Indian Studio Uploads Pirated Version Of Its Film To Its Official Youtube Account

from the man,-that-kamal-ddr-sure-makes-a-ton-of-movies dept

I can't imagine what went wrong here. You'd think an official Youtube account for a movie studio wouldn't be lacking in non-infringing content to upload. Nonetheless, India's Saregama Movies somehow ended up with a pirated movie as an official upload. Not only that, but the pirated version had gathered nearly 166,000 views before being taken 'round back and privatized by the studio. Twitter user Last Avenger screencapped the miscue in all its glory.

A search for Kamal DDR will bring up hundreds of listing, all pointing to various torrent links. Kamal DDR apparently "supplied" this copy to Saregama, although exactly how that ended up on the official channel rather than the studio's own un-pirated version remains a mystery.

Returning to the scene of the self-inflicted crime (as it were), viewers are now greeted with the familiar skewed-emoticon-o'-public-embarrassment.


No explanation for this switch-up has been provided by Saregama, so we're left with speculation. Could it be that torrenting the file was easier than finding it on the server? Was this preserved on a Saregama hard drive as evidence and labelled unclearly? Was this a disgruntled employee's last act? Rogue administrator? Are the phone calls truly coming from inside the house, torrentially-speaking? It also appears that this issue may not be limited to this film. Roughly a third of the links on Saregama's Upload list dead end with a "page not found" message.

Maybe original and pirated copies mingled freely within Saregama's local storage, much as they do on the open market. India's struggle with truly rampant piracy (as compared to the non-rampant piracy that is fretted about constantly by lobbyists and ICE heads) has been well documented and yet the country still cranks out roughly 80 million films (estimated) every year.

At the end of the day, Saregama's house is (mostly) back in order. Only the quizzical private-video-face remains, along with a selection of full-length films from the Saregama catalog (many with English subtitles) and a few unanswered questions.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Soundy (profile), Feb 27th, 2013 @ 9:19am

    "...hundreds of listing"??

     

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

  2. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 9:21am

    Since "we're left with speculation", I blame Mike.

    He's fostered a society of pirates that conflates piracy with promotion.

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 9:31am

    A Matter of Convenience?

    I don't work in the business, but do studios often have digital versions of movies laying around on servers, in an appropriate upload format and compressed to a convenient 700 MB? It's possible that the person tasked with uploading the video couldn't find a suitable copy and assumed the pirated version would have no watermark to give him away.

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    Akari Mizunashi (profile), Feb 27th, 2013 @ 9:33am

    Huh. The obvious question's missing in this article:
    "Is Saregama Kamal DDR?"

    Viacom did it. Wouldn't surprise me in the least bit if Saregama did it too.

     

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

  5. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Leo, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 9:38am

    Great deal

    My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. The potential with this is endless. This is what I do, Epic2.ℂOM

     

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

  6.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 27th, 2013 @ 9:40am

    Re: A Matter of Convenience?

    So nobody there could figure out how to convert the video to something suitable for YouTube?

    I'm betting somebody *already had* the pirated copy, so it was just easier to use it instead. ;-P

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 9:40am

    Pretty hilarious.

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Mark, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 9:40am

    Re:

    Who knows ... but one thing is for sure Soylent Green is PEOPLE!

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Feb 27th, 2013 @ 9:56am

    Re: Since "we're left with speculation", I blame Mike.

    I failed to resist.

    He's fostered a society of pirates that conflates piracy with promotion.

    Because it is promotion in some way: http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-doesnt-hurt-game-of-thrones-director-says-130227/

    Also, since we are left with speculation I blame you for the Catholic Church woes with pedophiles. (Was that random and absurd enough?)

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    AB, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re: A Matter of Convenience?

    Very likely. An attitude like that would also explain why their industry has been growing so rapidly.

     

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

  11.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Feb 27th, 2013 @ 9:57am

    Re: Re: A Matter of Convenience?

    So nobody there could figure out how to convert the video to something suitable for YouTube?

    You are overestimating the IQs in the entertainment industry.

     

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

  12.  
    identicon
    Colin, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 9:58am

    Re: A Matter of Convenience?

    Nope, pirated versions are never a matter of convenience, it's always just people wanting stuff for free.

    Duh.

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Feb 27th, 2013 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re: A Matter of Convenience?

    Is it cold there in Dreamy Colin Land?

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Colin, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 10:10am

    Re: Re: Re: A Matter of Convenience?

    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you couldn't tell that I was being sarcastic...

