MPAA claims prevention of 31 illegal recordings of Spider-Man 3

We resent writing about the MPAA, simply because every time the organization makes a statement it invariably exposes some aspect of its backwards perspective. This time the Association has made the rather preposterous claim that the efforts of staff and customers in preventing illegal recordings of Spider-Man 3 gave the film "a fair shot at its record-setting opening." In all, 31 people were caught illegally recording the movie, a figure which is apparently thanks to night vision equipped cinema staff (motivated by a $500 reward for each case) and reporting from the patrons themselves in a few cases. The logic that this in some way helped assure that the film would be a commercial success is shaky at best: it only takes a single recording for the film to become "pirated." And of course, if the system for detecting illegal recordings of movies is working so well, why do we still have to sit through those patronizing anti-piracy PSAs?

[Via TechDirt; Image credit]

[LukeA @ May 20th 2007 6:29PM]

What about theater employees who copy the master and take it home? I know lots of people who have 300 that way.

[MarkOnFire @ May 22nd 2007 3:42PM]

I could definitely see employees doing that, particularly because they are paid *so well* as a result of the modest take the studios demand from their film's grosses.

PS The night vision they give us is pretty crappy.

[paul34 @ May 20th 2007 6:31PM]

Thank God!

Humanity has been saved!

Oh what would we do without the MPAA!

/sarcasm

[Zack @ May 20th 2007 6:36PM]

That's nice, what about the other 900 copies they _didn't_ prevent?

[Ethan Duffy @ May 20th 2007 6:44PM]

And people certainly don't download crummy videocam versions, they want the same quality everybody else wants, and it's not about getting it free, it's about using it the way you want.

[Brian @ May 20th 2007 7:32PM]

Nah, sometimes it's about getting it for free.

[daniel @ May 20th 2007 6:57PM]

those warning videos on dvds are so annoying im thinking I legally aqquired this so whats this warning got to do with me, and it seems its unskippable on some dvd players and windows media centre

[Morgon @ May 20th 2007 6:59PM]

Judging by the amount of copies being pushed to me while walking down Canal Street in NYC the past couple of times I went, they shoulda squeezed out 32 prevented recordings.

Besides, if the MPAA were really serious about piracy, all they need to do is go up and down that street, vigilante-style - pushing the peddlers up against the wall until they caved and led them down the wayward trail of corruption and greed.... or something.

Anyway, not that I have anything against those people on Canal Street (though they do make it difficult to walk sometimes), but until they start doing the obvious, they should keep their mouths shut.

[RandomThoughts @ May 20th 2007 7:14PM]

I am not one to condone pirating but it is a fact that Spiderman 3 was available via Internet download on the Thursday before the movie was released. This was reported via Om Malik and others. The download wasn't taken by a video recorder from a pre-screening (those were avaialble also) but was a high quality version.

I have a feeling the MPAA just needed something to crow about here. The Los Angeles Times posted a story on the Friday release about how they had kept the pirates at bay. The article had to be taken down.

[W00ter @ May 20th 2007 8:08PM]

Umm, did you guys stop to consider that of the 31 camcording incidents they reportedly stopped, at least one could have been a very high quality cam?

If so, and if there wasn't another high quality cam out there already then the MPAA is probably right. Yes, I know this is hard to believe or you may think its not even in the realm of possibility, but most of you have been trained by blogs like these to discount anything and everything that contains the word "MPAA".

I'm not an MPAA fan, I'm just pointing out what I think may be logical. On that note, can we please get someone else to write articles about the MPAA? Conrad and most of the staff seem to have some irrational negative disposition against them.

[Jason Masters @ May 20th 2007 9:36PM]

No you are actually dead wrong. They stopped 31 shaky cam cordings. I wonder how many illegal copies of prescreeners and high quality captures are out there right now. And to be fair it is not irrational to dismiss the MPAA as a place for crazy lawyers given their track record.

[obiwan @ May 21st 2007 4:13PM]

Once again, who cares if a Red was on a tripod in an empty theater with a 5.1 sound feed from the projector room? IT WAS DOWNLOADABLE BEFORE IT EVER SHOWED IN THEATERS!!!!!!1!

