Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: LOTR: 2 Towers,already being downloaded!?!

This is topic LOTR: 2 Towers,already being downloaded!?! 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=001424

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 11-07-2002, 02:16 AM:

I think this is the proper forum for this...

But can you believe that? How can it be? It's not even in theatres for another month! I was at a friends house last night, and he was finishing a download of this film! I just did some searching on Kazaa, and sure enough, it's there too(the full thing, not just the trailers)
Let's see the studios try to pin this one on film collectors.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-07-2002, 02:26 AM:

Screening tape bootleg, just like it was the first time around. Mystery solved.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 11-07-2002, 02:33 AM:

Im not really into bootlegging and all, but why cant thee guys bootleg something that we cant see in the near future?
I want to see Phone Booth, but who knows when that will come out.

------------------
Find me online
AOL: Dexter Caldwell
yahoo!: dexter_caldwell

"It is the opinion of the entire staff the Dexter is criminally insane."

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 11-07-2002, 03:18 AM:

Did you actually see any of the downloaded file? Chances are very good it was a fake (another movie with the file name of the two towers). I tried d/ling maybe a couple dozen of these out of curiosity, and they are all fakes, and very large file sized fakes at that (most are LotR 1). There might be one or two real ones out there, but I doubt that the owners would let them go for free.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-07-2002, 07:42 AM:

The MPAA does offer substantial rewards for information leading to the conviction of movie pirates:
here
here

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-07-2002, 12:15 PM:

I never quite understood why people would post "fake" movies for download. Is there some pimple-faced, womanless geek on the other end giggling away that someone is downloading a 2-hour blank file from his computer???

Not to mention the horrible, unwatchable quality of 90% of these bootlegs. Why don't they save the time and potential legal trouble and just swap 250MB text files titled after the movie?? Honestly...

=TMP=

MY 300TH POST!

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 11-07-2002, 01:39 PM:

Fake files exist everywhere, not just for movies. If you go to the MP3 music download sites, many of the files are not what they claim to be. The same is true for video bootlegs that are sold on the street. My understanding is that frequently the tape is either incredibly bad quality, something else entirely or blank.

I can't figure out whether misnamed online files are just an attempt to annoy people (like sending out viruses) or whether it's stupidity, but the problem multiplies geometrically once the file is distributed and exists on other servers.

This is why in the long run, I think the record companies have less to worry about then they now think they do. Because of this issue as well as other quality issues, I think end-users will migrate to legitimate sites, as long as the fees are reasonable. Even with a high-speed connection, a 250MB file takes a really long time and a decent quality file of an entire film will be a lot larger than that.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-07-2002, 02:19 PM:

quote:
I can't figure out whether misnamed online files are just an attempt to annoy people (like sending out viruses) or whether it's stupidity, but the problem multiplies geometrically once the file is distributed and exists on other servers.

It's the major carriers! They upload huge & supposedly corrupted files (or just useless ones) so that you'll donwload the huge file yet again. Come the end of the month, you'll have a nice big bandwidth bill.

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 11-07-2002, 03:13 PM:

It mostly has to do with other types of sharing programs, like MIrc and the like. They need a certain amount or size of files to upload to the server to get access. If they don't see a movie there, they'll just rename a movie they already have. This then proceeds to spread exponentially. It also has to do with loser geeks who find this funny that people spend time d/ling files that aren't what the say they are (Get a Life!).

Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 11-07-2002, 08:46 PM:

No, its not out.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 11-08-2002, 07:11 PM:

ImdB claims, that Two Towers is not fully edited yet (081102).
-But that might of course just be one more try to hype the whole LOTR stuff once again.
In Denmark, one of the largest first-run houses to run "Towers" tried to step out of line with a whole new trick: The fanatics started sitting in line for tickets about a week ago (presale opens on nov., 11th) The Imperial Bio of Cph. claimed, they would have to open sale two days before everybody else, because, they are having a royal visit performance during the week-end, and the princess should not have to climp over those waiting freaks !!
Truly original...

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 11-09-2002, 05:51 PM:

I have no problems with people downloading movies or songs. People have been pirating movies and songs for many years. Now that the internet is the future technology, everyone can get these movies and songs for free. With out the internet's popularity we would never be discussing this topic.

If you want a kick ass file sharing system use: here

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 11-09-2002, 06:39 PM:

And then once more - just for William the Third:
When a certain number of pirates have learned to download, so many people watch movies without paying for it. The films does no longer gets the budgets covered -And who, then, will be making more movies for You jerks to download, You think - or for us all on this site to show and thereby make a living....
Do rewind and think it over again !

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 11-09-2002, 07:00 PM:

Again, this file dowmloading could be the best of things, or the worst of things.

The people who download these crappy files are doing it for the sake of doing it. ie bragging amongst friends.

If they think the movie is good, they will come to a cinema to watch under better conditions.

