone at the duplicating house made themselves a copy before the studio sent it to me."

Earlier in the week, the academy said copies of "Something's Gotta Give" and "The Last Samurai" had been posted online.

The Internet postings come after an anti-piracy campaign by the film industry, which has estimated that unauthorized movie copying costs it $3.5 billion a year. The 5,803 Academy members eligible to vote this year were required to sign forms promising to protect their screener tapes.

Oscar nominations will be announced Jan. 27 and awards will presented Feb. 29.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-15-2004, 01:15 PM:

...from Michael:

quote:
Couldn`t some info about the copy be put in the black bars? How easy would this be for an accomplished pirate to remove?

That would be in the "vertical interval", where such things as closed captioning and time codes are put. They might be doing that now; just not mentioning it specifically.

However, someone here please confirm... does running a tape through a time base corrector remove that information?

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-15-2004, 01:16 PM:

Can`t they just check with ebay who the seller was?

I meant plainly visible information in the black spaces - or get these reviewers "full screen" copies? - like "review copy 345-BQ" or something like that.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-15-2004, 01:16 PM:

Hopefully Ebay wouldn't give out the seller's information without a valid warrant or court order.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-15-2004, 01:19 PM:

Couldn`t they obtain a warrant for that?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-15-2004, 01:26 PM:

Probably, yes. My point was that Ebay shouldn't just give out information to anyone who asks. If a crime is suspected of being committed (piracy, etc.), then the matter should go through the proper legal channels.

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 01-15-2004, 07:14 PM:

Ah, but they can, and do, Scott, though apparently not to 'anyone'.

I quote from eBay's official privacy policy:

"Legal Requests. eBay cooperates with law enforcement inquiries, as well as other third parties to enforce laws, such as: intellectual property rights, fraud and other rights, to help protect you and the eBay community from bad actors. Therefore, in response to a verified request by law enforcement or other government officials relating to a criminal investigation or alleged illegal activity, we can (and you authorize us to) disclose your name, city, state, telephone number, email address, UserID history, fraud complaints, and bidding and listing history without a subpoena. Without limiting the above, in an effort to respect your privacy and our ability to keep the community free from bad actors, we will not otherwise disclose your personal information to law enforcement or other government officials without a subpoena, court order or substantially similar legal procedure, except when we believe in good faith that the disclosure of information is necessary to: prevent imminent physical harm or financial loss; or report suspected illegal activity. Further, we can (and you authorize us to) disclose your name, street address, city, state, zip code, country, phone number, email, and company name to eBay VeRO Program participants under confidentiality agreement, as we in our sole discretion believe necessary or appropriate in connection with an investigation of fraud, intellectual property infringement, piracy, or other unlawful activity.

Due to the existing regulatory environment, we cannot ensure that all of your private communications and other personal information will never be disclosed in ways not otherwise described in this Privacy Policy. By way of example (without limiting the foregoing), we may be forced to disclose personal information to the government or third parties under certain circumstances, third parties may unlawfully intercept or access transmissions or private communications, or users may abuse or misuse your personal information that they collect from the Site. Therefore, although we use industry standard practices to protect your privacy, we do not promise, and you should not expect, that your personal information or private communications will always remain private."

There is more detailed info in the Appendix to the Privacy Policy.

Ron Yost

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 01-15-2004, 09:11 PM:

I think that there should be a zero tolerance policy as far as these screening tapes showing up on the internet or Ebay. I am assuming that they send these things out by certified mail or currier. Once the person signs for them, they are responsible for anything that happens to it. If the tape is stolen than they will have to file a police report which of course means that if they lie, they can be charged with a crime. These people really need to be made into an example. [Mad]

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 01-15-2004, 09:15 PM:

Yes, running video through a frame sync will "proc" (replace) sync, blanking, and color burst. I have seen "data" placed into the first few lines of active picture, which would not be replaced by the frame sync, but would be above the top of the CRT.

To put a unique code on each tape, there would have to be an encoder on each recording VCR. They would either need to make the tapes one at a time, are just a few at a time.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-17-2004, 11:11 AM:

Strange... because I've seen lots of different types of screeners before and they all had some kind of markings or coding to identify them.

When my friend managed a video store, all the screeners they got had the scrolling text at the bottom every 10-15 minutes about "do not copy, lalala, call this number" after which a "print number" would appear in one of the corners, usually 4-5 digits in length, and stay there for a good 10 seconds.