This means it wouldn't really matter if The MAFIAA caught 3100 filmers. Of course, those pirates must have been pretty stupid, considering they could have downloaded the nice copies for themselves instead of getting caught, the idiots.

[j.adam @ May 21st 2007 8:32PM]

irrational negative disposition...?! whatever you say, man...

[Alexander @ May 20th 2007 8:18PM]

We all know logic never was MPAA's strong suit... This clenches it.

You guys spent BILLIONS of dollars in the employment of people, technology, and legal fees to stop 31... That's thirty-one... three followed by a one... recordings of a movie that wasn't all that good\--and yet I still managed to get a day before the movie was released from a friend of mine who works at the movie theater. 5.1 surround sound, widescreen, and with perfect saturation. How? From the SVideo output on the projector into a capture card. (love you, analog hole!)

Bravo. No, really. Bravo. You guys should run for President--I don't think that even Dub-ya can blow money that fast. And that guy is waging a war that costs the USA something like $12k an hour, trying to 'save' a people who don't want them there.

Kinda like yourself, really.

At any rate... You keep on shining, you crazy moonbeams. I need something to reassure myself that my users are not the dumbest people on the planet.

[Paul @ May 20th 2007 8:42PM]

You do realize that the type of projectors at a movie theater do not have analog out jacks, right?

Oh... you didn't....


p.s. (sorry for double post, refreshed before posting and was no longer replying to Alexander)

[Alexander @ May 20th 2007 9:10PM]

Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing match. Neither of us can prove our points, and yet we both know it to be true.

I've seen the analog-out ports. I saw him capture a movie. If he had to open up the projector to hack in a Svidio port--I don't know about it. But I saw the Svidio cable going to a USB capture card, with another cable going from what I assumed to be the audio-out port into a sound card that was in the PCMCIA slot.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

[Sean O @ May 20th 2007 10:54PM]

Your figure for the Iraq War costs are way off. Most estimates are around $12 MILLION per hour. Not $12 thousand.

[peshue @ May 20th 2007 8:28PM]

To bad the movie was already available as Random Thoughts pointed out. Not only was the MPAA waisting their time, so where 31 guys with cams. I really dount that it was really worth the $15500 they shelled out in rewards plus the price of equipment.

[Paul @ May 20th 2007 8:40PM]

You do realize that the type of projectors at a movie theater do not have analog out jacks, right?

Oh... you didn't....

[MaX PL and the 360 r4pe Tr4iN @ May 20th 2007 8:55PM]

spiderman 3 blew. cant believe i spent money on it.

all the movies were about the exact same crap, and sure as hell wont even bother watching the pirated version of spiderman 4 when thats released. bad movie.

[W00ter @ May 20th 2007 9:47PM]

Your reply has no facts. My comment still stands. Have a nice day. :-D

[bluebonics @ May 21st 2007 7:52PM]

W00ter, your original comment had no facts, only speculation. i, however, know for a fact that there are good quality pirated versions... i just so happened to download one.

[Brett Kelley @ May 20th 2007 10:04PM]

Hehe, that image reminded me of that cheesy "You wouldn’t steal a car" bit on the intro to legally-acquired movies... of course, I don't think that anyone in their right mind would steal a 1970s Mercedes 280E, which is the car they use in their lil propoganda piece. Yeah, um, uh huh, a 280E. Why not a Camry or an Accord, which really are theft magnets? It should be more along the lines of, "You wouldn't steal a 1970s Mercedes 280E".

[RandomThoughts @ May 20th 2007 10:12PM]

Forget about camcording the movie or having a projectionist record it. According to this article, the movie was being sold on the streets of China 2 weeks before it opened.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8678/China, piracy, and Spiderman 3

But hey, they stopped 31 crummy versions of being out there. Isn't what they call quality control?

[Chris @ May 20th 2007 10:39PM]

Is anyone else besides me tempted to take in a video camera with no video tapes to pretend you're recording it? *giggle*

[Luke @ May 20th 2007 10:44PM]

No doubt... and get your buddy to turn you in and collect on the reward. No court would uphold action against you given that it was a prank... lol

[aditya @ May 20th 2007 11:03PM]

Umm, did you guys stop to consider that of the 31 camcording incidents they reportedly stopped, at least one could have been a very high quality cam?

people are using a RED4k to do piracy now? no wonder they got caught...

