Special Treatment For George Lucas?

[Guest]

Here's an interesting article on how the feds busted down the doors of www.elitetorrents.org for setting up downloads of Revenge Of The Sith.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/crime_starwars_dc

 

Some how I doubt the feds would have done the same thing if these guys where supplying boot legged copies of one of my productions.

 

I wonder if the fact that George Lucas is famous and worth 3 billion had any thing to do with it?

 

Isn't the law the law? Don't you have to shut down the pirates regardless of what they set up to download? The famous productions and the not so famous?

 

Maybe I'm wrong?

 

On the web-site the feds have a message that says...

 

"It is unlawful to reproduce or distribute copyrighted material, such as movies, music,

software or games, without authorization - even when done for free over the Internet.

Individuals who willfully distribute or download copyrighted material risk criminal

prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 2319. First-time offenders convicted of criminal felony

copyright laws will face up to five years in federal prison, restitution, forfeiture and a fine. "

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

Do you have to see the negative side of everything? High profile cases may help discourage the practice, plus even if a disproportionate effort is put into stopping piracy of "Revenge of the Sith", there is also a disproportionate effort to PIRATE the movie, so it make sense to put more officers on that job.

 

I'm not sure any area of law enforcement is completely proportionate in effort. There are often high-profile cases persued for various reasons, some understandable. You want the public to understand the problem of piracy, you don't go after people pirating movies that no one has heard of -- at least not as aggressively. Or this is a case where the media isn't interested in reporting on run-of-the-mill anti-piracy efforts but only big stories like this one, so you end up getting the wrong impression that no efforts are made in curbing ordinary piracy. Maybe.

 

It all depends on how you see the world.

[Guest]

If revenue losses where an issue then surely the feds would concentrate their efforts on protecting small time producers who can ill afford to lose the money.

 

I doubt these downloads of Sith had any impact at all on GLs revenue streams. Certainly by the box office numbers he looks like he's doing fine, and will add a hefty sum to his 3 billion he already has.

 

Like you said, "depends on how you see the world."

 

I say help the little guys, and let the billionaires fend for themselves.

 

R,

[Robert Edge]

I will admit that I had never heard of torrents until last week when a friend tipped me off and sent me some associated software. I checked it out. It is wrong. Whether the police should be involved is another matter. In any event, my taste in film, and that of torrents participants, apparently differs. There weren't a whole lot of films on the sytem that interested me. I'm happy to pay for a legit copy.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

They need to bust the bonehead in George's company who let the thing get out anyway. If you're looking at a copy with burn ins, it's an inside job!

[K Borowski]

Would this be considered part of the "digital advantage"? I wish someone could pirate those old-fashioned film movies before they even were released in theatres. . .

[Gordon Highland]

Maybe he does get special treatment, and I'm not so sure I have a problem with that in this case.

 

Saw a show on Discovery HD last week, three hours on "the science of Star Wars." I know the guy has been influential and all, but this opened my eyes to all kinds of stuff I'd never considered that have actually since come to life that he first dreamed up, including many things for the government (and their contractors).

[Guest]

Oddly enough I watched The Science of Star Wars last night.

 

Interesting perspective you have, not saying it's wrong, just interesting.

 

To my mind I still don't see how his contributions to the film and scientific world merit a raid on his behalf by the feds.

 

I thought lady justice wore a blindfold?

 

R,

[Christian Appelt]

I would like to rephrase the initial question:

 

If an unknown filmmaker or a small distributor (without the backing of a million lawyers) reported the piracy of his independent movie, would action on the same scale be the result?

 

I really doubt it...although I agree with David Mullen that there is a positive side to it because nobody's film should be pirated for downloading over the Web.

[Guest]

It's also interesting to note that the feds never raided the HQ of Napster during the entire ordeal.

 

The entire fight was done in the the courts.

 

The court battle was quite long, it took the music industry months to get their way.

 

Yet Lucas seems to command attention even the music industry can't muster.

 

I wonder what would have happened if a Canadian based site was downloading Sith? The music industry in Canada has LOST court battle after court battle to stop music file swapping over the web.

 

Since the US feds have no authority to act in Canada, I wonder what would have happened?

 

R,

[Robert Hughes]

Seems to me there was a piracy study done a year or two back that found that the majority of illegal internet movies came out before the films were released, meaning that industry insiders were the source of many of the piracies.

 

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/3429/Hollywoo...e+an+Inside+Job

 

Any doors being kicked in at Lucasfilms?

Edited May 27, 2005 by Robert Hughes

[Guest]

There are no shortage of disgruntled workers in the Lucas Film empire.

 

I can't say any thing more than that.

 

R,

[Mike Brennan]

There are no shortage of disgruntled workers in the Lucas Film empire.

 

I can't say any thing more than that.

 

R,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then its not worth saying.

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Guest]

It's worth saying to illustrate that some one on the inside would have motive to steal a copy of the film.

