Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones

from the get-over-it dept

paperbag alerts us to the news that Peter Jackson is the latest filmmaker to go semi-ballistic over a film leaking to the internet. His new film, The Lovely Bones, apparently showed up online via a screener copy, leading Jackson to warn:
He stated that although up until [now] he did not hold a grudge against file sharing, he is heavily disappointed that the leak even happened to begin with. He also stated that "those responsible for the leak will be brought to justice with the maximum prosecution of the law in mind" and that "anyone who is caught illegally downloading the film will also be prosecuted to the fullest", both statements which are sure to lose him a few fans.
Jackson is definitely a director with a huge and loyal following. These are people will see his movies no matter what -- even if they happen to download them. It's a bit surprising that he would go to such an extreme, even to the point of claiming that those who are caught downloading the film will be prosecuted (though, we wonder how he's going to figure out who downloads the film). Being anti-fan is no way to build a business these days.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    BetterFan, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 2:01am

    a tad on the righteous side...

    ...but whatever, he made LotR.
    Film houses should be adapting to the new theatre; the customers living room. There is absolutely no logical reason I shouldn't be able to watch a theatrical release the day it would hit theatres on my video on demand system at home other than the fact that it puts the middle man directly out of business. Come play in my territory Hollywood, the terms of this agreement aren't dictated anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Nick Taylor, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 2:20am

    Does anyone here actually know him?

    Someone needs to gently explain that people sharing your work online does not appear to reduce sales... in fact if anything it increases them.

    The movie industry has made more money than at any time in the whole of movie history. It's doing this by launching/repeating franchises etc - here's a list of top selling movies by decade

    http://www.leesmovieinfo.net/WBOdecade.php?y=200

    The originality is becoming thinner and thinner, the profits are fatter and fatter. This tendency started before the internet was capable of sharing movies.

    If Peter made less money than he wanted to out of The Lovely Bones, then my guess is that the reasons for it are with the way the business/culture have evolved - and not because people who like the movie enough to share it, are sharing it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 2:29am

    A shame, as I'm damn sure that pirated copies of Bad Taste and Meet The Feebles were doing the rounds in playgrounds in the late 80s. I'm sure they didn't hurt his career, and probably helped build the fanbase that allowed him to get larger gigs in the first place.

    Besides, anyone surprised that TLB would have leaked is a fool. It's a highly anticipated movie both for fans of Jackson's and fans of the best-selling novel. "Anticipated" mean there are people not willing to wait months for the official release date = demand for a screener (while it's out in the US tomorrow, some territories won't get it till March). Not to expect this is to be rather foolish.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 2:34am

    Being anti-fan is no way to build a business these days.

    This has to be one of the arrogant statements I have ever read. Someone has taken his work and given it to the world without permission, totally disrespected him, and he is suppose to suddenly bend over and be "fan friendly" about it?

    Holy crap Mike, that is the most idiotic stand possible. Were you even thinking when you wrote this piece?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:01am

    until

    I dont know why HW hasnt seen the ability to Distribute movies ONLINE on the DATE of release, at a CHEAP price.

    They could setup their OWN site, and sell NEW/OLD/Current/OLD movies at $3-5 each and make a FORTUNE. and NO DRM.

    They could even setup their DISTRIBUTION system to theaters threw the SAME outlet/design.

    NO MORE shipping, handling.
    1 ORIGINAL and 1,000,000,000,000 copies from the site.
    LOWEr overhead,
    LOWER costs..

    I KNOW WHY..
    THEY are STUPID.
    Look around HULU..look at whats happening.
    MANY of those companies that WANTED them to setup, are NOT releasing the NEW videos to HULU. They are creating THEIR OWN SITES, and they ALL SUCK.
    They dont see that setting up a SEVER FARM with access and HD space and BANDWIDTH, is a JOB from hell.
    TRY to get 1,000,000 using your service to DL video and watch ONLINE and not LAG... ASK yahoo and GOOGLE about it.
    AOl couldnt keep up, and finally DIED.

    WE need 1 central location to get ONLINE content..2-3-4 for different TYPES of content..
    Series
    Specials
    TV/CABLE/SAT
    MOVIES
    Its a PAIN in the %$@#%$ to go from SITE to SITE and see if a series has been updated..EVEN HULU sucks in sorting ALL the video.
    If you figure that 1/2 the CABLE/SAT channels all have a site up and are BACKINGUP/SHOWING the shows on the net...WOW.. it wont be long BEFORE all the OLD stuff is there and TONS of NEW stuff...
    BUT, where is it.
    Look up WB/Cartoon network/and the other cartoon channels..there should be TONS of old cartoons online. THEY WONT POST THEM.
    and then you wonder WHY people pirate.

    YOU could make a FORTUNE converting VHS to DIGITAL and putting it on a PRIVATE network.
    EVEn the OLD doctor WHO series has LOST over 300 episodes. they searched the world for copies. NONE.. A few PIRATED versions were found and COPIED for the BBC to use.

    USE the NET, USE what is ALREADY there. TRYING the REMAKE the wheel is VERY hard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    ECA (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:01am

    until

    I dont know why HW hasnt seen the ability to Distribute movies ONLINE on the DATE of release, at a CHEAP price.

    They could setup their OWN site, and sell NEW/OLD/Current/OLD movies at $3-5 each and make a FORTUNE. and NO DRM.

    They could even setup their DISTRIBUTION system to theaters threw the SAME outlet/design.

    NO MORE shipping, handling.
    1 ORIGINAL and 1,000,000,000,000 copies from the site.
    LOWEr overhead,
    LOWER costs..

    I KNOW WHY..
    THEY are STUPID.
    Look around HULU..look at whats happening.
    MANY of those companies that WANTED them to setup, are NOT releasing the NEW videos to HULU. They are creating THEIR OWN SITES, and they ALL SUCK.
    They dont see that setting up a SEVER FARM with access and HD space and BANDWIDTH, is a JOB from hell.
    TRY to get 1,000,000 using your service to DL video and watch ONLINE and not LAG... ASK yahoo and GOOGLE about it.
    AOl couldnt keep up, and finally DIED.

    WE need 1 central location to get ONLINE content..2-3-4 for different TYPES of content..
    Series
    Specials
    TV/CABLE/SAT
    MOVIES
    Its a PAIN in the %$@#%$ to go from SITE to SITE and see if a series has been updated..EVEN HULU sucks in sorting ALL the video.
    If you figure that 1/2 the CABLE/SAT channels all have a site up and are BACKINGUP/SHOWING the shows on the net...WOW.. it wont be long BEFORE all the OLD stuff is there and TONS of NEW stuff...
    BUT, where is it.
    Look up WB/Cartoon network/and the other cartoon channels..there should be TONS of old cartoons online. THEY WONT POST THEM.
    and then you wonder WHY people pirate.

    YOU could make a FORTUNE converting VHS to DIGITAL and putting it on a PRIVATE network.
    EVEn the OLD doctor WHO series has LOST over 300 episodes. they searched the world for copies. NONE.. A few PIRATED versions were found and COPIED for the BBC to use.