[surftacular @ May 20th 2007 11:28PM]

Random Thoughts: Once again, if you did the research on that article, It was Spiderman 2 in a S3 Case.

Chris: I wouldn't, if they catch you, you still face the fines, regardless if you have a tape or not.

[Luke @ May 20th 2007 11:32PM]

I really doubt they could fine if you're not breaking the law. They could ask you not to come back of course, but they couldn't fine you.

[surftacular @ May 20th 2007 11:45PM]

if you want the actual legal codes by state

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/CIP/tape-in-theaters0304.htm

it would be very hard for an individual to bring a camera into a theater and then convince someone that they didn't have a tape in it. otherwise EVERY bootlegger would bring a second person in, bootleg, hand the tape off to someone else and say "i didn't have a tape in it". It's like getting pulled over for speeding and moving over to the passenger seat and convincing the cop that you weren't driving...

[surftacular @ May 20th 2007 11:38PM]

This was supposed to post earlier...

I work for the company that runs the anti-piracy efforts at the majority of major film releases (Sony/Universal/Paramount). I don’t necessarily like my job or agree with everything the MPAA does, I just do it to pay the bills, but I think I provide a more balanced view than that of either the MPAA or torrent fanboys.

To LukeA: You can't just "copy" a master. It requires a huge film reel and a special device for the film to run through. Contrary to what you believe, the theater isn’t just running a DVD. So whoever you know that just "copied" a master is full of it.

To Paul34: Those other "900" copies you know of, they were made after the anti-piracy efforts at theaters ceased. If anti-piracy efforts continued on through the full run of the film, studios would be spending more on anti-piracy than the actual film.

To Ethan Duffy: That's bull. It IS about getting it for free. I'm sure that everyone who downloads a film, goes and buys it on DVD when it comes out, right...

To Morgon: The MPAA would much rather stop pirating at the source, than the peddlers on the street. There are a lot more peddlers than pirates. Also, if you actually read the article before commenting, you would realize that the MPAA is touting the efforts of keeping the film from being pirated BEFORE it's release. The MPAA realizes that it is IMPOSSIBLE to stop a film from being pirated. The fact that the only version of S3 online before release was a crappy cam, shows that the efforts were successful.

To Random Thoughts: It WAS a crappy cam version. I downloaded it to check. Also, the China “bootleg” was actually Spiderman 2 in a Spiderman 3 case.

To Alexander: We, and the MPAA, and Sony could care less if YOU got a [analog] copy (which would be amazing to get out of a digital projector...). Also, the MPAA doesn't spend billions of dollars to prevent piracy. They spend thousands. Don't exaggerate a number you know nothing about. Another thing, I find it strange that your friend was able to get you into the projection booth to supposedly watch him copy the film, yet you didn’t just walk into the auditorium and watch it. I know the movie was crappy, but wouldn’t it be better to watch a crappy film at the theater for free, than watch a crappy film at home for free. You’re full of it.

To Jason Masters: S3 doesn’t have any screeners yet. There was one, I repeat ONE made for subtitle dubbing for foreign release. I just happen to be the person that was in possession of that screener for the entirety of its life, from production off of a DIGITAL projector through to its DESTRUCTION.

To Chris: I wouldn’t, you still face the fines, with or without a tape.

Overall, I see everyone except a few commenters here as piracy fanboys. Get your facts straight, read articles COMPLETELY, and do your homework before you make a blatantly biased comment…

[Ben Hobbs @ May 21st 2007 12:30PM]

I find it AMAZING that someone who works for the Movie studios in an anti-piracy role has the audacity to tell us that he downloaded the movie from the internet just "to check" it. Thats alright then is it? Thats like a Security Guard robbing a Bank, just to check it was safe.

Also are you telling me that not a single digital theatre had a run of Spiderman 3? I find that very difficult to believe.

Personally until they bring the price of movies down, take off the regional encoding and DRM then Piracy will expand - I'm not condoning it, but why should someone have to buy the same film two, three or four times to watch it in different countries, on their iPod etc...

The movie industry has to decide, you either sell us the disk to own as we see fit, or license us the movie to watch how we want.