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Quaker in a Basement, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 10:10am

    Hard Questions

    If I was in charge at the movie company, I'd be asking some hard questions of the people I'm paying to digitize the film.

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    Gee, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 10:14am

    They probably just don't know how to encode properly.

     

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

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 10:15am

    Re: Since "we're left with speculation", I blame Mike.

    No conflation, just real solid truth. He didn't come up with the concept, it always existed.

    But too bad for you that's light-years beyond your closed minded way of thinking.

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 10:23am

    I would suggest that the easiest answer would be that whomever is in charge of their youtube account likely has a degree in something like communications. Therefore being technically inept, converting the dvd or however they would typically have it avilable was rather inconvenient for them.

    This leads to finding the most convenient method which happens to be a torrent. Likely only a quick spot check to verify that the torrent in question was actually the movie was done, and the watermark can be fairly easy to miss (assuming it's not present for the entire feature length, i haven't checked).

    Mostly this is just embarassing for them.

    It should at a minimum though highlight how convenient the whole process is. More likely those higher ups will never get past the embarassment of the situation and it will take the industry Longer to go from production to release than it did before (is that even possible?)

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Feb 27th, 2013 @ 10:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: A Matter of Convenience?

    I couldn't tell, my bad! 10/10 for your trolling since I fell for it ;)

     

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

  20.  
    icon
    Scott@DreamlandVisions (profile), Feb 27th, 2013 @ 11:44am

    Subtitles

    Looks more like what happened a few months ago on netflix when a company put a movie up, but included the fan-subs instead of paying for a professional subtitle to be generated. Fan-sub listings were included at the end during credit-roll.

    That may be what happened here. Someone wanted to put subtitles on the video and just googled for them and used one that showed up.

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 12:07pm

    Just goes to show you pirated stuff is way better than all that legal shit with their rights 666'd "the devils gonna get yah, Saddam" in to that mother fucker forcing their "anti-piracy" warnings on you that no pirate will ever actually see.

    Goddamn it I love the way they think it's more backwards than Alabama and that's pretty fucking backwards if you ask me.

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    Corwin (profile), Feb 27th, 2013 @ 2:21pm

    That's what we said yesterday

    About those ramblings in France.

    I pointed out that the linked article from the linked article raised a point about the digitization of movies. Well, the guys this article is about did it better. Just get what people are actually using, and treat that as good enough.

    "But wait!", some guy might say. "What about the HAL is IBM clue in 2001 and shit? We couldn't have ever seen that if we had thrown out the original film before we got HD tech!"

    Yeah, I wanted to address that yesterday, but was too stoned to formulate it correctly. Maybe it'll be better today, I'm since I'm stoned and also drunk all at once.

    The fact of the matter is that Stanley managed to keep those films until we could digitize them in HD that was good enough to read that clue about author intent. Maybe they had been digitized well enough for HD at the time they were mass-marketed on DVD, that doesn't matter: what does matter, is, the original film was preserved well enough to deliver that clue to good-enough consumer displays. Finally, for film, you can always devise a tech that will scan them more precisely, but there will be some time when the next tech will only record the degradation since the last digitization.

    At that point, we'll have lost our physical connection to the movies on film. And the movies on digital will be, by that time, so accurate and precise, that current digital HD cameras will be considered blurry as shit. We'll have lost all the pixels that could have been recorded in the first-shot digital films, if they had had equipment that did not exit at that time.

    Does that matter all that much? Somewhat. Sometimes, author intent is conveyed in very small details, like the two times IBM appears from HAL in 2001 A Space Odyssey. It's important to keep. But then, digital cameras mean that directors have to capture their intent within the physically captured pixel bitmaps, else it's lost forever. This is a good thing.

    Because a limited format means that artist have to express their whole intent within the limitations of that format. It does at least give us a response to those who say that perpetual copyright is necessary to preserve original cultural artifacts forever for future re-scanning.

     

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

  23.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 3:49pm

    Pirate groups that put their name into the video are arrogant jerks.

     

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

  24.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Feb 27th, 2013 @ 3:56pm

    Re: Since "we're left with speculation", I blame Mike.

    "Since "we're left with speculation", I blame Mike."

    That pretty much sums every comment you ever made, blue.

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 4:45pm

    In a cubicle somewhere someone has a big-f-grin on his face.

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 5:59pm

    Re:

    New business model idea: have people pay to get a copy without their watermark. It's genius, I tell you.

     

    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