    USE the NET, USE what is ALREADY there. TRYING the REMAKE the wheel is VERY hard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Planespotter (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:10am

    By all accounts the film is terrible, no doubt Jackson will blame any lack of box office revenue on file-sharing and not on his own hack directing approach to turning a best seller into a visual mess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Rasmus, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:18am

    Trade Secrets

    I think its important to distinguish between copyright infringements and violations of trade secrets.

    Before a movie has premiered it is still a trade secret. And if it leaks during that time it will most likely be much more damaging than ordinary copyright infringement. Because the creator hasn't had time to put all mechanisms for monetizing in place yet.

    After a movie has premiered, and all mechanisms for monetizing should be in place, it is mostly a consequence of a bad business model if the creator cannot benefit from the enhanced marketing filesharing creates.

    I might add that this is not an argument for the practice of different release windows. Trying to keep something a trade secret in one market while its already made public in another market or another format is a seriously flawed business model today.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    some old guy, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:43am

    Re:

    TAM, you're not too bright, are you...

    Why don't you stop commenting on issues you are not capable of understanding?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:44am

    Thanks for telling us your movie's available online, Peter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:51am

    Well

    that's another movie I won't watch, not downloaded, not in the cinema and not on DVD/BluRay or any other format.

    If you kneejerk like this, you don't deserve my money. period.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    DS, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:55am

    Re: a tad on the righteous side...

    "a tad on the righteous side...

    ...but whatever, he made LotR."

    Which was, ironically, a pompous righteous movie...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    DS, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:56am

    Re: until

    That's an awful poem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:57am

    Re:

    I actually sort of agree with you on this one.

    Normally I see nothing wrong with filesharing, but this is a case where the movie was published before the official release. Which probably means they accessed a storage device they shouldn't have had access to. That's both a violation of the studio's (real) property rights and of their privacy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:59am

    Re:

    Straw Man Fallacy

    1 Person A has position X.
    2 Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
    3 Person B attacks position Y.
    4 Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Simon, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:04am

    Re: Trade Secrets

    This is a legitimate point, but I think Peter Jackson should have handled it much better. Rather than attacking and threatening his fans, he should be concentrating on the person in his own industry responsible for the leak.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:05am

    Re:

    I don't think he has to be friendly or excited, but he doesn't need to threaten to sue.

    I just heard about this movie last night at a group I go to, and everyone was very excited about the movie and praising the book.

    Now I have no desire to see it. I don't even care enough to download it. That's what anti-fan gets you.

    Making a statement like this, is like Peter Jackson making a statement on the Obama Health Care plan. I have no issue with him having an opinion, but it's likely his opinion will upset a segment of the country.

    In this case, Peter Jackson has promised to sue people he isn't even sure downloaded the movie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:13am

    Re: Trade Secrets

    "Before a movie has premiered it is still a trade secret."

    The Lovely Bones had its premiere screening in London on the 24th November 2009, and has already been widely released in Australia and New Zealand. Hardly a trade secret now, even if that argument held true.

    Your arguments still depend on a proven fallacy - that people who view the "pirated" copy won't see a legit release. Look at the Wolverine fiasco last year for how a pre-release copy does not necessarily mean lost revenue.

    "it is mostly a consequence of a bad business model if the creator cannot benefit from the enhanced marketing filesharing creates."

    It is also a consequence of a bad business model if withholding the product from a large cross-section of potential customers is necessary to make a profit (see: regional windowing, windowing between theatrical & DVD release, etc.).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Chill, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:13am

    Re: until

    The random capitalization... it burns the eyes...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:31am

    Downloaded his movie a week ago. Nope. No cops or lawyers yet. Good luck with that BTW. Maybe get your own house in order first asshole. These leaks are coming from the inside.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:32am

    I've got a lovely bone he can suck on long and hard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    bob, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:42am

    If you rant you lose

    Just ask Metallica.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Al, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:46am

    Even if a sneak peek would increase sells, it doesn't change the fact that it is stealing. It isn't for the public to decide what is morally right on an legal situation of a privately owned creation.

    He has the right to threaten if someone steals from him.
    I find it odd that if someone stole something from me, and I threatened to press charges on anyone with stolen goods--that the community would be angry for me doing so. (Anti-fan).

    If you're going to steal--okay. Just beware of the consequences that may come along with such actions.

    However, some good solutions is to make the actual person who leaked the material to pay severely for their crimes should be more of a priority then the people that have their hands out for pirated content.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:59am

    Bottom line

    The day they let me get my money back for over hyped, piss poor products that I've had the misfortune of spending 20 plus dollars to see (not counting the 30 dollar candy bar and the 10 buck drink) without making me jump through hoops, will be the day I put away my eye patch and parrot. Instead of spending a majority of your capital on hype, spend it on getting the product right. I don’t need a cover that bull shits about the content contained. I want a movie that’s worth the money. When I “find” a movie that makes me glad for watching, I buy it when it comes out. Otherwise, when I don’t get entertained, clean disk and back to the hunt, without spending $$.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:01am

    Re:

    Steal? As Inigo Montoya would say - "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    Nothing has been stolen. Jackson's film is still available to anyone who wants to see it. In some places, it's currently being withheld for legal viewing by the studios, but they have all the prints intact to show at as many cinemas as they wish.

    By attacking the *downloaders*, Jackson is making an anti-fan statement. Most of the people downloading are *fans* who don't wish to wait a potential enforced 6 months (if they can't make it to a cinema showing the movie or it's not being released in their region for a while). It's less likely that casual movie-goers are bothering to download it than it is hardcore movie fans who want to check the movie out to see if it's worth paying theatrical prices for (as its gotten extremely mixed reviews).

    As ever, this is not to justify "piracy". But, for as long as the "pirates" are more willing to satisfy fan demand than the studios, "piracy" will always exist. Jackson should be either reducing this demand or accepting it and building a business model around the fact that it exists. Not attacking the fans downloading the material.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:04am

    Re:

    Repeat after me, copyright violations does not equal theft.

    You know why? because no physical goods were misplaced or removed. Look it up in the lawbooks, you have copyright laws and laws regarding theft. Both types are in different law books, and have different punishments.
    Yes, it's illegal, perhaps even immoral (though that remains to be seen) but it's not theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    CastorTroy-Libertarian, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:11am

    Re:

    yea and cause Jackson is acting like an ass, i wont see the movie... but i might download it...

    before i figured i would see it in the theater.. now thanks to shills like you and his "DOWNLOAD AND DIE" attitude, i could give a big steamy pile of shit (kinda like almost every one of your posts, are you Peter Jackson?_) about him or the movie...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    CastorTroy-Libertarian, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:14am

    Re: Trade Secrets

    One response needed: Wolverine Movie... Hmm seem to work rather well...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:16am

    Re: Re:

    I will neither confirm nor deny that I have seen this leaked copy, but if I were a betting man I'd bet my entire paycheck that this leaked copy was sent to a movie critic for award consideration purposes. Thus, it was leaked by someone who it was *given* to, and no one "accessed a storage device they shouldn't have".