[LukeA @ May 21st 2007 3:00PM]

The version I saw was copied from a digital master, not an analog one as you seem to believe. Also, the movie was of such a high quality that I could not possibly believe that it was simply filmed as it played. Your patronizing comments and over-reaching assumptions aren't welcome here.

[catfish @ May 20th 2007 11:49PM]

no tape means no recording: no recording means the copyright held by the mpaa is not being violated: no violation means no crime. thats like saying "painting" a wall with hairspray is graffiti.

and everyone who downloads might buy it on dvd if it was worth buying. well more of them anyway.

[surftacular @ May 20th 2007 11:55PM]

I agree that he DEFINITELY should NOT be fined. With the exception of CCTV running in all theaters (the US isn't quite up with england, http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/18/cctv-cams-in-uk-now-with-loudspeakers/ ), it would be VERY difficult to prove that you didn't have a tape in it.

[catfish @ May 21st 2007 12:03AM]

at a brief glance down that list most of the laws mention "operating
with intent to copy" intentionally having no tape is most clearly not
an "intent to copy"proving it might be interesting, depends how much
you're willing to spend on a lawyer. However it is most certainly a
valid legal defense.

ugh stupid email delay. certainly a bad idea, though. what i was going to say above.

[buck09 @ May 21st 2007 1:13AM]

i do my best not to speak for anyone else, so here is my pov, and it may be common or not. over the years i have gotten totally sick of paying outrageous prices for garbage. my opinion, fine, but before i buy a car i get a test drive, before i buy a house i get to walk through it and experience it. if i buy a meal and it was crap there is a better than average chance i can, politely, complain to management and not have to pay or have a reduced price. but with movies and music if you don't like it, tough. at least with cd's you can sell them, same with dvd's, but with the theater, you're simply out. i still go to the theater, and i go often with no idea the quality of the movie. on the other hand, i watch many movies at home first, if it's worth it, then i'll pay for the experience in a theater. it's the same for me with music, if i download an album, even in lossless format, and enjoy it, i will buy it. free is not an issue with me, feeling cheated is. i'm not a spiderman fan, 1,2 or 3, studio's, distributors and theaters did not lose one penny from a pirated version i may have, because with or without one i never would have gone to see it. like i said at the start, this is my take about my own personal habits, i'm not saying they are right or wrong. i'm simply saying, that piracy, in my case, has never taken any money from anyone.

[surftacular @ May 21st 2007 1:32AM]

To Buck09: Your argument is flawed. You said "but before i buy a car i get a test drive, before i buy a house i get to walk through it and experience it". The film industry has been giving you a "test drive" for the last 30 years with trailers. And unlike a test drive, you don't even have to go to the dealership to "test drive" a movie, it airs for free on your tv or your internet. As far as music goes, you can go to 99% of all bands websites and listen for free to any song off their albums. There is also this other free invention called radio. maybe you've heard of it...

The arguments you gave are not that, they are EXCUSES (and illegitimate ones at best).

I know that there are a fair amount of people that a) would not pay to see a movie whether they pirated it or not, b) actually buy the movie/cd after they see/hear it; but for the most part, downloaders download and the creator never sees a penny for it.

I will admit that $10 for a movie seems like a lot, but on the same token, films cost an exorbitant amount more to make now than they did 20, or even 10 years ago. Remember Titanic? People came down hard on them for spending over $100 Mil on a movie, but now a studio drops $100 Mil on the average movie. My point is that you pay for what you get. Tickets COULD drop back down to $5, but don't expect the quality visuals that you now get.

The point is, no one is forcing you to see a movie, and no one will chastise you simply because you didn't go see the newest flick (or if they do, maybe you're hanging out with people that have their priorities in life WAY off).

[John @ May 21st 2007 1:30AM]

This article makes me smile and laugh :)

[deep @ May 21st 2007 4:38PM]

surftacular: movies cost over $100 million to make because the big movie studios have no reason to be frugal. Look at the ridiculous amounts of money they pay for lights, stands, dollies, etc. The companies who make that sort of equipment jack up their prices because they want _their_ piece of your $10 ticket, and they know the studios will pay. The exact same equipment wouldn't be worth half of what they charge for it in any other industry. Even the movie theaters gouge people with their $4 sodas and their $7 popcorn.

