Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: On-Line Movie Piracy

This is topic On-Line Movie Piracy in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=000406

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-02-2001, 02:24 PM:

From Reuters: Why Pay to See 'American Pie 2' When It's Free Online?
http://library.northernlight.com/HA20010802510000011.html?cb=0&dx=1006&sc=0#doc

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-02-2001, 02:33 PM:

Even with a DSL modem, it would take HOURS to download. And they are usually in VCD format (to my knowledge, unless they are using MPEG4 DIVX now). Which means you gotta burn the discs unless you extract the MPEG info out of them. And they could never be in any 5.1 sound format. Usually the sound quality is that of the on camera microphone. Also, from what I've seen, the cameras have always been placed to the side, so it is looking at the screen at an angle. Sometimes they try to "letterbox" this off, but you can tell when any text shows and everything just looks bad.

So in answer to the question "Why go to the movie when I can download it?" You go to the movie for a show. To watch it with an audience. And hopefully you'll get "film done right". But some people like to pirate. It's not something you can just talk them out of with common sense.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-02-2001, 03:38 PM:

Im just curious. In reports, they make it seem so easy to find these movies online but where are they? Are they websites or newgroups? Seems like the time spent downloading and such, is worth more than $5 to see it in the theatre dont you think?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-02-2001, 04:58 PM:

We host every pirated movie here on Film-Tech for your viewing pleasure! Just kidding, obviously. I've never seen them offered for download (not even as a broken link) during my surfing on the internet. Maybe Gnutella? Although Gnutella is pretty damn slow, even when downloading from someone with an OC-192 line. I can't even stand downloading a 500K document from Gnutella. Too slow. Always has been (at least for me).

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-03-2001, 12:42 AM:

A guy at the local university was rhapsodizing over his new cable modem connection saying, "And now when I download a movie, I start when I go to bed & it's finished by the time I wake up!"

We're just out of the loop, I guess.

Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 08-03-2001, 03:40 AM:

I know that there is an American Pie 2 screener out, but you have to be pretty heavily into that type of "scene" to be able to get your hands on it. By Monday though most people should be able to get it if you look hard enough.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-07-2001, 07:29 AM:

Another article from today's Rochester "Democrat and Chronicle" newspaper:
Article: Pirated films latest download phenomenon

The Motion Picture Association has a Contact/Reward program for information that leads to the prosecution and conviction of anyone involved in film piracy:
http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/contact/index.htm

Posted by Sean M. Grimes (Member # 445) on 08-07-2001, 08:18 AM:

There are soo many ways to get movies - normally before release date. But why would you want to? DIVX does use MPEG4 compression, but the quality is still shit. Especially off a bad bad camera. And horrible sound. But they are out there. Tons of them on Gnutella and through very much lesser known FTP's. And not all connections are that slow.

So they are definitely there, but why would anyone with even a slight amount of "taste" even bother.

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 08-07-2001, 03:05 PM:

So they are definitely there, but why would anyone with even a slight amount of "taste" even bother.

I guess that you don't need theatrical image quality and cinema-grade sound to enjoy a dirty-joke and teen-sex-titillation flick.

But is this really a threat to the movie industry? The article says that this film is expected to make over $100,000,000. So, figuring conservatively, let's say that 10 million people are expected to purchase theatre tickets. How many people are going to download the movie? Based on that wild-guess of a number, it would take 100,000 lost ticket sales to make a 1% dent in the expected gross of the picture. Plus, there's another factor -- the people who download the movie are going to talk about it with their friends -- the "buzz" factor -- and even if the movie is a stinker, they will probably review it more kindly because they felt that they saw it for "free". Some of them are going to watch the movie in a crappy little window on their PC, laugh their heads off, then convince a bunch of their friends to see it with them at the theatre. On the other hand, some people are going to not go to the theatre because they could download it instead. And, of course, a certain number of young teens are going to download it because it's the only way they can see a first-run R rated movie.

I suppose that in the long run, figuring out the effects of downloadable movies is an exercise in statistics -- or futility. Certain numbers of people will behave in different ways. No one knows. I think that it's worth pointing out that the brief period when Napster was operating just happened to also be the most profitable period in the recording industry in recent memory. On the other hand, people listen to music over and over again, but most people only want to see a movie once. Except for teenagers, who can watch the same movie over and over. But movies are probably too expensive now for teens to see over and over again in the theatre. I saw Star Wars a dozen times in 1978, but by then it was in the dollar theatre.