    I hope this clears things up for you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    CastorTroy-Libertarian, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:17am

    Re:

    Pretty sure the Public does decide whats law and whats not, and thats pretty much true through out the world,

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:20am

    Re:

    Also, it was a screener copy, which means it was specifically *given* to someone to review it for awards considerations.

    If it is *given*, then it's not theft, (even by your twisted use of the word)is it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:22am

    Re: Bottom line

    will be the day I put away my eye patch and parrot.

    will be the day I put away me eye patch and me parrot, matey.

    FTFY :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:41am

    Re:

    "It isn't for the public to decide what is morally right on an legal situation of a privately owned creation."

    Actually, it is for the public to decide what is morally right or not. That's what morality is (and that's how laws are suppose to be made).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:43am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Except...those copies are given out only with the understanding that the screeners are not to give them away to anyone else or to upload them. Screeners have had to sign an agreement to this affect in the past, and I suspect they still have to sign an agreement to get the screening copy, meaning that if the screener did sign an agreement, then the screener in fact violated the contract. I consider contract violations unethical and immoral.

    While Jackson's statement may have been "anti-fan," I suspect his bigger outrage was over the scumbag who violated the screening agreement, and it is on that point that I would agree with Jackson and disagree with Mike. While Mike does not agree with the violations of the person breaking a screening agreement, neither did he appear particularly discomfited by the actions of the unethical person who violated a contract.

    Sorry, Mike, but the ends do not justify the means.

    As to identifying who downloaded a copy of the film and who uploaded a copy, it depends on whether the copy was watermarked. Individual copies used to be identified when they were provided on VHS because it was easy to do. Apparently it is more difficult and expensive to do on DVD. Yet, it is still done fairly often. I seriously doubt Jackson would actually go after someone who downloaded a copy of the film obtained through a violated agreement, but if the watermark exists, so does the possibility of finding this person, especially if they participate in a torrent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:46am

    Re: Re:

    I was not planning on seeing the movie, but being sympathetic to Jackson over having his trust violated, I think I will go see it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Steve R. (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:48am

    Leaks - An Inside Job

    An unappreciated aspect of the whole piracy issue is that when content is leaked, the most likely source of that leak is someone closely associated with the content.

    Once content is created, it easily "escapes" and points to an inability of the content creators to really control distribution. So when it is leaked, its too late, too bad, get on with life. But my real point, why continue to blame the informal distribution system and try to stamp it out when internal security is responsibility to the content creators?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:49am

    Re: until

    "SEVER FARM"...yuck...Sounds like a title for some sort of bizarre horror film.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    IOERROR, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:52am

    Funny

    Did he write this from his $1,000,000.00 home? I feel so bad for him.

    I hate Hollywood I swear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 5:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "the screener in fact violated the contract"

    Indeed, which makes it a contract breach, not "stealing". Two very, very different concepts.

    "While Jackson's statement may have been "anti-fan," I suspect his bigger outrage was over the scumbag who violated the screening agreement"

    His words directly attacked "downloaders", who are the fans among others. As ever, the question is WHY did the copy get leaked? The reason is because the movie is much anticipated, being released at a relatively small number of screens for a major studio picture and has gotten very mixed reviews (making it important for a customer to know whether the movie is worth the potential $30+ they'll spend seeing it theatrically).

    Again, that's the point. Whether you agree with the leak or not, you cannot deny that it's the studios' marketing tactics that are making the download desirable in the first place. As long as the demand exists, so will the "pirates". Best to deal with the fact that it exists, rather than hiding in a corner and hope those "pirates" will go away (as Sony did with Moon).

    "if the watermark exists, so does the possibility of finding this person"

    ...and? People have been caught and prosecuted via watermarks before, but that didn't stop this copy getting out. If the person who leaked this copy is caught and prosecuted, it won't stop leaks in the future.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    sexydiverguy (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 6:00am

    Screener = Preview for the critics/journalists.

    I might be a hobby critic or journalist, shouldn't I be entitled to a copy to view at home too. :)

    BTW..I am not a fan of Mr Jackson's work...and less of one after this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 6:16am

    Re:

    His statement is extremely anti-fan.

    Who do you think is going to download this? It is not the people who don't want to see his movies. These are not people that are trying to hurt the guy financially. It is being downloaded by PEOPLE THAT CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE FILM.

    These are his biggest fans. It sucks that the newest generation of people have no patience, but trying to cater to that impatience is now good business sense. These are the people most excited about the film. Telling them that they are criminals (while possibly true) is much more likely to alienate them than it is to suddenly make them better fans.

    This kind of a situation has been handled with a softer touch by other film makers: Telling the fans that the version was not ready for release. Praising them for being loyal fans. Letting them know that the version in the theater will be much better and if they liked the downloaded one, the one they pay for will blow their minds.

    We have seen study after study that suggest that the people that downloaded the movie are still pretty likely to go see it when it comes out. It may not be right that they downloaded it, but it is bad business sense to make likely customers dislike you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 6:24am

    Re:

    As others have pointed out, this is infringement, not stealing.

    And, once again, the point is not that infringement should be legal, or moral, or that publishing a copy was in some way the right thing to do. The point is that it happened. It is going to happen - technology has made this far too easy to stop it now.

    Particularly in cases where this has already happened, it is not good business sense to threaten the people that downloaded the film. Yes, they have done something you may not have wanted - and they have violated the law. The problem with his reaction is that it is a poor business move. Studies have shown that the people that downloaded the film are still pretty likely to go see it. These are pretty likely to be big fans of his. He may be within his rights to threaten the fans, but his behavior is not likely to get these people to go see the film.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    HulluwuudHuck, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 6:37am

    Re: Re: until

    Sold!

    Plz expand summary to 140 characters.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 6:47am

    Why doesn't the movie industry look at the way steam operates and the success that they have had? I have dropped quite a bit of money on games that i might not have bought before just because of a good special and the fact that it is readily available. When things are priced right people jump all over it. Can I find a pirated version of the games out there? Sure. Have a friends list that shows what your friends are watching. Discuss the film gift films to people. Bring back to life old movies that newer generations aren't as aware of by having weekend specials.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    HELLO!?!, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 6:53am

    Funny!

    All publicity is good publicity in show business, and that is what making movies is. Look at this as a fine example of capturing the public eye! Everyone is talking about it because of PJ's so called "freak out", some got a sneak peek and THAT will make everyone else want one. By the time the movie comes out, folks will have forgotten their outrage.