Look at the stats for most downloaded music on Napster (in the old days) vs album sales as discussed in a previous thread. This whole thing could be a very clever advertising campaign.

Or it could eventually close us down.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-09-2002, 08:04 PM:

I tried downloading something a few months back to see if it really was what it was purported to be...I've forgotten what but something then current...and ended up with a file of Reefer Madness. Which would have been a great coup but alas it was silent.

Posted by Michael Wohlford (Member # 905) on 11-09-2002, 10:41 PM:

I heard how some movies get released on the Internet. Not sure if it is true. I heard that the studios make a "DVD" of the movie for their employees, but with a scrolling marquee disclaimer saying "Property of 'studio'. Duplication or reproduction is strictly prohibited. Contact the MPAA if reproduced". The marquee appears every 15 or so mintues throughout the movie. Then the employees crack the DVD and submit it online.

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 11-10-2002, 12:14 AM:

Per, when movies gross up words of $100 million or even gross $20 million, the studios will make money or lose money. If the movie is popular then money is made, if not... money is lost.
Internet piracy will never hurt studios. The piracy of songs did alot of damage to music studios. That i agree on. But movie piracy will never hurt Hollywood. People still need theaters. It is one of the few types of entertainment young kids have these days. If internet piracy continues nothing will happen. Hollywood will not loose that much money.
Per have you ever watched a pirated movie or do you know someone who has. Ask there views on this.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-10-2002, 10:23 AM:

If piracy is not already hurting then it definitely will in the future when the quality increases. A day and date legitimate release on video would canibalize theatrical grosses and obviously reduce total revenue which is why this isn't being done. Therefore if a significant number of people are going to see the movie via bootleg while it's still having its theatrical run then that's going to take a chunk out of the hide of theatrical rentals while contributing nothing to the video side. Many people will still prefer to see the film in a theatre but look how many now use DVD as their primary viewing experience. It's ridiculous to suggest that if they can get that for free they would not avail themselves. It's just a matter of the quality of the bootlegs and the availability of high speed connections although the latter is not mandatory since people will (and are) taking these highly compressed files and burning them to CDR's. As DVD burners and media come down in price they can up the quality by using less compression since a DVD-ROM can hold so much more data or perhaps even transcode the file into DVD-Video format that can be played on ordinary players.

Perhaps the copyright holders ought to fight fire with fire by getting onto the file sharing networks with thousands of clients offering dozens of current films all of which would be sham files.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-10-2002, 11:09 AM:

Steve Kraus suggested: "Perhaps the copyright holders ought to fight fire with fire by getting onto the file sharing networks with thousands of clients offering dozens of current films all of which would be sham files."

Good idea. A "sting" operation could also identify fragrant violators for prosecution. AFAIK, the same techniques are being used to combat child pornography on the Internet.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-10-2002, 11:59 AM:

JP said

quote:
A "sting" operation could also identify fragrant violators for prosecution.

I'm all for locking up fragrant violators who stink up public places with their terminal B.O. Get them off the street!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-10-2002, 12:49 PM:

I forgot to use Smell-Check.

Posted by Will Morrow (Member # 792) on 11-10-2002, 02:27 PM:

Do you seriously think viewing an Mpeg of a movie a month earlier is going to stop people from seeing it at a movie theater? I highly doubt most of these pirates own Digital Projectors, let alone ones that would simulate a theater experience. Outside of the pirated copies being digital (which we know makes them better than film copies ;-) ) These come NOWHERE close to being able to compete with the experience of going to the theater.

I myself think the problem is the fact that theaters are forced to become concessoin outlets because studios rape them of the profits once made from ticket sales. Eventually the public will not pay ten bucks for a 10 cent popcorn and 5 cent soda, on top of their 8 dollar ticket to the movie. This has to be amended. Theaters have become snack bars that happen to show movies, instead of movie theaters that offer the conveniance of snacks.

Let's stop blaming the <1% of the population that trades crappy computer files of movies for something that is ultimately the movie studios fault.

Take for example a movie like Jackass, it had a budget of 5 million, and took in a ton more...why not alot some of those profits to the theaters so that concession prices wouldn't have to be so high. Then more people come to the theaters knowing they aren't spending half of a paycheck on one nights entertainment. Just an idea.

Peace!

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 11-10-2002, 02:47 PM:

I know that sometime in the past - there were actual real profits from ticket sales going to the theatre companies.But - as long as I have been alive - it has always been about profit margins at the concession stand. The first day I worked at a movie theatre - and John Zampi told me I was going to work in the concession stand - he explained to me that was where the theatre business made it's money. 14 years later it is more true than ever before.

I have watched mpeg movies on a computer screen - but it will never match what we have on the big screen. Nor will the 'home theatre' boom ever put us out of business.......

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2002, 05:51 PM:

quote:
"he explained to me that was where the theatre business made it's money. 14 years later it is more true than ever before."