Sorry, but your (i.e., the MPAA) analogy about stealing a car just doesn't work for me, because you can't make infinite copies of a car for free. The big movie studios will eventually need to figure out (just like successful PC game developers already have) that continued success in this day and age means adjusting your business model by adding value to their infinitely copyable content. MMORPGs are big financial successes -- because without the service to go along with it, the game is worthless.

Right now, all I see are lawsuits filed on behalf of an incredibly greedy industry. I see ZERO compromise or innovation in the way content is delivered. I see an industry that is clinging to an old, outdated business model, double- or even triple-dipping on viewing fees (theater, DVD, etc) without ever mentioning the _possibility_ of a discount. I see an industry that hides and disguises bad movies until the last possible second in order to _trick_ as many people into seeing it as possible, before word of how bad it is gets around.

..and you're telling me the movie studios are pissed because people won't spend $10 on a ticket? Boo-f*cking-hoo.

[tehpyro @ May 21st 2007 1:49AM]

I saw spiderman 3 online :D Didn't even have to download it. But its cool that you guys are on the ball. So was I... I saw it sunday of opening weekend in the compfort of my own bedroom

[Jason @ May 21st 2007 1:50AM]

@surftacular - Thanks for bringing some perspective to this thread. However, even with exaggerated claims, the fact is that these measures being taken to curb piracy are not working or not having a noticeable impact beyond annoying legitimate patrons.

The MPAA and RIAA need a different approach. Times have changed and tools have evolved to the point where something like first run movies might fare better in home rather than at the theater, where everything is worse than airport prices. Expiring, 24-hour audio might prove useful to give people a feel for new music and give artists something to strive for - making good music that people want to keep.

Its an expensive, disposable world. We need to know what we're getting. Work smarter to prevent piracy, don't annoy everyone else while you're at it, right?

[buck09 @ May 21st 2007 1:52AM]

surftacular,

i totally agree there are trailers, and radio. but i said test drive a car, not buy it based on a commercial. there may not be a complete parallel argument, but there is no way you can know if a movie is actually worth your time from a 20-45 second compilation from a 2 hour movie where someone put together what they thought were the biggest hooks. in a reverse situation i could not imagine that the usual suspects was going to be as engrossing as it was just by the trailer, nor could i have imagined that blair witch would have been such a let down just from the trailer. i saw both in the theater with no pre-viewing. i have complete respect for artists, directors, actors, musicians, give it a name. i support people how put out quality products, and as far as production value goes, cgi, huge sets and outrageous movies costs are one thing, but, in my opinion, most pale when compared to something like the original streetcar named desire, or similar minimalistic films. making up for poor writing or worse acting with shiny production doesn't distract me and make me forget that it's just shiny crap. this is a long and drawn out debate, and i'm not sitting on excuses, just reasons. i'm not promoting what i do, it's just what i do. if i thought for a second that i could actually get a refund for movies i thought were not worth it then i would spend lots of time in the theater, but i doubt that would happen.

[surftacular @ May 21st 2007 2:42AM]

On the same token, there is no way you can tell from a 30 minute test drive if a car is going to please you for the 5+ years you own it.

Honestly, proportion-wise, you're taking a bigger (and might i add more costly) risk by buying a car based on a test drive.

I'm not trying to start a huge argument, but the fact is, ANYTHING you buy is a risk. There is no surefire way to test something and say "it will give me X amount of enjoyment".

I 100% agree that film today is a complete joke compared to the great films of past. But, the fact is that society (or at least US society) eats up flashy explosions and $100 Million dollar sand villians.

It's a business though, and the studios want the money that they "deserve" (I know, thats debatable). I'm sure the majority of actors and directors and the people that do the real work on a film could care less about being rich (not that they mind). They are artists, just like the kid that sits in a coffee shop corner pounding on his acoustic guitar for 5 bucks.

I'm not trying to attack you. Most of the comments i make are generalizations, as they must be. The MPAA and Anti-Piracy as a whole has to work with generalizations.

If everyone that downloaded a movie and enjoyed it payed 10 bucks to the studio, there would be no qualms with downloading. But the fact is the studios have a very valid argument that people who download, in general, will never place a dime in the hand of the studio/director/artist that created the film/cd.