    And he did produce LOTR....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    surfer, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 6:54am

    Lovely Bones

    personally, I did not get the movie's plot, strange as it was. And I am currently hosting a copy of the screener, for as many people that would like to download it, FOR FREE.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 6:56am

    Re: until

    His writing style reminds me of an SQL statement ....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Rasmus, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 6:58am

    Re: Re: Trade Secrets

    I totally agree with you on that. But personally I'm willing to forgive him for being angry at the guy who leaked it, and maybe overreacting for a while. Unless he actually starts suing downloaders.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Rasmus, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 7:02am

    Re: Re: Trade Secrets

    "The Lovely Bones had its premiere screening in London on the 24th November 2009, and has already been widely released in Australia and New Zealand. Hardly a trade secret now, even if that argument held true."

    If that is the case I would agree with you that this is not a case of violation of trade secrets. And totally a result of a flawed business model based on regional release windows.

    "It is also a consequence of a bad business model if withholding the product from a large cross-section of potential customers is necessary to make a profit (see: regional windowing, windowing between theatrical & DVD release, etc.)."

    Thanks for clarifying what I meant to say.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Rasmus, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 7:09am

    Re: Re: Trade Secrets

    Except Wolverine was a large movie release, so at the time of the leak the studio would have had most monetizing methods in place already and was able to cash in on the increased exposure.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 7:12am

    Re:

    Silly TAM, "arrogant" was your buzz word 2 weeks ago. This week's is "FOAD." Is your memory failing? Perhaps you should go consult a doctor.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 7:18am

    Re:

    I'm pretty sure what he meant is that he should do this behind the scenes. Not come out publicly and say he will pursue his fans, thus making enemies. Take a chill pill and look outside your box.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 7:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Trade Secrets

    "Wolverine was a large movie release"

    ...and, whose decision is that?

    According to boxofficemojo.com, Wolverine was released in 4,102 US theaters, while The Lovely Bones is released in 2,400. They clearly have the option to release TLB in more screens, but have opted not to do so.

    They can still "cash in", but they have to recognise a few facts. One of these is that TLB is difficult subject matter, and so people will want to preview it before spending the money. Another is the fact that a smaller screen count means that it's more difficult and more expensive for those living outside of major metropolitan areas to see it. A third is the very mixed reviews the movie has had, and that unlike Wolverine it's not a "must see on the big screen" kind of movie.

    Either way, it's a fact that the studios' own releasing and marketing methods are creating demand for the "pirated" copy, and there's no evidence that the screener will lead to lost overall revenue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Dave (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 7:28am

    Terrible Movie

    The difference between this and Wolverine is that this movie (I havent seen it, Ive only heard) is terrible. It is well hyped; they made really pretty previews, but the movie itself sucks.

    It is very hard to monetize a movie that sucks once people know it sucks. If you can hold back that truth until opening weekend, you can still make a fortune.

    That is the business model that is currently failing. Leaked screeners make it very hard to lie to the general public. Hollywood actually has to make decent movies now, and that scares the crap out of them!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Dirk Belligerent (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 7:28am

    Re: Watermarking

    As to identifying who downloaded a copy of the film and who uploaded a copy, it depends on whether the copy was watermarked. Individual copies used to be identified when they were provided on VHS because it was easy to do. Apparently it is more difficult and expensive to do on DVD. Yet, it is still done fairly often.

    I used to review DVDs for a major media site and there were several instances where we were provided with watermarked, serial numbered discs made by DeLuxe where some sort of interference pattern was added to the copy to make it identifiable. The problem is the watermarking borked the image quality by adding artifacts. (The first time I encountered one of these, I thought it was merely a horrible transfer and encode.) Since the most important aspect of the reviews to some readers was the A/V quality - who cared what we thought of the film itself? - it sort of defeated the purpose of doing early reviews of new releases. Most of the time, we'd eventually get a retail copy to screen and update the review, but a few remain incomplete because the studios were so paranoid that we'd hand out copies of their product.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 7:31am

    Re: Terrible Movie

    Err, that sounds exactly like Wolverine to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    selfserve, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 7:55am

    thanks!

    thanks P. Jackson for bringing to my attention the availability of your recent movie on P2P networks. i was not aware of this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 8:03am

    Re: Re:

    YOU'VE DONE IT! YOU HAVE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!

    Children have no patience. I wonder whether these same people who just "can't wait" open Christmas presents the moment they go under the tree. I bet if some of these same children could break into Stephen King's house to see his 30% completed manuscript because they just "can't wait" for the book to be published, they would.

    In real life, sometimes you have to wait if it is to be everything you expected it to be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Pending list, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 8:13am

    i put this movie on my CRIA PENDING LIST

    thats right sorry peter but you have to wait now 30-40 years
    its the same excuse that the CRIA in Canada uses to not pay musicians and im using it now for everything

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anony1, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 8:35am

    @Mike Masnick: You really have jumped the shark on this one.
    For once, I agree with anti-Mike. Anti-fan? Even if these peopel are "fans" this is totally beyond the pale. So now other people get to decide whether your works are released,against your permission and as long as they are "fans" it's all good right? OR even better, because some new fans might get to see the film, and like it, so being against illegal release is now anti-fan?!! TOTAL BS. That was just a arrogant, and stupid statement on your part. It strains logic, credibility, and is literally laughable. Yes current copyright is messed up, but please don't do the entire cause of reform a disservice by further idiotic statements.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anony1, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 8:39am

    -- even if they happen to download them.

    Is this like people who didn't know they were pregnant?
    You don't just stumble upon downloads like trippping over a hidden rock on a hiking trail. Woops...how did that get in my shoe?! People don't "happen" to download torrents. It's intentional. It is pre-release, and YES, in cases like this, is the equivalent of theft. Spare me...

    Do you seriously expect people to take that statement with a straight face?! LOL....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 8:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I bet if some of these same children could break into Stephen King's house to see his 30% completed manuscript because they just "can't wait" for the book to be published, they would.

    I see your bet and raise you the fact that 100% of those that would want to read a 30% completed book will buy the book when it comes out.

    That, my friend, is the point. The **fans** are the ones that care about an early release. If I don't like Mr. King's writing, I won't want it at 30%, or 50%, or 100%.

    While it is not illegal to alienate your fans, it is a very bad business decision.

    Do you understand now?

    In real life, sometimes you have to wait if it is to be everything you expected it to be.

    Which is fine if you have some argument about an unfinished work. (See above for why that's silly) However, the movie is question is/was ready to be seen, and was only delayed to add "hype" or whatever the marketing world wants to call it. Making your *paying* customers wait for a product that is complete only gives them a reason to pirate. If a movie was released as soon as it was done, these fans would just go out and see it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 8:46am

    Re: until

    Reading a comment should never remind me of riding a roller coaster.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 8:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Trade Secrets

    there's no evidence that the screener will lead to lost overall revenue.

    A leaked copy will certainly lower your sales if your movie sucks. I think that is their *real* fear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 8:52am

    Re:

    I had to agree with everything you said until you went all retard on me and called it theft.

    Perhaps beside the point, but the phrase "even if they happen to download them" doesn't mean "even if they accidentally download them", it means "regardless on whether or not they download them".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 8:57am

    Re:

    You're confused. (again)

    So now other people get to decide whether your works are released,against your permission and as long as they are "fans" it's all good right?

