<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;wolverine&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 05:18:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111220/18294817149/guy-who-uploaded-early-version-wolverine-which-appears-not-to-have-hurt-movie-all-gets-1-year-jail.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111220/18294817149/guy-who-uploaded-early-version-wolverine-which-appears-not-to-have-hurt-movie-all-gets-1-year-jail.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The ridiculous over-punishment of those caught infringing continues.  Earlier this week, Judge Margaret Morrow <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/idUS93817875020111220" target="_blank">sentenced Gilberto Sanchez to one year in jail</a> for daring to upload the "workprint" copy of the movie <i>X-Men Origins: Wolverine.</i>  Morrow called his crime "very serious."  We're still trying to figure out what the evidence is that his crime was serious.  As we've discussed, the actual evidence suggests that the leak probably <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/0408527579.shtml"><i>helped</i> the movie at the box office</a> rather than the other way around.  Despite dreadful reviews, the movie massively outperformed a number of very similar movies with very similar target audiences (but much better reviews!).  The fact that Sanchez uploaded a "workprint" version -- which left out many of the special effects makes it even more ridiculous.  That's not going to be an adequate replacement, and many people who saw it would probably be intrigued to see the full film to see how they turn the workprint into the final version.
<br /><br />
I still think that Fox <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0316244351.shtml">missed a huge opportunity</a> in its idiotic response to this leak.  It <i>could</i> have acted cool about it, and said something like:
<blockquote><i>
Hey Wolverine fans! We know that you're all looking forward to the release of the movie next month. We're excited too! By now you may have heard that an early totally unfinished version has been leaked online. It's missing a whole bunch of stuff -- including some amazing  special effects -- and honestly, this version isn't a finished product at all. We think you'll get a much better overall experience by waiting for the full finished product, but we certainly understand that some of you just can't wait (trust us, we feel the same way!). If that's the case, please, feel free to check it out, but please remember that this isn't even close to the final version. If anything, think of this as a "behind-the-scenes" peek of just what a movie looks like before all the real "movie magic" gets put in there. If you do check it out, we hope you'll join us May 1st to check out the finalized version as well on the big screen the way we intended for you to see this awesome movie. It's just a month away! 
</i></blockquote>
Instead, it called in the FBI, who took time and resources away from things like fighting terrorism, to put this guy in jail for uploading a version of the film that wouldn't be a very good substitute, and which appears to have no negative impact on the box office whatsoever.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111220/18294817149/guy-who-uploaded-early-version-wolverine-which-appears-not-to-have-hurt-movie-all-gets-1-year-jail.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111220/18294817149/guy-who-uploaded-early-version-wolverine-which-appears-not-to-have-hurt-movie-all-gets-1-year-jail.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111220/18294817149/guy-who-uploaded-early-version-wolverine-which-appears-not-to-have-hurt-movie-all-gets-1-year-jail.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>punishment-=-crime?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111220/18294817149</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:05:23 PST</pubDate>
<title>Could Wolverine's Leaking Have Helped It At The Box Office?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/0408527579.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/0408527579.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We still can't understand why Fox studios acted the way it did over the leak of the <i>Wolverine</i> movie.  There were so many <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0316244351.shtml">better options</a> that didn't involve freaking out and eventually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/1206097388.shtml">wasting FBI</a> resources.  We did note, when the movie was released, what a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0405424736.shtml">fantastic</a> opening weekend it had.  Of course, some argued that it would have had an even <i>better</i> opening weekend without the leak, but, of course, no one knows for sure.
<br /><br />
However, <a href="http://twitter.com/rosspruden/statuses/7364261614" target="_blank">Ross Pruden</a> points us to an interesting analysis by Reid Rosefelt trying to more carefully <a href="http://speedcine.com/blog/post/2010/01/03/Did-File-Sharing-Make-Wolverine-a-Hit.aspx" target="_blank">analyze the leak's impact on Wolverine</a>.   Rosefelt compares Wolverine's opening weekend to lots of other highly touted movies, and then even breaks out the movies that were "the latest installment of a very lucrative franchise" (of which there were a bunch this year).  In that class, Wolverine earned a lot more than any of those other similar movies, with the exceptions of Twilight and Transformers -- and, again, it's worth remembering that Wolverine got <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wolverine/">dreadful</a> reviews.  But it is worth noting that Wolverine outgrossed other highly touted "franchise" movies like Harry Potter's latest and Star Trek -- both of which got <i>much</i> better reviews.