To OddManOut: You're right, you could tell a friend the ending to a movie. You could also try and sing a song that you totally hate, but i bet he still listens to the actual song to decide for himself. Film is more than just what happens. If people only cared what happened, film would have never taken off and we would still be reading books on our free time. People are very unswayed by other peoples opinions. If someone says something sucks, and they like it, they will find someone who said it was good and listen to their opinion.

Regarding the $5 for good plot, normal graphics, see earlier in the post about what society loves.

[OddManOut @ May 21st 2007 2:22AM]

"I really doubt they could fine if you're not breaking the law. They could ask you not to come back of course, but they couldn't fine you."

Ha. Do you know how many people have gone to the electric chair without having broken any laws ? ONE would be too many...and the number is MORE than one...

The theater management could not of their own authority fine somebody, no. But they could sue you in civil court, or press criminal charges of some kind on you for almost anything they like. If you contest them it would go to a court hearing. Depending on the judge the fine might get thrown out, but I rather doubt you'll convince the judge you had any legitimate reason to have a camera with no tape in a movie theater. It will probably either look like you were trying to pirate the movie, got caught and somehow managed to ditch the tape, or that you were just trying to get a rise out of the theater staff. Likely the judge will be irritated with having to deal with such a petty sitch and let the fine stand to teach you a lesson.

Kind of ironic though, the studios say they do these kind of things because piracy loses them money. But If I went and saw a movie and then told my friends how it ends or even just said 'Dude, it suct.' and they decide not to go see it, haven't I just cost the studio/theater money ? And yet they don't make you sign a non-disclosure agreement before you go in...


"My point is that you pay for what you get. Tickets COULD drop back down to $5, but don't expect the quality visuals that you now get."

Fine by me, where's the petition? I'll take a $5 movie WITH A LUCID PLOT, smart dialogue, and compelling characters over $9.50 worth of CGI robots fighting CGI aliens and a CGI'd sambo speaking Jar Jar Binks minstral show or the like any day of the week...

[Dave @ May 21st 2007 8:43AM]

While you say you can't test drive a car and know if it's going to please you for five years and you hide behind legalistic descriptions of what amounts to a scam. Lets see the trailer for spider man 3. Oh it's an action movie with spiderman vs goblin, sand, and venom. Now when I saw that I came preped for a 3 on one duel. Instead I got 2 hours of emo spiderman crying and a lame daytime drama love story. Why doesn't false advertising apply to movies? you don't see honda out there saying "The ridgeline is the badest mofo on the planet, you have never seen anything like it, it can climb vertical while fighting 3 ninjas; 3 paid off critics agree. Honda ridgeline is stupendious, two thumbs up, best truck ever" NO because they have to do what they advertise. You guys haven't done anything you advertise for years. We call that swindling, stealing, and lying. Now make a S3 trailer with mary jane singing, spiderman crying, goblin crying, oh yeah. and sand man crying. That's an honest look at the movie but then no one would have seen it like the turd of a movie it was. So don't defend an organization who goal is to go around polishing turds and lying to the public. I'll start going to the movies again if at 1/3rd of the way into the movie I can get up and leave with a full refund. You can't say seeing a 1/3rd of a movie provides me with any benefit other than the agervation of wasting time.

[schmic @ May 21st 2007 3:49AM]

I think no one should download movies just to watch them for free! Period. There is absolutely no reason to do so (test drive or not, either you take the risk or you wait for it to appear on TV or the music on radio).

But I hate the attitude of the MPAA! I have to watch these insulting "you are a thief" adverts and have to wait on my DVD player until they think I've read an FBI warning (which doesn't apply here in Switzerland and I couldn't care less about). I have to put up with their insane licensing practices (I can only have English sound if I also have German subtitles?!). I always have to choose my country when I start my DVD in a list of 1 million languages, which hardly make a percentage of the whole market in Europe (or Switzerland for that). I have to pay for extras which don't interest me the least (give them in a special version, all I want is a movie). And still, with all this, I only buy a right to see the movie on my TV and not to have it and watch it the way I want (on my computer, put it on my media server, ...). I can't get a new DVD if mine is broken or scratched or if it is uneven (I have several DVDs which make my DVD player jump because they are crap in production).