    He said he was going to go after downloaders. (aka fans) Note that the downloaders are not the person who uploaded.

    Therefore, he is attacking his fans who did nothing but accept a free offer for what they wanted, that is, to see the movie asap. Getting angry at his fans for being eager to see the movie seems a bit anti-fan, doesn't it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    loupgarou, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 9:29am

    ok, nice reaction, not watching the movie,. can't be bothered even download it.

    what you do is not so great that it is irreplacable..

    (yes not even avatar, but i watched it at the cinema anyway..(and only because i saw dances with smurfs on southpark FIRST))

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anony1, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 10:11am

    Getting angry at his fans for being eager to see the movie seems a bit anti-fan, doesn't it?


    OK. The theft thing is obviously something people will not agree on. However, IMHO, the big point everyone is missing is this: Are those "fans" really showing respect for Mr. Jackson, when he does NOT want those fans to watch this pre-release? At what point, regardless of whether they want to see his films or not, are these fans disrespecting Mr. Jackson's wishes? Perhaps they are not as bad as the person who uploaded the link, but should we have to split hairs ?
    Why can't people just respect his wishes. A fan wants the best for the creator right? Or is it all about what the fan wants? That's the mentality many people have, and it's wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 10:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I bet if some of these same children could break into Stephen King's house to see his 30% completed manuscript because they just "can't wait" for the book to be published, they would.

    I see your bet and raise you the fact that 100% of those that would want to read a 30% completed book will buy the book when it comes out.

    Maybe they would. Maybe they would not. Regardless, they did something unethical and immoral because they could "not wait."

    That, my friend, is the point. The **fans** are the ones that care about an early release. If I don't like Mr. King's writing, I won't want it at 30%, or 50%, or 100%.

    While it is not illegal to alienate your fans, it is a very bad business decision.

    Do you understand now?


    Being a fan is lovely. Having Stephen King release a portion of a book or story, or even an entire chapter, as a teaser is fine. That is Mr. King's choice and decision. That certainly seems like a "pro-fan" thing to do. HOWEVER, the decision is Mr. King's, not the immoral and unethical jerk who violated his rights and privacy.

    In real life, sometimes you have to wait if it is to be everything you expected it to be.

    Which is fine if you have some argument about an unfinished work. (See above for why that's silly) However, the movie is question is/was ready to be seen, and was only delayed to add "hype" or whatever the marketing world wants to call it. Making your *paying* customers wait for a product that is complete only gives them a reason to pirate. If a movie was released as soon as it was done, these fans would just go out and see it.

    There are two separate issues here. Please do not mix the two.

    The second issue, in my mind, is the piracy. I am on the fence about someone pirating a movie or a song. I personally do not do that, but I have yet to decide how wrong it is for someone else to do it. I am somewhat persuaded by Mike's arguments that with modern technology people need to rely less on copyright and more on alternative business models. But that is not the issue.

    The first issue is whether someone violated trust when they either stole the copy (assuming the screener did not do the uploading) or whether the screener violated an obligation. I think several people have made this point and I think it is a valid point. The fan stuff is interesting, but unrelated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    Matt (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 10:58am

    Re:

    I do not watch TV, but will buy one now that I know there is a parody of Avatar called "Dances With Smurfs". I am a 2-time Avatard, and as technically brilliant as the SFX are, the script is mos def "Dances With Smurfs".

    I wonder what Matt & Trey would do with copyright, if they thought to lampoon it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 11:06am

    Re:

    And a screener, no less! No crappy cam copy with people walking in front of the camera. To Pirate Bay we go!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 11:27am

    Re:

    The Lovely Bones leaked before it was known how Peter Jackson felt.

    How are fans supposed to know? I guess they know now. So it's disrespectful after Jackson's statement but not before.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 11:42am

    Re:

    A fan wants the best for the creator right?

    It would be best for the creator for me to see the movie 3 times a day for a month, but that's not going to happen because it's *not* what's best for the creator that is important, it's what's best for both of us.

    What's best for both of us is for me to see it when I want to see it and pay for it. Since we, the consumers, are not given that option, we default to a close second: See it when we want to see it and then go pay.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anony1, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 11:43am

    @AC: Are you asking, telling, being sarcastic, or just a moron? It's disrepectful before and after. I'm sick of the semantical games. The reason no one asnwered my question is simple. There is no good answer. Just because it is now a technical possibility through the use of torrents, to view leaked releases, doesn't make it an "option" for fans, as Mike and others seem (I've heard no rebuttal) to be arguing for. It's basic common sense that a creator should have some control, especially PRIOR to any official release. Anti-fan is just BS. Should these people be sent to the gulag? NO. That said, they also shouldn't be treated like heros. Being a fan doesn't give you immunity from harming or offending the content creator. Just because you like someone's work, and are therefor a "fan" doesn't give you cart blanche to just download because you want it. You may have the technical ability to, but there is a huge difference. People seem to be arguing for some sort of moral cover, or pass because they are "fans". That is a pretty sorry excuse, quite lame, and quite transparent. The fact is no one knows one way or the other if those "fans" will ever pay to see the official release. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, and then claiming that the creators concerns alone make him "anti-fan", is the hieght of arrogance, and wrong on all counts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: until

    hehe

    SELECT anonymousCoward WHERE grammar_level

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 11:46am

    Re: Re: Re: until

    wow, sql statement got killed by the text to html translator. yea... nevermind. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re:

    see: "On Civil Disobedience" by David Thoreau

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anony1, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 11:52am

    Since we, the consumers, are not given that option, we default to a close second: See it when we want to see it and then go pay.


    WRONG. YOU choose the second option, and option which is neither desired, legal, or on the level. Who gave you the right or permission? Oh that's right, you just granted that right to yourself. I wasn't aware that the fans were now the ones that got to make such decisions, and legally as well ///SARCASM

    That's the problem, you've put your desire for entertainment above the wishes of the creator. Your argument is this:

    The film isn't out, I want to see it, so if there is a means to do so, I will, even if it is against the creators wishes, and possibly illegal, and I don't care. I'll pay later so it's all good...

    Funny how this self-created permission and justification comes right when the technical ability to do so happens right? Your mentality is abhorant, and unfortunately, engrained in large populations of the youth of 21st century America.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 12:03pm

    Re:

    It's disrepectful before and after.

    It's disrespectful to want to view the work of someone you admire? How so?

    Just because it is now a technical possibility through the use of torrents, to view leaked releases, doesn't make it an "option" for fans, as Mike and others seem (I've heard no rebuttal) to be arguing for.

    I am making no moral argument here. I am saying that if it is available, it is factually speaking, an option for people to view it. The fact that people have viewed it proves this. I am not saying if that's a morally good thing or a morally bad thing. Frankly, I don't think it matters. It's happening.

    It's basic common sense that a creator should have some control, especially PRIOR to any official release.