<br /><br />
Rosefelt also does a nice job pointing out how silly Hollywood's new favorite line is whenever anyone points out the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091211/0955157308.shtml">record year at the box office</a>.  We've seen it from our usual cast of Hollywood insiders who frequent the comments here, where they say that the box office doesn't matter.  Piracy is really impacting DVD sales and that's what will kill Hollywood.  Of course, this is funny on a variety of levels, starting with the fact if Hollywood had had its way, the DVD player would never have existed, because home video machines (you may recall) were the "Boston Strangler" to the movie industry.  It's also amusing because Hollywood has been working hard to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0403026583.shtml">prevent</a> one of the biggest DVD buyers, Redbox, from buying its DVDs.  Rosefelt points out that the data does show that DVD sales are down, but notes that rentals are <i>way up</i>.  It appears that people just find it easier to rent than to buy -- and a large part of that may be uncertainty over HD format (and the ridiculous price put on many Blu-ray discs).  Once again, it's looking like the decline in DVD sales might not be the fault of piracy, but of the industry and its own practices yet again.
<br /><br />
Again, none of this shows for certain that the Wolverine leak helped at the box office, but it's hard to take seriously any argument that it was harmed.  Wolverine did massively well at the box office and outshone many other movies from equally popular franchises, which received much better reviews.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/0408527579.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/0408527579.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/0408527579.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>seems-possible</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100104/0408527579</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:36:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>FBI Arrests Wolverine Leaker; Don't You Feel Safer Now?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/1206097388.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/1206097388.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Much of the reasoning behind Joe Biden's recent <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091215/1307497368.shtml">summit</a> with entertainment industry bosses and a variety of top administration officials -- including the Attorney General and the head of the FBI -- was to "coordinate" enforcement efforts.  Efforts, one assumes, like the FBI's hard work in <a href="http://www.thresq.com/2009/12/fbi-finally-make-an-arrest-over-the-wolverine-leak.html" target="_blank">tracking down and arresting the guy</a> who put a pre-release version of the movie <i>Wolverine</i> online, even though it was lacking in special effects and final audio.  As we noted at the time, there were many ways that the studio <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0316244351.shtml">could have</a> responded to the leak that made them look cool and would have encouraged more people to go see the real movie.  Instead, 20th Century Fox went ballistic about how evil this was, and got the FBI to act as its private police force.  Of course, despite how this leak "ruined" the movie, <i>Wolverine</i> (despite <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wolverine/" target="_blank">mostly dismal reviews</a>) had a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0405424736.shtml">massive opening</a> and went on to earn <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2618&#038;p=s.htm" target="_blank">$180 million at the box office</a>, significantly more than it's $130 million budget.  But, of course, the movie industry is dying, and our tax payer money should be used to track down the guy who did so much "damage."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/1206097388.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/1206097388.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/1206097388.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>tax-dollars-at-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091216/1206097388</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 11:48:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Wilco Shows The Entertainment Industry How To Respond To A Leak</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090514/1056254883.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090514/1056254883.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last month, when the work print of the movie <i>Wolverine</i> leaked online, the studio 20th Century Fox went ballistic, sending out all sorts of threats and getting the FBI involved.  We had suggested that if they had taken a different approach, they could have turned the leak into something beneficial.  Our suggestion was to make the following statement:
<blockquote><i>
Hey Wolverine fans! We know that you're all looking forward to the release of the movie next month. We're excited too! By now you may have heard that an early totally unfinished version has been leaked online. It's missing a whole bunch of stuff -- including some amazing special effects -- and honestly, this version isn't a finished product at all. We think you'll get a much better overall experience by waiting for the full finished product, but we certainly understand that some of you just can't wait (trust us, we feel the same way!). If that's the case, please, feel free to check it out, but please remember that this isn't even close to the final version. If anything, think of this as a "behind-the-scenes" peek of just what a movie looks like before all the real "movie magic" gets put in there. If you do check it out, we hope you'll join us May 1st to check out the finalized version as well on the big screen the way we intended for you to see this awesome movie. It's just a month away! 
</i></blockquote>
And, of course, we had people from the movie industry tell us we were crazy (some funny emails from the movie studios, actually), and that such a plan would never work, and how could they <i>not</i> call in the FBI and threaten legal action.  Apparently, my suggestion was the dumbest thing ever.
<br /><br />
And... yet... when others actually do something like that, it appears to be working.  Reader mikez points us to the news that the band Wilco discovered that its upcoming album has been leaked online, so they put up <a href="http://beta.wilcoworld.net/records/thealbum/index.php" target="_new"><i>their own</i> streaming version</a> of the album for all to listen to and <a href="http://www.nme.com/news/nme/44643" target="_new">released the following statement</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"Well  we made it nearly a month with copies of Wilco  the album  floating around out there before it leaked. Pretty impressive restraint in this day and age. But the inevitable happened last night. Since we know you're curious and probably have better things to do than scour the internet for a download  though we do understand the attraction of the illicit   we ve posted a stream of the full album...Feel free to refer to it as  wilco  the stream   if you must."