I'll definitely agree that downloadable movies are a threat to the industry practice of delayed overseas film releases. The end result of internet piracy may be to make simultaneous world-wide release of motion pictures more profitable then delayed release. But that's a common factor in copyright strategy -- if people want your product, and you don't give it to them, and they can get it themselves, they will.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-07-2001, 06:46 PM:

The problem is that even if internet piracy isn't a serious threat (speaking hypotheticaly of course), the studios still have to go after it. If you do not defend your copyright in one case-such as letting a site download your movies without permission-you will have a hard time defending it in another case if it can be proven you let it slide before.

The thing that really gets me is how digital projection is going to effect this. Internet piracy will go from a small time problem with an audience of people who probably wouldn't have gone to the movies anyway, or waited until video, to a very major issue with high quality downloads (albeit very large) available. I certainly hope the distributors know what they're getting into with digital projection.

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 08-08-2001, 02:01 PM:

The problem is that even if internet piracy isn't a serious threat (speaking hypotheticaly of course), the studios still have to go after it. If you do not defend your copyright in one case-such as letting a site download your movies without permission-you will have a hard time defending it in another case if it can be proven you let it slide before.

This is true of trademarks, but not copyrights or patents. If you don't enforce a trademark, you lose it. This allows obsolete or unused trademarks to return to the public domain as companies come and go. Otherwise you would have a tremendous clutter of obsolete trademarks that would stifle commerce. Aspirin used to be a trademark in the United States, but Bayer didn't enforce it, and lost it. Interestingly, Aspirin is still a Bayer trademark in Canada.

Congressional authority to issue trademarks arises from the commerce act, not the copyright clause. The copyright clause requires limited times, while a trademark can essentially last forever (over 100 years so far for Coca-cola, for instance.)

It is quite common for companies to decline to enforce copyrights and patents. This doesn't mean that they lose the right to enforce those copyrights and patents later. For example, Unisys received a patent on the compression algorithm used in GIF image files. They didn't enforce the patent for years, and GIF became the internet standard for image files. Then, all of a sudden, they started enforcing the patent, and all of the companies that had been selling image manipulation software had to pay up. The result is that GIFs have largely been replaced by JPEGs, which are unencumbered by patents.

Same for copyrights. Many newer bands now permit audience recording of their live concerts and non-commercial trading. The fact that they permit this does not cause them to lose their copyrights. Otherwise they'd never allow the practice.

You're right about digital projection being a risk. By embracing digital projection -- and the distribution of motion pictures as computer files, the industry is about to shift from one of the hardest-to-duplicate media formats in the world (duping a 35mm print would cost thousands of dollars in film stock and chemicals and require tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, as well as trained operators -- has anyone ever actually encountered a 35mm dupe?) to the easiest-to-duplicate media format in the world -- digital bits. It's one thing for inferior, camcorder pirated copies to appear on the market, but it would be quite another thing entirely if someone were to intercept the data stream, decode it, and downconvert the image to DVD quality and start pressing discs or spread it around the net.

Remember those guys who stole the "Phantom Menace" print? They baled it into trashbags and ran off with it, then realized that the film was worthless to them and dumped it. Might have been a different story if they had stolen a set of DVD-ROMs instead!

Personally, I think that the industry should stick with film for initial releases, and only permit digital distribution after the movie is out on DVD. Once the DVD is out, any potential piracy is going to come from the DVD source anyhow. Also, by that time, most of the film prints will have been worn out or destroyed anyway. (except for the prints in the capable hands of the participants of this fine forum, of course. :-) Digital distribution would be wonderful for second run and repertory theatres, which currently often have to make do with damaged or faded prints of more obscure movies, if they can get them at all.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-08-2001, 05:12 PM:

Yeah, I remember the guys who stole the Star Wars print, it happened 20 miles from me

. From what I understand, it wasn't really an attempt at piracy or to make money, it was just a drunken prank.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 08-08-2001, 07:00 PM:

>>Digital distribution would be wonderful for second run and repertory theatres, which currently often have to make do with damaged or faded prints of more obscure movies, if they can get them at all.<<

Too bad that with ALL of the current 'godsend save-us-all-from-evil-FILM' digital cinema systems out there, those very theatres wouldn't have a chance in hell of affording the proper equipment to show the newfangled 'digital videos' (let's call them what they really are)...