    Should is a moral statement. But if you want to make it, sure. They should have control. But once they don't? Then what? That's all I'm concerned with. So it is available. Pretending otherwise is meaningless. So my concern is GIVEN that it's available, how should the creator respond.

    And I would argue that Jackson's response was anti-fan.

    Anti-fan is just BS. Should these people be sent to the gulag? NO. That said, they also shouldn't be treated like heros.

    No one is treating them as heroes. Again, I am taking the position of recognizing that the content is out there. You can't go back. So given that, how should Jackson respond. And I would argue that blaming those who downloaded it, and threatening them with the law is incredibly anti-fan.

    If you want to see a suggestion for a "pro fan" way to reply to such things, you can see what I suggested when Wolverine leaked:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0316244351.shtml

    Being a fan doesn't give you immunity from harming or offending the content creator. Just because you like someone's work, and are therefor a "fan" doesn't give you cart blanche to just download because you want it.

    Again, no one said otherwise, so I do not know why you are reading so much into what I wrote. However, most of the people downloading it ARE fans, and Jackson's words are very much against them. I do not see how you can claim it is anything but anti-fan.

    People seem to be arguing for some sort of moral cover, or pass because they are "fans".

    No. Again, we made no moral argument at all. We just said that given that the content is available (indisputable) what is the best way to respond. And Jackson chose a method that is clearly anti-fan. I find that to be a bad business proposition, entirely separate of the moral questions, which we aren't even getting into.

    Giving them the benefit of the doubt, and then claiming that the creators concerns alone make him "anti-fan", is the hieght of arrogance, and wrong on all counts.

    Again, you seem to falsely accuse us of "giving them the benefit of the doubt." I'm doing no such thing. I made no claim on the morals of what they did either way. I was focused on Jackson's actions throughout the whole post. I am sorry if you misread it, but please focus on what I said, not what you think I said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 12:19pm

    Re:

    Welcome to the present. Enjoy your stay.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    Anony1, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 12:21pm

    It's disrepectful before and after.

    It's disrespectful to want to view the work of someone you admire? How so?

    To do so without permission..must I spell it out? Apparerntly so.

    "is GIVEN that it's available, how should the creator respond.

    And I would argue that Jackson's response was anti-fan.

    Anti-fan is just BS. Should these people be sent to the gulag? NO. That said, they also shouldn't be treated like heros.

    No one is treating them as heroes. Again, I am taking the position of recognizing that the content is out there. You can't go back. So given that, how should Jackson respond. And I would argue that blaming those who downloaded it, and threatening them with the law is incredibly anti-fan"

    OK. Fair enough. You make an argument based soley on the technical aspect. You will not jump into a moral argument.
    Now this is where I have a disagreement with you. This argument I will present is not moral, but purely technical.

    You are wrong, even from a technical standpoint, by definiton. "Anti-fan" means his actions in this case make him "anti-fan" in general. That's a straw-man attack, a good one, but a strawman none the less. The majority of the people who download this may be fans (no hard evidence obviously is availaible, and understandably so), BUT the majority of Jackson fans are NOT downloaders. Get it. It's basic logic 101. Most downloaders = Fans Most fans do not = downloaders. The equivalent would be if the majority of the downloaders were members of the green party. Let's say he does lots of enviromental films. He says they should be prosecuted. Does that make him now anti-green party? Or just against those green party members that downloaded his films?

    It may be a bad buisness decision, it may reflect poorly on Mr. Jackson, and it may impact his fans perception of him, but in no way, by definiton or otherwise is this "anti-fan".
    Nice talking with you =)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 12:30pm

    Re:

    even if it is against the creators wishes

    Are you suggesting that the movie was created so I could *not* watch it?

    Take your argument to the next level, if you bought a DVD and it came with a sticker that said you were only allowed to watch it on Friday nights at 8pm, would you do as the sticker demands, or would you say "Screw it, the technology exists to watch it whenever I want, and I'll do just that."

    Let's be honest here, friend. Jackson only cares because he feels he's losing money with piracy, not because the public saw it "too soon". If he wants to fight piracy, then compete with it: Give the fans what they want, when they want, and piracy won't be needed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    a-dub (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 12:37pm

    I really like Jackson's work, but I have no problem boycotting him the same way I boycotted Metallica after I saw Lars Ulrich's pathetic rant about how people that use Napster are stealing from him. I still do not listen to or purchase anything by Metallica. I can recognize that they are a great band, but to this day, every time I hear a metallica song on the radio(which I immediately change) I still remember good ole Lars crying about the money he didnt get. And how many years ago was that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    Anony1, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 12:41pm

    @The Infamous Joe: Joe how can he possibly "comete" with an illegal release schedule? So now the directors must move up an official release date, which may be tied in with sponsorships and promotions, and screw it all, because of piracy?


    Mike at least seems to be saying this is a reality that needs to be recongized. You've taken it one step further and saying this is his responsibility to you, and if he doesn't meet your expectations well then you give yourself other options. Mike is just saying what is possible. You are trying to justify it. Big difference. It's within your choice, but I highly question your motives in doing so.
    . HOW CAN HE GIVE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT BEFORE IT'S READY (including the buisness angle HE IS CHOOSING TO PERSUE) TO BE RELEASED??!! Incredible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 12:46pm

    Re:

    In a world where everything is copyrighted and therefore protected and in a world where some creators don't care about piracy and where some do care about piracy . . . .

    Where does this leave the public? Some in the public disagree with copyright, others agree with copyright . . . .

    How about we reform copyright because as I see it, the whole issue is confusing as the space between this world and the next.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    icon
    EEJ (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 12:46pm

    Downloading = not illegal

    Umm, unless US laws were changed without my noticing, it's the "uploader" who is committing the crime of copyright infringement, not the one downloading.

    So, did this change without my notice? I'm asking because I'm very careful to only download materials, and not upload them to anyone else.

    If I understand correctly, this is why the RIAA/MPAA have only gone after those "sharing" the files, and not those that have simply downloaded copyrighted content.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 12:48pm

    Re:

    It's pretty obvious that Peter Jackson will stop making movies. As of now. So good job, copyright infringers! You've just killed Peter Jackson's ability to make movies.

    Stupid copyright infringers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 1:27pm

    Mr Jackson is anti-freeloader, not anti-fan.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 1:34pm

    Re:

    If they sent the movie to a critic to be screened for award considerations, it was ready, wasn't it?

    The fact that people wanted to see the movie enough to torrent it shows that marketing had done their job, doesn't it?

    Also, from a business point of view, it *is* his responsibility to meet my expectations, as a consumer, or he'll find my attention pointed elsewhere, won't he?

    I'm not justifying anything. Piracy needs no justification to exist. Mike is saying that Jackson should have responded better to the leak, I'm saying he should have "leaked" it himself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 1:45pm

    Re: Downloading = not illegal

    That's not what the RIAA says:

    Examples of easy ways you could violate the law:

    Somebody you don't even know e-mails you a copy of a copyrighted song and then you turn around and e-mail copies to all of your friends.