</i></blockquote>
See?  Turns out it's not so difficult.  And, while 20th Century Fox was getting slammed left and right for its actions, Twitter this morning is abuzz with people talking about how awesome the new Wilco album is and how excited they are that it's coming out.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090514/1056254883.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090514/1056254883.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090514/1056254883.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>see?-not-so-hard...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090514/1056254883</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 May 2009 11:36:36 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Wolverine, Box Office Results... And Piracy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0405424736.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0405424736.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few folks have sent in Matthew Belloni's attempt to <a href="http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2009/05/how-much-did-piracy-hurt-wolverine-boxoffice.html" target="_new">quantify how much the leak of Wolverine "cost" at the box office</a>.  On one point we agree: the number is basically impossible to calculate in any reasonable way.  Yet, that doesn't stop Belloni, whose estimates seem to be based on some odd assertions.  His first number ($7.18 million) is based on the obviously untrue idea that everyone who downloaded the movie didn't buy a ticket.  That makes no sense, and it's odd that it's even included.  The second and third numbers ($15.75 million and $14 million) are based on comparisons to other "similar" movies which grossed a bit more in their opening weekends.  But, in both cases, those movies actually got really good reviews.  That's not the case with <i>Wolverine</i>, which has received pretty damn bad reviews.  Rotten Tomatoes has it <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wolverine/">at only 37% positive reviews</a>.  That's really bad.  And it's somewhat ridiculous to then compare it's opening weekend to Iron Man last year.  Iron Man came in at <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_man/">93%</a>.  Belloni claims these movies are "review proof" but offers no evidence of that whatsoever.  I know I only saw Iron Man because of the awesome reviews, and since many people have associated the failure of the Hulk movie to bad early reviews, this is actually the first I've heard that these movies are somehow "review proof."
<br /><br />
Belloni does include a somewhat snarky "$0" possibility if "the copyleft" was correct that the impact of the downloading didn't hurt the movie at all.  But he doesn't do much to investigate that claim at all.  He certainly doesn't explore that perhaps the real issue may not have been with the fact that the movie was leaked, but with the way 20th Century Fox responded to the leak.  In acting like jerks, threatening everyone, and even <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/2319484404.shtml">firing</a> a reviewer, it also seems likely that some people purposely boycotted the opening weekend.  Instead, if the studio had been smart and actually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0316244351.shtml">responded in a smart way</a>, it could have <i>increased</i> interest in the actual movie.  So, I'd argue that if there was any "loss" in opening weekend revenue, the fault would have to lie with the studio for its reaction, rather than the leak.
<br /><br />
Either way, the movie still <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&#038;sid=aDiUmJfCNquM&#038;refer=home" target="_new">brought in $87 million</a> and destroyed the competition in the theaters this past weekend.  It's difficult to see how anyone in Hollywood could claim with a straight face that the leak did much harm to the movie.  The movie brought in a ton of money, and even if we grant the implausible theory that the leak "harmed" the theater revenue, once again it seems like if the studio and the theaters just focused on giving people a reason to see the film in the theaters, the leak would be totally meaningless.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0405424736.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0405424736.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0405424736.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what-do-you-do...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090504/0405424736</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:22:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Custom Toy Blogger Accused Of Infringing On Wolverine</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090420/0337504564.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090420/0337504564.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Reader shaniac points us to a blog post on a custom toy blog, where the blogger explains how some of his photo galleries of custom toys he made <a href="http://toysrevil.blogspot.com/2009/04/x-infringed.html" target="_new">were forced offline due to a DMCA takedown notice from 20th Century Fox</a>, claiming that they infringed on intellectual property from the <i>Wolverine</i> movie.  Except, if you look at the images, it seems pretty clear that they've got nothing, whatsoever, to do with <i>Wolverine</i>.  In other words, 20th Century Fox appears to have broken the law, in claiming it held the copyright over the figures in those images, when it appears it did not.  Unfortunately, the site hosting his content doesn't fully understand that under the DMCA it can re-enable his content if he files a counternotice and 20th Century Fox fails to file a lawsuit within a specified period of time.  Instead, it's told the blogger that he needs to get the lawyer from 20th Century Fox to agree that the content doesn't infringe -- and the lawyers don't seem to be responding to any emails, meaning that the blogger is stuck in limbo for no good reason.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090420/0337504564.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090420/0337504564.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090420/0337504564.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>take-a-look-at-the-photos</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090420/0337504564</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Fox Fires Columnist For 'Reviewing' Leaked Copy Of Wolverine</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/2319484404.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/2319484404.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week, we discussed why it looked like movie studio 20th Century Fox was overreacting to the leak of a workprint copy of the upcoming movie <i>Wolverine</i>.  