Still, I own over 500 DVDs and no download, because movies are an important part in my life and I want them to keep up producing them (not necessarily Hollywood). Please stop calling me a thief. Give me the right to do with the media what I want (as long as I keep it for myself) and stop selling me crap quality (I'm not talking about the story, I talk about hardware). Give me a user friendly product which I can enjoy and don't get angry every time I try to watch it!

So that's what sucks about MPAA, not that they sue people who download movies, I actually support that, as long as it wouldn't make DVDs more expensive or crippled with copy protections. Admit that all these measures don't grip and keep suing but leave me alone with my bought stuff! I decided to put up with these insults and stupidity for now, but whoever decides not to, should also not download the movie! But I understnad that these people don't give a crap about what I say so I just wrote this to unload my frustration about the situation and if anyone has an idea how we can make the movie industry to produce user friendly products then I am more than happy to help making it come true!

Cheers,

Michael

[Heather @ May 21st 2007 4:39PM]

Michael - I totally understand your gripes about being told you're a thief by the MPAA and being frustrated about not being able to watch the DVD you purchased the way you want on your computer or other multimedia devices. I completely share your frustrations, I just thought I'd add something that I heard while talking to a like-minded person in LA who just happened to be the head of Warner Brothers' anti-piracy devision.
The reason those warnings are up there and why studios haven't tolerated/accepted the use of DVDs on multimedia devices is not that they don't want you to watch them on those devices, it's not because they're behind the times - it's all due to legalities. Let's use an example of that old classic, "Streetcar Named Desire." When that film was made, no one had a magic crystal ball that could tell them that some day, there would be these magic devices that would allow people to watch this new movie on a tiny little handheld thing called an "iPod." So when they were drafting up the contracts between the film maker, the studio, and the distributor, they didn't include rights to distribution on futuristic multimedia devices. They didn't know they would ever exist, so they didn't include clauses in the contracts to lay out who owned what right to what distribution network. It used to be just clean and simple - it went to a theater, and that was that.
This problem has been in existence ever since movies were first released ages ago through betamax, laserdisc, VHS, and DVD. Whenever a new form of distribution develops, the lawyers have to debate ownership all over again - it's like starting over from scratch as if the old contracts never existed. Most of the time, it takes them months - if not years - to figure out who to even negotiate with because with some old films and TV shows, they don't even know who owns what rights anymore. Perfect example, the Cosby Show: fans kept screaming for years, blaming studios for not releasing DVDs soon enough. The simple fact was - there were so many people involved, it proved almost impossible to track them all down to get all the legalities straight in order to release the 80's TV show on technology from the 90's. That took long enough and now that we're dealing with such rapidly changing technology from the new millenium, the lawyers just can't keep up. By the time they've figured out the contracts for one multimedia form of distribution, it's already become outdated and the consumer is screaming for their favorite show or movie on a new personal media player.

Anyway, that's how I heard it, and from a legal stand point, it really makes sense. So even though it really pains me to say this - let's cut them some slack. A lot of the lawyers I've talked to aren't out there just to screw us geeks over. They're really just trying to make sure that everything's legal, that the artists and owners get what rights and royalties they deserve, and unfortunately that process takes so long, they're all a bit behind the times when it comes to technology.

So anyway, just thought I'd add that point of view since no one else had brought it up yet. This topic is so complicated and has so many facets to it that, sure it'd be easier to just scream and rant and rave and say they're all out to get us. But we're intelligent beings, we should realize that maybe we don't know the whole story. And when we realize that, we can stop, take a minute, and then reevaluate the situation and only end up learning more about the system.
Anyway. That's my bit. I'm sure I'll be flamed for it, but I hope at least somebody got something out of it.

[Jay @ May 21st 2007 4:10AM]

I work in Baghdad and pirated movies recorded in the theater's are commonplace here. The pirate copy I have seen of Spiderman 3 here looks to have been recorded in Japan. Judging by the movie theater attendants standing in front of the screen trying to catch people recording, and the people talking during the film etc... The "security guy" attempting to catch people recording was clearly visable for almost the entire film...

[johnpmorton @ May 21st 2007 6:06AM]

Um, have these people seen Spiderman 3? Not really worth the cost of an HD or Blu Ray Disk -