 

R,

[Elhanan Matos]

Would this be considered part of the "digital advantage"?  I wish someone could pirate those old-fashioned film movies before they even were released in theatres. . .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Movies have been pirated long before the "digital advantage." Most of the movies that get bootlegged are movies that are recorded with higher end video cameras (betacam or some of the more expensive DV cameras out there) from the projection booth in the theatre. Alot of the newer bootlegs are rips of the DVD, usually stolen from the DVD authoring house, or the facility pressing the DVD's.

 

There was a great article in Wired magazine explaining this whole thing...

Wired: The Shadow Internet

[Guest]

"Alot of the newer bootlegs are rips of the DVD, usually stolen from the DVD authoring house, or the facility pressing the DVD's."

 

Hmmmm, plenty of disgruntled people making $5.50 hr in those facilities :D

 

R,

[Rik Andino]

There was a great article in Wired magazine explaining this whole thing...

Wired:  The Shadow Internet

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

WOW...you gotta be amazed at the dedication and diligence of bootleggers...

Some of them put more time into their work than many of us.

 

Personally I think fighting piracy is like the drug-war--it's a losing battle.

You can't fight people this dedicated...

Unless you're willing to annillate them using facist tactics...

But that opens a whole nother door we don't want to open.

 

Besides you're really fighting the consumers and their demands

Which is impossible to fight...while there are buyers there will be sellers.

 

The only way the Industry can fight back

Is by offering more than what the pirates (I calling them that) can give.

 

They've got to make the cinematic experience better...

They have to make people want to go to the theater and not wait for the DVD.

When Television was first invented Hollywood counter by creating Cinemascope

Well now something similar has to be done here to keep the audiences coming.

 

Personally most of the movies I see people downloading are the mediocre ones

The ones that people wait till it's on video to see, or watch when it's on TV

Those are the films people won't pay to go see at the movie theaters.

Maybe Hollywood should stop making those crappy mediocre films...

And maybe Hollywood should focus on making better movies

Maybe bringing back the epic films and pushing the limits of sound technology...

Maybe shooting more IMAX films and stuff in 65mm...

Presenting the granduer of the cinema--

And not just something that feel the same watching it on TV.

Maybe this'll help maintain movie theaters filled and the downloading less

Because if you fail to please the customers they will go elsewhere.

 

 

And lowering ticket prices might help. ;)

[Nathan Milford]

And lowering ticket prices might help.  ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

For me, lowering ticket prices doesn't make a difference. It's the theaters themselves... many of them just don't seem to care. They don't care about obnoxious moviegoers, cellphones (I love seeing the LCD of someone's cellphone every 5 minutes as they check the time or take a picture!), bad projection, trashed prints. I'd gladly pay a premium for a positive theatrial experience... and I typically do go to the better movie houses in NYC (i.e. not the Union Square 12) to avoid these things and I usually pay a higher price. Still, 9 times out of 10 I am still disappointed and distracted by my experience.

 

As for the grandeur of the cinema... HAH! Most theaters care only enough to keep the seats filled.... but it's easy to keep the seats filled if they're stuck to it by gum or thier shoes are stuck to the sticky floor!

[Elhanan Matos]

I'd gladly pay a premium for a positive theatrial experience

 

Next time you're in LA check out the Arclight, on Sunset and Vine (I think). It has to be the greatest theater in LA right now, and it's only two dollars more expensive than the AMC's around here.

[Brad Grimmett]

Next time you're in LA check out the Arclight, on Sunset and Vine (I think).  It has to be the greatest theater in LA right now, and it's only two dollars more expensive than the AMC's around here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And they validate parking, which makes them about the same price as many of the other theaters. Good stuff.

[Matt Pacini]

As one who has a fairly cynical view of government fairness, I'd have to agree with some of what Richard is saying, and also some of what David M. is saying as well.

However, I think the point David is making (about more piracy being squashed if the Feds go after high profile cases), is true, but just a side affect of the Feds enforcing laws for "more important" citizens.

I don't think it's their main intent to be effective, but more likely that it's better PR if whatever they do, is something "newsworthy", so this story is piggybacking on the PR that the new Star Wars film is already getting.

 

We see the unequal prosecution and punishment based on status all the time.

Look at how celebrities are treated by the courts, for instance.

Winona Ryder steals around $8,000 worth of jewelry and never does a day of jail time.

Do you think the average citizen would get that kind of treatment?

I just read in the paper yesterday, that some guy was just released after service 35 years for stealing a B&W TV in 1970!

He got a life sentence, and they let him out early!

David Geffen just recently was forced to open his "private beach" area that he agreed to do in 1984, as an agreement to build his gigantic beach estate.

He refused for over 20 years, and they did nothing about it, until recently, when private groups had to pledge to pay for the upkeep and security of the path going next to his house.

Every other public beach is paid for by public funds, but the local government used this as an excuse to let Geffen break his agreement all these years.