Vive la Resistance!
Vive le FILM!

Aaron

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-08-2001, 08:21 PM:

I know I am in the minority here, but video sucks any way you slice it. Even if I knew of a place where I could download American Pie 2 or whatever film weeks in advance, there is no way I would do it...and I am on a T1 line.

First it is wrong (despite the fact that the studios never get a single dollar from me anyway since I work in theaters). Second the quality as I said before, sucks! If I had a videotape sent to me from the studio with a rank cintel transfer in letterbox and Hi-Fi stereo sound, I still probabaly wouldn't watch it. Movies were made to be viewed on FILM and in a theater. The "home experience" just doesn't cut it, I don't care how many tens of thousands were spent on the video system, I've never seen one that impressed me.

Vive la Resistance!
Vive le FILM!
Bring back 70mm!!!

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 08-09-2001, 09:03 AM:

Just leafed through a "Home Theater" (???) magazine last night. Just about EVERY company now offers a DLP projector. There are even rear-projection DLP TV's and one company making a "special" cheater screen to "improve" black levels for DLP. Guess that's the way to do it, make a darker, less reflective screen. Still thinking that home use is the real market for it.....

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-09-2001, 11:36 AM:

To answer Dave Bird's question, the Texas Instruments website says:

"Financially speaking, it's difficult to believe this is a very attractive market to
TI. Why are you investing in it?

There are two good reasons for investing in it:

The first is that it is a market where we believe we can achieve substantial penetration -
perhaps even leadership. As such, it is a potentially profitable market for us.

However, the more important reason for investing in it is it is a highly visible and
influential market. If we can succeed in convincing people who are renowned as being
the most demanding of image quality - people whose opinions about image quality are
respected throughout the world - we believe that this will reinforce our efforts in all the
markets where DLP™ technology competes. Our mission with DLP™ technology is to
make it synonymous with "the best image quality you can buy." And if DLP Cinema™
technology is widely used in cinemas, we believe we will have conclusively proven that
to be the case."

"How does what you're doing in digital cinema relate to what you're doing with
the rest of the DLP™ business?

It's highly complementary. We believe the key to success for DLP™ technology is that it
should represent to any prospective buyer the promise of "the best image quality you
can buy." This is important in our business projector sales, where the visual quality of a
presentation is a key concern. It is important to our sales of boardroom projectors,
where the requirement is to have a facility that is highly prestigious. It is important in
our video wall sales where the need is to create clear, attractive displays. It is important
in our sales of high brightness/large venue projectors where success is determined in
many locations by the compelling, captivating quality of the images. And in the
digital/HDTV television world of the future, the consumer will certainly demand the best
possible image quality.

For many people, the image they see projected in a cinema represents the best image
they have ever seen. And if - or when - DLP Cinema™ technology becomes the
technology of choice in movie theatres around the world, we believe we will establish
convincingly that DLP™ technology does indeed enable the development of projectors
which feature "the best image quality you can buy." This will reinforce our key message
in all the markets in which we participate."

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-20-2001, 03:02 AM:

quote:
For many people, the image they see projected in a cinema represents the best image they have ever seen. And if - or when - DLP Cinema™ technology becomes the technology of choice in movie theatres around the world, we believe we will establish convincingly that DLP™ technology does indeed enable the development of projectors
which feature "the best image quality you can buy." This will reinforce our key message in all the markets in which we participate."

So the corporate goal is to place theatrical projectors to degrade the consumers' reference image (the one they see in theaters) so that they can sell home units that are equivalent in quality?

That's what I read. They *know* the resolution is lower than film.

Posted by Freddie Dobbs (Member # 915) on 08-20-2001, 05:03 PM:

Boy, have times changed!! I can remember 18 or so years ago when a friend of mine caught a man and his son with a video recorder on a tripod in a theatre recording the movie... as they left he jumped on the hood trying to keep them there till the police came. They slung him off and he made a trip to the hospitol........