    You make an MP3 copy of a song because the CD you bought expressly permits you to do so. But then you put your MP3 copy on the Internet, using a file-sharing network, so that millions of other people can download it.

    Even if you don't illegally offer recordings to others, you join a file-sharing network and download unauthorized copies of all the copyrighted music you want for free from the computers of other network members.

    In order to gain access to copyrighted music on the computers of other network members, you pay a fee to join a file-sharing network that isn't authorized to distribute or make copies of copyrighted music. Then you download unauthorized copies of all the music you want.

    You transfer copyrighted music using an instant messenging service.

    You have a computer with a CD burner, which you use to burn copies of music you have downloaded onto writable CDs for all of your friends.

    Black propaganda, all of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 2:36pm

    Re: Re:

    "It's disrespectful to want to view the work of someone you admire? How so?"

    Mike, c'mon man. It IS disrespectful to illegally download the movie in this case. Peter Jackson is in large part the creator, and he has pretty clearly expressed how he wishes for his content to be consumed. To download the movie might not be "wrong", it might not be "immoral", and free distribution/promotion of the work might be in the best good for everyone, but it is still disrespectful to a content creator to outright disregard the wishes surrounding his/her art.

    "I am not saying if that's a morally good thing or a morally bad thing. Frankly, I don't think it matters. It's happening."

    Couldn't have said it any better myself. The fact is that a person CAN be a rabid fan of an artist and still disrespect his wishes. In fact, I would suggest being a fan makes such more likely. Jackson is within his rights to be offended if he chooses, but there are more profitable ways to tackle this, as you've shown in the past. The question is would you rather be rigid, feel affronted, AND make less money, or be loose, accomodating, and make MORE money? The latter seems like the way to go.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 2:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Trade Secrets

    That's pretty much where I'm sitting too, though i still think he'd have been wiser to leave off attacking those who downloaded the thing.

    Sure, there's the 'remove demand, remove cause for supply' issue. the problem is, the only way to remove the demand is to remove the demand for what he's selling himself.

    Still, it's mildly annoying to see someone who has, until now, been something of a national example of 'how to actually do things right and be successful and stuff' say silly things like this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 2:44pm

    Re:

    What happens when all the fans are freeloaders?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    identicon
    Charles R. Curie, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:23pm

    Wow, i am so sorry for all those who think Peter Jackson is getting a raw deal from the so called free loaders. As mentioned, Peter Jackson did not hold the copyright and did not write or even imagine the creation of hobbits. The person who is being ripped off is always the creator of the original work/art. Everything after this is basically monetary gain. Laws are also determined not by a loud mouth but by a larger body of people who research the right and wrong in a all things. IMO, i have seen a lot of stolen motion pictures from books/comics/art and simply put thoughts from creative minds. Even "Avatar" has a black spot on it. Do not cast the first stone people. Your all guilty of something.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Maybe they would. Maybe they would not. Regardless, they did something unethical and immoral because they could "not wait."

    I wonder if there's anyone here arguing the opposite. The point is, Jackson has 2 choices here - accept and understand that *some* people do this and act accordingly, or throw a tantrum and threaten to have them arrested. Criticism of him making the wrong choice does not absolve the ethical wrongs of those downloading or leaking the movie, but there's certainly better ways to react. Especially in the modern era, when such leaks are frankly inevitable for any major movie.

    "In real life, sometimes you have to wait if it is to be everything you expected it to be."

    To play devil's advocate, people have spent decades doing exactly that and have been ripped off time and time again. Want to see 3 movies this week, but can only afford one? Trailers and reviews are often misleading, so some people find a preview the best way to find out. Again, I don't condone this, but it's definitely understandable, especially in non-US territories often forced to wait months or even years for certain releases.

    "The first issue is whether someone violated trust when they either stole the copy (assuming the screener did not do the uploading) or whether the screener violated an obligation."

    Neither of which justifies Jackson's threats against downloaders.

    "The fan stuff is interesting, but unrelated."

    Nope, it's the entire point. If Jackson had no fans, very few people would be interested in this release, and thus no downloads. I notice we're not discussing the available downloads of the UK production Fish Tank, another new movie this week released to just 2 theaters. Why is that? Because Peter Jackson has significantly more fans than Andrea Arnold.

    The fans cannot wait, and yet there's no evidence that their downloading affects the movie's success in any way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:35pm

    Re: Re: Terrible Movie

    Yeah, that's what I was going to say... Wolverine mostly had terrible-to-mediocre reviews (37% on Rotten Tomatoes), yet cleaned up despite a widely available workprint. The Lovely Bones has gotten similar reviews (35% on RT so far), but it's a less commercial film.

    Some jackasses didn't even like Pan's Labyrinth or Let The Right One In (two of the most perfect movies of the last decade IMHO), so I always take reviews with a pinch of salt. Are the poor reviews due to people not "getting" the material (it's resolutely not mainstream from what I understand), a backlash against Jackson's success or because the movie is bad? The best way to find out without blowing more (or close to the) money than the DVD would cost is, sadly, to download it...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:45pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "but it is still disrespectful to a content creator to outright disregard the wishes surrounding his/her art."

    It's also amazingly foolish for an experienced director not to expect this (AND producer, lest we forget - he is supposedly a veteran of the business side of movies from the day he self-produced Bad Taste onwards).

    The fact is that if you release a piece of art in the modern age, be it movies, TV, music or whatever, it can potentially be "misused" or used against the creator's wishes. Led Zep don't want their albums available digitally, but they are - legally ripped if not pirated. Rowling doesn't want eBooks of her novels, but they're out there. The Weinsteins still don't want to allow us in Europe to buy an uncut version of Grindhouse with the fake trailers intact, but I have it.

    Any artist has to accept this. Jackson utilises technology to bring to life movies that would not have been possible 20 years ago. He has to come to terms with the new distribution methods that come with it, and his fans will take it into their own hands if the studios don't. Threatening to sue those same people won't change this fact.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:54pm

    Re: Re:

    "A fan wants the best for the creator right?"

    Depends... I'd call myself a fan and what I want is for him to get to work on another splatter comedy like Braindead (a.k.a. Dead Alive). Which he said he'd love to do in the commentary for The Frighteners a few years back. I don't really want to see a TinTin movie, but that's one of the things he's been working on.

    If he thinks the TinTin movie's the thing he wants more, then our opinions differ but I'd still call myself a fan. Ditto when the marketing technique for TLB leaves me with downloading as the best option to see it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 3:54pm

    Re: Re: What happens?

    What happens when all the fans are freeloaders?


    Tragedy of the commons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:03pm

    Re: Re:

    "The fact that people wanted to see the movie enough to torrent it shows that marketing had done their job, doesn't it?"

    One of the things that marketing drones tend to forget is that hype is universal. If a movie is being marketed in the US, Europeans will be exposed to the advertising. Asians will see the trailers. Brazilians will see the posters and the interviews. Believe me, there's nothing worse for a movie fan than seeing a trailer for a great new film that's out in the US tomorrow and finding out that it's not released in your country for 6 months. If people want to pirate in the meantime, the advertising still did its job...