The studio could have easily used the leak <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0316244351.shtml">to get good publicity</a>.  Instead, it's freaking out and rushing around trying to blame everyone.  The latest person caught in the crossfire?  A columnist for Fox News who downloaded the leaked copy and wrote a review... Since both 20th Century Fox and Fox News are owned by News Corp., the studio flipped out and <a href="http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/fox-news-entertainment-columnist-in-hot-water-for-column-about-pirated-wolverine/#more-4835" target="_new">the writer, Roger Friedman, has supposedly been fired</a>.  For what?  For actually admitting that the movie was out there?  It's not like it hasn't been all over the news.  For calling more attention to the fact that the movie can be downloaded?  Firing Friedman seems to be getting a <i>lot</i> more attention than the review actually did.  Once again, just because you have the <i>legal right</i> to do something about infringement, doesn't mean it makes any sense.  Here's yet another case of a Hollywood studio letting its legal rights override common sense, and because of that, it's harming its own reputation.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/2319484404.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/2319484404.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/2319484404.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>calling-more-attention...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090405/2319484404</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:26:11 PDT</pubDate>
<title>In An Alternate Universe, How 20th Century Fox Could Have Responded To Wolverine Leak</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0316244351.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0316244351.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A bunch of folks have been sending in the story of how an early version of the movie <i>Wolverine</i> has leaked online, well before the movie goes to theaters.  The NY Times even <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/media/02film.html?partner=rss&#038;emc=rss" target="_new">describes this as unprecedented</a> and eats up the movie industry's claim that this is some huge problem.  Not surprisingly, the NY Times article was written by the same reporter who recently wrote an article basically <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090205/0319043658.shtml">repeating unproven movie studio claims</a> that piracy was damaging its business -- a point disproved weeks later in the same NY Times (by a different reporter) noting that the movie business is seeing a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090301/1406403935.shtml">huge surge in attendance</a>.
<br /><br />
As has been pointed out over and over again, there's very little evidence that movie "piracy" cannibalizes film attendance.  That's why the most "pirated" films are also <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081118/0400182867.shtml">the biggest box office hits</a>.  It's not too hard to figure out why: people go out to the movies for the social experience, not just for the content.  And putting in place smarter business models can help drive more people to the actual theaters, even if they saw the content online first.
<br /><br />
But, of course, that's not how the industry sees it, and 20th Century Fox has wasted no time in <a href="http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/04/wolverine-leak.html" target="_new">going after anyone sharing the film</a> and trying to hunt down who leaked it.  That is, of course, the company's right.  But, it does seem that its resources might be better spent focusing on giving people a real reason to go see the film in the theaters.
<br /><br />
If anything, it seems the <i>real fear</i> is that the version that's been released isn't very good -- and <i>that's</i> what will keep people away from seeing the film in the theater.  That "early word of mouth" that studios have been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030818/1114255.shtml">blaming</a> for bad box office turnout.  And, certainly, you can understand why it would be upsetting to the studio to have an unfinished version out there (especially if it's missing many of the sound effects and special effects).  But, even so, instead of going all legal and threatening, the studio could have responded in a way that <i>built</i> anticipation to get people to actually go see the movie.
<br /><br />
Why not be straightforward about it, saying, something along the lines of:
<blockquote><i>
Hey </i><i>Wolverine</i> fans!  We know that you're all looking forward to the release of the movie next month.  We're excited too!  By now you may have heard that an early totally unfinished version has been leaked online.  It's missing a whole bunch of stuff -- including some <i>amazing</i> special effects -- and honestly, this version isn't a finished product at all.  We think you'll get a much better overall experience by waiting for the full finished product, but we certainly understand that some of you just can't wait (trust us, we feel the same way!).  If that's the case, please, feel free to check it out, but please remember that this isn't even close to the final version.  If anything, think of this as a "behind-the-scenes" peek of just what a movie looks like before all the real "movie magic" gets put in there.  If you do check it out, we hope you'll join us May 1st to check out the finalized version as well on the big screen the way we intended for you to see this awesome movie.  It's just a month away!
</blockquote>
Sure, I just made that up on the spot -- but if Fox had released a statement like that, just think of the reaction among the folks who this unauthorized version would likely reach.  Rather than being treated like criminals, they'd be treated like fans -- and with a bit of honesty.  Personally, it would make me a lot <i>more likely</i> to want to go (pay and) see the movie when it came out.  Would it really have been that difficult to do that?  It certainly would be a lot cheaper and more effective than "spending the day demanding that copies of the film be removed from the largely anonymous swath of Web sites that swap movie files" as the NY Times reported folks at Fox Studios did.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0316244351.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0316244351.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0316244351.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-calm-down...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090402/0316244351</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>