Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 'Hateful Eight' pirated screener traced back to top exec

This is topic 'Hateful Eight' pirated screener traced back to top exec 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=007361

Posted by Michael Riley (Member # 5693) on 12-23-2015, 07:54 AM:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hateful-eight-pirated-screener-traced-850899

I love it, the studios continue to wait until the last moment to send out hard drives, send keys that don't activate until there is literally no time to do a technical screening, force all sorts of crazy security in the event of an advance showing, but still engage in the archaic practice of sending out tens of thousands of DVDs of films, many of which have not even been released theatrically yet, and are shocked when they get posted on the Internet.

From the list I read there are at least a dozen or so titles, most of which have either not been released yet, or were only released within the last month, that have been leaked. Obviously this means the end of the box office this holiday season /sarcasm

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-23-2015, 10:57 AM:

A friend of mine was telling me he already watched The Revenant, which isn't supposed to be available to theaters until Christmas Day. He said it was HD quality and had 5.1 surround sound (probably Dolby Digital).

The Expendables III was uploaded to torrent sites a month before it made its theatrical debut.

It's a pretty sad joke how movie studios continue to think piracy is mainly happening at movie theaters. They push all kinds of cost and inconvenience onto theater operators in what looks like a completely pointless attempt at fighting piracy. Meanwhile they're handing out screeners on various types of media to VIPs, actors, critics, etc. in the same manner someone would hand out hors-d'oeuvres at a party. Solution? Well, they'll just increase the security measures at the movie theaters of course!
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-29-2015, 11:35 AM:

What I don't understand is why they haven't worked with Netflix, Amazon or some other streaming technology company to develop secure streaming "screeners" instead of handing out Blu-ray or DVD disks.

It couldn't be that difficult to modify a Netflix box to include SIM card based encryption/decryption (like DirecTV uses) that authorizes specific boxes to watch a "screener stream."

They could also embed viewer specific watermarks so that if somebody sets up a way to extract the video after decryption then they will know exactly who was responsible for the leak.

If piracy is costing them the gazillions of dollars they say it is, the cost of doing this would be well worth it.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-29-2015, 02:25 PM:

Agreed, and furthermore, such an infrastructure already exists.

I can't for the life of me remember what it's called or where I heard about it now, but there is a system marketed specifically for the homes of senior movie industry and other very rich people, which is basically a set-top box with military-grade encryption, that enables you to see movies at home from their theatrical release date. I seem to remember that the box costs five figures and each viewing of a streamed film is around $500.

I can't think of any reason why this system couldn't be used for streamers, except that not all voting Academy members are wealthy enough to have it (I know a couple, and they're not). But the principle of having time-sensitive content streamed to your home with extra security exists and has been done, and now that no-one sensible can deny that hard copy screeners are the source of a lot of piracy, I'm scratching my head as to why they haven't been discontinued.

Posted by Rick Cohen (Member # 6140) on 12-29-2015, 02:57 PM:

Leo,

Logistics. Who is going to pay for the system? Who is going to mobilize the technicians to set it up? One studio is not going to do it on their own, and getting all of the majors plus the indies to agree to anything would take a modern day miracle.

Another concern is that the people viewing the screeners won't bother to learn how to use the new box, or will simply throw it out. Some of these people can barely use a cell phone or email. The award hounds want their trophies and votes, and by sending out tons of non-encrypted screeners, their movies get seen by more voters, and they get more votes.

Even if the boxes get installed, it won't prevent one of the independent studios from sending out "regular" non-encrypted screeners, which could put the valid encrypted screeners at an awards disadvantage.

It's a classic catch-22 situation.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-29-2015, 03:01 PM:

It's a matter of "ease of use." Not every VIP, celebrity, Oscar voter, or whatever is going to want to bother with Netflix or some other service. If you're trying to get a person to watch your movie with the least amount of hassle, it's much easier to hand the person a Blu-Ray they can just pop in and watch.

I think the problem is, the award-campaign/marketing arms of the studios don't talk to the security departments, but the distribution arm DOES.