    Earlier tonight, I saw the first episode of the new season of CSI, just being premiered in the UK. It ended on a cliffhanger, making me want to watch the next episode. However, it's not showing till next week. The episode is freely available on the internet as it premiered in the US months ago.

    If I decided to download the entire season right now, it just shows that the cliffhanger did its job. The network failed by forcing me to wait a week for material already available. Should I do this? No, but many will... A better business plan is needed than freaking out and trying to sue people for getting what the marketing has made them want.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: What happens?

    "All art is quite useless." - Oscar Wilde

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:34pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Mike, c'mon man. It IS disrespectful to illegally download the movie in this case. Peter Jackson is in large part the creator, and he has pretty clearly expressed how he wishes for his content to be consumed.

    Ok. I can see that argument, but let me ask you: is it disrespectful to not like his movie?

    I would imagine that his wishes would be for you to enjoy it. And yet if you don't, are you disrespecting him? Just because you disagree with his "wishes" I don't believe it's disrespectful.

    I wish that you would have agreed with me 100% on my comment, but you didn't (not really, it's fun when you disagree, but making a point here). I don't think you're being disrespectful when you disagree with me, even if it goes against my "wishes" as the creator of this site.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:38pm

    Re:

    To do so without permission..must I spell it out? Apparerntly so.

    I guess I just don't see it as being disrespectful. Fans have their own desires, and I think it's a bit presumptuous to think that the content creator's desires must define how people enjoy (or not) their work. As I asked DH in my comment, if someone doesn't like his movie (going against Jackson's wishes that they would) is that disrespectful?

    Get it. It's basic logic 101. Most downloaders = Fans Most fans do not = downloaders. The equivalent would be if the majority of the downloaders were members of the green party. Let's say he does lots of enviromental films. He says they should be prosecuted. Does that make him now anti-green party? Or just against those green party members that downloaded his films?

    Really? So the only way to be anti-fan is if you are anti-all-fans? I guess we have a different definition of what being anti-fan means.

    NO creator is anti-all fans. To me, your definition of anti-fan is useless because it encompasses no one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 4:42pm

    Re:

    Mr Jackson is anti-freeloader, not anti-fan.

    I'm curious how he can tell one from the other.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    identicon
    Kevin Carson, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 7:17pm

    "Maximum prosecution under the law"? Ooh, ooh, anything but that!

    So this guy's been in the world for how many years now? And he still doesn't understand that making all sorts of dire warnings against people who break unenforceable laws will just get him ridiculed, as people laugh themselves silly while continuing to break the laws? There's nothing in the fucking world as hilarious as the ineffectual blustering of some authority figure. Shit, I learned that in high school.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    icon
    The Mad Hatter (profile), Jan 14th, 2010 @ 7:35pm

    Peter Jackson is good?

    Pardon me, but after the total screw up he did on "Lord of the Rings," I started avoiding anything that he had anything to do with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2010 @ 10:40pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It IS disrespectful to illegally download the movie in this case. Peter Jackson is in large part the creator, and he has pretty clearly expressed how he wishes for his content to be consumed.

    Since I've no desire to consume Peter's content in the way he wishes, I'll show him the respect he deserves. If others did the same, we would find ourselves agreeing pretty quickly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    identicon
    Anony1, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 8:34am

    @Mike Masnick: Funny you should mention definitions.
    Another classic logic 101 concept is definitions. People
    can't really have meaningful discussions unless they are working of the same definition of something, or at least know the other party's definition. So on to "anti-fan".
    It doesn't have to be all or nothing, but when someone uses the term anti-something, to me that means "against the majority". That is the impression I got from the way you were wording it. Now that you've clarified, then yes, he is according to your defintion, anti-fan. This is a very small subset of fans however, and I disagree with what those "fans" are doing. So I have no problem with him trying to control at least in part his buisness model. I never said the content creator is the sole party of interest, just the main one. Without the creator there would be no creation...which sounds cosmology, so I'll stop now. =)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 3:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Ok. I can see that argument, but let me ask you: is it disrespectful to not like his movie?"

    Okay, you know I respect the hell out of you and what you write here....but that is an awful, horrible, downright goofy analogy. One is a concrete preference by the artist as to how he wants his art distributed. The other is completely a matter of opinion, opinion which is intrinsic to consuming the art to begin with. The two aren't even remotely the same....which I kind of think you already know.

    Exact same thing goes with your wishing I'd 100% agree with you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    icon
    slander (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 10:26pm

    Re:

    Holy crap Mike, that is the most idiotic stand possible. Were you even thinking when you wrote this piece?
    This has to be one of the arrogant comments I have ever read.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    slander (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 10:30pm

    Re: until

    My God, it's like a parody of an Al Yankovic song...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    icon
    slander (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 10:35pm

    Re: Re: Bottom line

    FTFYA
    Fixed That For Ye, Arrrgh...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    icon
    slander (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 10:35pm

    Re:

    Thumb-bone?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    icon
    slander (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 10:48pm

    Re: Re:

    Take your argument to the next level, if you bought a DVD and it came with a sticker that said you were only allowed to watch it on Friday nights at 8pm, would you do as the sticker demands, or would you say "Screw it, the technology exists to watch it whenever I want, and I'll do just that."
    Sure, next thing you know you'll start advocating tearing the tags off our mattresses...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    icon
    slander (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 11:03pm

    This preview is yet unrated...

    In a world where everything is copyrighted... and therefore protected...

    In a world where some creators don't care about piracy...and some do...

    One man...against the hordes of evil...

    One man...struggles to maintain the balance...

    One man...will...overcome them all!

    Peter Jackson is that man...and he's fighting for your allegiance!

    Coming soon to a theater near you!

    Well, I downloaded it two weeks before it was out, and I found it very derivative and too contrived, with a weak plot, two-dimensional characters, and unbelievably pedantic dialog. Plus, there were far too many lens flares and explosions. Won't waste my money going to see it...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    identicon
    Redwulf, Jan 18th, 2010 @ 3:57am

    Dammit

    I liked Peter Jackson. Now I've lost a tremendous amount of respect for him. I really didn't think he'd be so shortsighted and easily-duped by the MPAA hogwash. :(

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Jan 19th, 2010 @ 7:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Who would download the movie the moment it comes out on torrent sites? People that don't much care for it, or people who are anxiously awaiting it's arrival in the cinemas (aka the fans)?

    My money is on the latter group, and then I'll add to the bet, that a lot of those initial downloaders (the fans) would also go to the cinema to watch it on the big screen.

    Sure, Jackson may not like it that the movie is out on torrent sites, and of course the initial uploader committed a felony, but that does not negate the reality that the movie is now on torrent sites.

    It's the uploaders the Jackson should focus his anger on, they are the providers of the illegally acquired material, and not on the sites the stuff got uploaded to nor on the people who downloaded it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This