 

The fact is celebrity is a type of currency that negotiates these people through life, in everything from getting seated before you and I at restaurants, to always getting "community service" for whatever crime they commit, to getting police protection and special treatment of every kind.

 

This is especially true when someone has become an industry that pays tons of cash in taxes, which ends with the government acting the same way as if it were being bribed.

 

MP

[Mike Hall]

Piracy is stealing, and it's the government's job to protect merchants, in any business, from illegal shrinkage. The government is also charged with protecting it's tax base, and that's why George's call gets right thru to the FBI.

 

The thought process is, if we keep the merchant in business selling products thru "legal" channels, then the merchant will have to charge taxes on their transactions. The larger the transaction amount at stake, the larger the potential tax gains. SO, Star Wars not only generated $130million for theaters across america, it also generated over $15million dollars in tax revenues - and that can pay a lot of agents.

 

So if the Government wants to send people down to stop the illegal pilfering of a blockbuster, and then pay to send the people away for a long time, I say they should go to it. In some small way, they help everyone from Mr. Lucas down to the poor schlub that has to spend nine bucks to see the movie on the big screen, and in the long run that includes everyone on the set, in the studio, in post, all the way to the people who grow the corn for the popcorn.

 

And, if the government doesn't seem too interested in putting their entire resources behind finding who is leaking someone's movie shot on SP over the internet, I'd say good for them, too; that seems like it would be a money losing situation for both parties. And besides, the government provides a civil court, where people will take this type of thing seriously.

 

It's true, we do not have a totally just system, but all in all it 'aint bad.

[Guest]

"And, if the government doesn't seem too interested in putting their entire resources behind finding who is leaking someone's movie shot on SP over the internet, I'd say good for them"

 

This to me is the basis of the problem right here. As an independent business person who has clawed their way up from the bottom, I could never accept this argument. But that's just me.

 

Governments come down like sledge hammers on small business people when it comes to taxes. While giant corporations who can afford to fight the tax man indefinately get away with murder.

 

"The system" has thousands of miles to go before it even enters the fairness parking lot of the ballpark.

 

R,

[Mike Hall]

We are not on opposite sides of this problem. The artilcle states that there were more than 18,000 movies and programs on the sites that they shut down, and there are more than 133,000 (corrupt) people who were using the service. There were more than 10,000 downloads of the Lucas film before it was shut down.

 

I'm only trying to imply that before the government chooses it's battles with bootleggers, it should make sure they are worth the effort, and this time, it has - to the benefit of the producers of 18,000 pieces of content.

 

It's not fair in any way; however, it is much better than any other system, and that's my view. If more people were to play stricktly by the rules, we wouldn't have this problem, would we??? The same goes for the drug argument - why do we have to pander to lawbreakers to benefit society? Austria has a very synogystic society where people turn off their cellphones in the theater, and it works - because the rules are defined, and followed- for the good of everyone. I believe what we are lacking is selflessness in a very selfish society.

 

If Lucas is the catalyst that shuts down the bootlegger's operation, so be it. In the process, the little guys benefitted too, so the system worked to some extent. The Feds got to say they protected a billion dollars, some of the little guys got some justice, and the bad guys got in trouble. If only there were some hole to bury the 133,000 people who were willing to go outside the law and pilfer someone else's work, we'd have justice - but that is not our way. Ask someone at Berkely, and maybe they can come up with an argument why the whole system should be free to everyone involved.

 

I just don't want the bulk of our government resources chasing around bootleg copies of aunt Amy's wedding when they should be going after something that really matters.

 

ps- now that we know who deep throat is, how long till we know who killed the Kennedys?

[Matt Pacini]

ps- now that we know who deep throat is, how long till we know who killed the Kennedys?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Kennedy's pissed off so many people, and were in bed (literally & figuratively!) with so many sleazy characters, that the pool of suspects is so big we'll never know.

Joe Kennedy made most of his money in illegal stock trading & bootlegging, ribbing elbows with the Mob quite a bit.

And there was quite a bit of speculation that Ol' Joe had the mob down south stuffing ballots and laundering money into the Kennedy campaign. (The Kennedy-Nixon race was closer than the Bush-Kerry race by far, so if it weren't for this, Nixon would have won easily).

So when the Kennedy's went after the mob, that of course would be enough to piss them off, and that's the only explanation as to why BOTH Kennedy's were killed, not just JFK.

The Soviets are also an obvious suspect, after being humiliated in the Cuban missile crisis situation.

Castro is another.

Hey, here's a conspiracy theory that hasn't been floated;

Joe Dimaggio did it, because he was jealous about the Kennedy-Monroe fling!

Maybe Jackie did it.

har har

 

Of course, this all sounds like blasphemy now, since Kennedy has been made into this huge martyr-hero, but the fact is, lots of people disliked JFK before he was killed.

My parents didn't even like him, and they were both Catholics, and diehard Democrats!

 

MP

Edited June 1, 2005 by Matt Pacini