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 12-29-2015, 03:35 PM:

The $35,000 box with $500 per stream is called PrimaCinema.com

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-29-2015, 04:32 PM:

I still don't see what's wrong with saying "if you want to be a part of the Academy vote, then you HAVE to go to the theater where special private shows will be ran of each movie at a few different times and days".

Or in Quentin's case "you HAVE to watch it on film". [Razz]

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 12-29-2015, 06:13 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
if you want to be a part of the Academy vote, then you HAVE to go to the theater where special private shows will be ran of each movie at a few different times and days

No! That would perpetuate what is wrong with the production side of the motion picture business. The people in the industry who have artistic input primarily see movies at home or in private screening rooms, with other industry insiders and their friends.

If those who make movies were required to watch movies with the general public, I feel that the quality of motion pictures would certainly improve. Instead of relying on sneak previews and surveys to fix a movie after it is almost finished, they would see how the public relates for themselves and develop a better understanding of what works and what does not, and how to pace the story.

How many of us on the exhibition side of the business have left a movie thinking I could make a better movie then that. In many cases we could, because we deal with the public on a daily basis and understand what they want.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-01-2016, 03:52 PM:

Piracy is GOOD for studios. I would not be surprised if they don't deduct the piracy losses against their profits. Selling the notion that they are losing money is big business. Tax man doesn't get very much that way.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-01-2016, 04:01 PM:

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
How many of us on the exhibition side of the business have left a movie thinking I could make a better movie then that.

I won't pretend to have the artistic or technical skills, not to mention resources, to make a "better" movie. However, I feel like I could offer valuable input on editing to improve the pacing of a movie.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-03-2016, 02:10 PM:

I had this thought today. What is the point of online movie piracy for the people that provide the source material?

Back in the day, there was a financial incentive to bootleg movies. They would make bootlegs of first run films and then sell them.

With all the online streaming piracy, people are watching for free. Why go through the trouble of recording off a screen (and risking arrest, albeit low risk) or ripping a screener DVD without any incentive to make money off of it?

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 01-03-2016, 02:46 PM:

generally for uploading something good you get a lot of upload credit to let you download other pirated stuff.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-03-2016, 10:35 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
I still don't see what's wrong with saying "if you want to be a part of the Academy vote, then you HAVE to go to the theater where special private shows will be ran of each movie at a few different times and days".

20 years ago the "VIP" crowd had to do that. They had to watch the movie on film, either in a regular movie theater with us common folk or at least in some kind of private screening. When I lived in New York I saw celebrities from time to time at movie theaters.

Technological advancements in home theater have allowed the VIP crowd to pretty much forsake watching movies in commercial theaters. I think a lot of these people are out of touch with the movie going experience today. I think if more of these people visited commercial theaters more often they would see just how good or bad their product is being presented. The situation in movie theaters might be better. Or we just wouldn't see nearly so many movies framed in 'scope format anymore (that's a dig at all those common width screens).

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-03-2016, 11:20 PM:

Are these screeners Blu-Rays or dvd's I wonder?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-04-2016, 01:04 AM:

Thanks Sean. I couldn't for the life of me remember what that thing is called. I wonder how well it's been selling.

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 01-04-2016, 09:54 AM:

While I agree that seeing movies in a theater is the best way, and gets audience input while one is at it, many of the categories involved in the awards just aren't available to most of the award voters.
Limited release films, showing only in L.A. or N.Y. for a week can't get a representative number of voters to see them. Same with documentaries and short subjects.
Until very recently it is possible that the winners in these last categories were decided by under 500 voters out of over 6000 Academy members.
With the news of the posting of HATEFUL 8 on the internet, it would be interesting if someone came up with an estimate of how many people actually viewed it that way. An article in this morning's L.A. Times blamed some of the reason it has not done well at the boxoffice is because of this piracy. If true, this would mean that millions (literally) of people saw it on their computers.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-04-2016, 01:29 PM:

I don't think anyone would argue that art/specialty films, or those with limited releases should not have DVD screeners. But sending out hundreds (thousands?) of screeners of a movie that's widely available to see in theaters is just asking for trouble.

If a movie came out in, say, October and wanted to be an Oscar contender, I could see where screeners might be necessary since the movie would likely be gone from most theaters. But something high-profile like "Hateful Eight" shouldn't have that kind of exposure problem.