The academy screeners are all different, though. I remember "Titanic" simply said "Academy Members Special Widescreen Edition" in the black bars. Everyone had a copy of that tape (or tapes?) and I even remember the bus driver playing it on the TVs when we took a field trip in high school. [Roll Eyes]

I'm sure if there was a number printed somewhere, that "academy member" would never see any more "special widescreen editions" in their lifetime.

I even saw one screener... forgot the title but it was around 1998... that had NOTHING on the screen! Just the movie in perfect widescreen. Now I think this was a film that had just been released as oscar bait or something in the US, so the problem wouldn't be so much that people in the US are trading copies amongs themselves, but if such a perfect copy ever made it overseas (which it probably did) someone could rig up a video projector and have a "screening" of a movie that hasn't even been released in their country yet!!

And recently I heard that they've been releasing DVD screeners?? Let's hope someone in Mesopotamia doesn't have an all-region player...

Why not just release screeners on 16mm? Better tracking, less chance of dupe, better chance of being viewed as intended...and EVERY film critic should have SOME sort of film projector at home. [Smile]

=TMP=

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 01-23-2004, 02:30 PM:

From the San Jose Mercury News:

link here

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/7781257.htm

- published today.

FBI makes arrest in Internet movie piracy case

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A man who allegedly used the Internet to distribute Oscar ``screener'' movies sent to him by a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has been arrested in Illinois, authorities said.

FBI agents arrested Russell Sprague, 51, on Thursday after an early morning search of his Homewood, Ill., home turned up hundreds of copies of screener films such as ``The Last Samurai,'' ``In America,'' and ``Shattered Glass.''

Sprague was to appear in federal court today in Chicago to face criminal copyright infringement charges. It is the first arrest in the bootlegging of screeners in the United States, the FBI said.

Agents said the films have been traced back to a longtime Academy member, 69-year-old actor Carmine Caridi, who was described as a friend of Sprague's.

In addition to the movies, agents said they found an array of duplicating and illegal satellite television interception equipment in Sprague's home about 20 miles south of downtown Chicago.

A woman who answered the telephone at Sprague's home Thursday evening hung up without comment.

Caridi told investigators he sent VHS copies of about 60 movies he received each year to Sprague. He allegedly told investigators he received no money for the films, and believed Sprague was merely a film buff who wished to watch them.

The FBI said Sprague used a software program to convert the VHS tape into DVD format and then sent the original tapes back to Caridi. Two screeners recently circulated on the Internet, ``Something's Gotta Give'' and ``Big Fish,'' were identified by Sony Pictures as having been shipped to Caridi.

Warner Bros. studio recently alerted the FBI that copies of its ``The Last Samurai'' and ``Mystic River'' were being made freely available for download on the Internet. It was not known if those copies been traced to Sprague.

Caridi, a veteran film and TV actor, has been a member of the Academy for more than 20 years. He appeared on TV's ``NYPD Blue'' and in such films as ``The Godfather: Part II'' and ``The Godfather: Part III.''

Caridi has not been charged but additional arrests have not been ruled out, FBI spokeswoman Laura Bosley said.

Caridi's attorney, Richard Millard, told the Los Angeles Times that the actor ``was embarrassed to learn that his name was associated with the film that was being improperly distributed.''

Sprague and Caridi had been introduced by a mutual friend a decade ago, Millard said, adding that Caridi ``had no idea anyone else would be seeing'' the films he sent Sprague.

Investigators said a search of Caridi's Hollywood apartment turned up 36 original Academy screener tapes, including ``The Last Samurai,'' ``In America,'' ``Shattered Glass'' and ``Mona Lisa Smile.'' Large quantities of FedEx shipping labels bearing Sprague's address were also found, authorities said.

An Academy spokeswoman declined to comment.

The Motion Picture Association of America, which represents studios, last year banned the distribution of screener DVDs and videotapes over concerns about bootlegging, but partly lifted the ban after complaints from filmmakers, producers and independent production companies.

The studios changed the policy in October to allow the shipment of encoded videocassettes that would allow tracing to Academy Award voters only. A federal judge in December, however, granted a temporary injunction lifting the screener ban in a lawsuit brought by independent production companies, which argued the policy put them at a disadvantage. The studios then sent screeners to thousands of other awards voters.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-23-2004, 02:41 PM:

In our ever increasing disarray, a briefer article was posted here earlier today.