Give it another year or two and on-screen advertising should surpass it.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 11-14-2002, 07:26 AM:

From NBC TV here]here[/URL]

quote:
______________________________________________________________
The early, inferior copies often are soon replaced by better
versions that pirates make by bribing a theatre projectionist
and mounting a camera on a tripod in the projection booth.
______________________________________________________________

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2002, 07:59 AM:

Again, the MPAA does offer rewards for information leading to the conviction of movie pirates:
here MPAA Anti-Piracy

Also, MULTIPLE versions of CAP Code and watermarking are now being used to allow tracking of pirated copies to the specific print they were made from.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-14-2002, 08:32 AM:

Is there some equivalent to CAP code for screener videotapes/DVDs distributed by the studios for internal use? As others have posted, most of these pirated copies (especially the early ones) seem to be coming from sources other than film prints.

I do agree that this sort of piracy probably isn't hurting boxoffice grosses, but I can still see why the distributors would want to stop it.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2002, 09:05 AM:

Scott asked: "Is there some equivalent to CAP code for screener videotapes/DVDs distributed by the studios for internal use?"

I don't know what is being used, but I suspect there is at least a rudimentary watermark being added.

Kodak has developed some really good technology for invisibly watermarking digital images:
here Invisible Watermarking for Digital Cinema
here How Digital Watermarking Works
here Protecting Digital Pictures

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 11-14-2002, 09:24 AM:

On some screener tapes, there is burn-in on screen "Property of so &
so". You also have names burned, as to who is assigned to the tape.
So if the screener gets dupped, you can find out where the tape came from. So if someone brings in a video camera and makes a copy, you
find out who was the last one to screen that tape. New Line on some of their tapes have burnin over burnin and numbers.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-14-2002, 11:11 AM:

Does the severity of the punishment impact the amount of the reward that the MPAA gives out? Perhaps if they were to fine someone $50,000 and give $25,000 to the person who turned them in, there would be more of an incentive to turn someone in.

OTOH, If they were to punish the person with 5 years in prison, I would not want the 2.5 years in prison as a reward.

John-- That link you provided says nothing about a reward.

=TMP=

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2002, 11:21 AM:

The link I gave was for the home page of the MPAA Anti-Piracy program.

Here is a link to the MPAA Contact/Reward Program, including confidential hotline number and the e-mail hotline:
here

Mail piracy information to: hotline@mpaa.org

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-14-2002, 12:45 PM:

quote:
"The early, inferior copies often are soon replaced by better
versions that pirates make by bribing a theatre projectionist
and mounting a camera on a tripod in the projection booth."

Oh yeah, blame the projectionists. It couldn't possibly be the manager. Remember at *most* theaters, the projectionists do not have keys. That would be a manager thing letting them in at night. Most managers do know how to thread (even if they don't do it every day).

(Not blaming managers, I just don't like the way they automatically blame the projectionist. I've never met a projectionist who would even consider doing or allowing piracy. I suppose "bribing theater staff" just doesn't sound juicy enough for the article though.)

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-14-2002, 01:04 PM:

If bootlegged movies aren't hurting theatres I'm at a loss to explain why in a city of 500,000+, with a University attended by 18,000, all but two 6 screen theatres have closed.

Today I asked the students in one of the tutorials I run how many had watched a full length recent release on their computer in the last week. 19 out of 23 students had.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-14-2002, 01:24 PM:

I've wondered the same thing about Corvallis Oregon. City population is 50,000; probably ~75,000 within 20 mile radius; OSU is there with 18,000 students. They are down to 1 4-screener and 1 single-screen art house.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2002, 01:25 PM:

Hamilton has only 6 + 6 screens?

Rochester is about the same size, and has at least the following:

Cinemark: 16 + 10 + IMAX
Regal: 13 + 16 + 18
Hoyts: 12
Loews: 12
Pittsford (former GCC): 6
Little (Art): 5
Cinema: 1
George Eastman House: 2
RMSC Planetarium: 8-perf 70mm Dome (Pioneer Linear Loop)
Avon Drive-In: 3

Plus all the independent screens within easy driving distance of Rochester (e.g., Brockport, Geneseo, Macedon, Newark, Canandaigua).

Maybe St. Catherines and the west side of Toronto are close enough to discourage more screens?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-14-2002, 01:38 PM:

There is a 6 screen Famous Players downtown in the main shopping centre.

The other is actually a 7 screen Odeon way up on the 'mountain'.

There is also a very nice single screen art house a block from the univeristy, mainly catering to professors, etc. They're currently on their 13th week of My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

There used to be double the number of screens. Many have closed in the last three years.
In the same time frame, highspeed internet access and the DivX codec has been rolled out.

The next closest theatres are in Burlington, up the QEW. Burlington's has a slightly lower population and a few more screens.

Within reasonable driving distance, there are no more than half the screens of Rochester.

I spend my summers in Midland, ON. and odly, with a draw of about 30,000 in the area, there are two twins, a new 7-plex and two drive-in's.