Man Charged With Uploading Simpsons Movie He Filmed With His Mobile Phone
from the and-how-much-damage-did-it-do? dept
Last month, we noted that while the Simpson's Movie was widely available online to be downloaded, it appeared to do little to dampen the enthusiasm for going to the theater, as the movie did amazingly well in the theaters. However, that hasn't stopped the entertainment industry from continuing to freak out. Raymond L writes in to let us know that, down in Australia, a man has been charged with being the first person to upload a copy of the movie for downloads. The entertainment industry makes it sound like this was a huge deal, but neglects to mention the commercial success of the movie, which suggests there weren't many people who used the downloaded version as a substitute for the real thing. Also, the article says that the man used a cameraphone to record the movie, which (if true, it seems hard to believe that he had enough storage to record the whole thing) has to make you wonder about the quality of the movie anyway. So, we appear to have a case where a guy filmed a very bad version of the movie and put it online -- which probably didn't make many people stay away (and, in fact, may have encouraged many people to go to the theater). But, of course, the entertainment industry doesn't want to hear any of that. They just want the guy in court.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cameraphone, copyright, piracy, simpsons
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So what?
You and Nacho Cheezy (if not one and the same) appear to be the extremists if you think those who disagree with you are criminals for doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what?
OBEY THE LAW!!!!!
SIEG HEIL RIAA!!!!!
when will "you people" being lazy ass forum trolls learn to STFU!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what?
For instance, alcohol is legal and pot is illegal. People who are intoxicated on alcohol can be quite irrational and even violent. People who are intoxicated on pot tend to eat Twinkies and giggle. Personally, I would rather see someone get really stone on pot than really drunk on booze.
In short, screw the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what?
That's what the copyright cartels would like to make people believe but it simply isn't true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what?
I'm just asking why is it a reasonable rule. I'm not saying he didn't break the law. I'm just asking why it's the law when the impact of the breaking of the law is tiny, if anything, and the punishment is high. That seems unfair.
If I steal $1 million from a bank they'll hardly feel it relative to their astronomical profits. Does this mean it's ok? Sure, stealing money is different than making a copy of a movie, but the principle is the same.
No, that's quite different. There's a huge difference between a scarce resource (money) and an infinite good (content).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
omfg
There has to be a new level of hell for someone that would release that. ;'(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The law is the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I smell a TV episode
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dumb-bunny
I think there's a difference between breaking a law because it's criminally stupid and restrictive (like breaking copy protection so I can put my purchased music wherever I want to hear it) and breaking a law just because you can or just because you want to. This reminds me of the girl who got busted taking video of the Transformers movie; if you KNOW that what you're doing is against the rules, and you still do it IN A PUBLIC PLACE, then have fun with the fines, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about throwing him in jail for being a jerk to those around him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More details...
2) Supposedly was able to capture the entire film.
3) Video was uploaded to a file sharing site in the US where approximately 3000 downloads were made before it was removed.
4) "The files were uploaded to other sites, and it is estimated that within 72 hours the video had been downloaded 110,000 times around the world."
... and my favorite quote of all!!!
5) "...and in all probability, copied and sold as a pirate DVD all over the world," AFACT executive director Adrianne Pecotic said.
... and finally
6) The young man's house was raided, computers taken and he was given a notice to appear in court in October.
Info found by searching via Google using the AFACT director's name + "Simpsons" and found other news stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More details...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More details...
I can't even get a quality DVD made from my $600 camcorder. And this guy got quality DVD from a camera phone? I don't think so. LOL. Anyone who believes this story has got to be smokin' something HOT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad logic
The entertainment industry makes it sound like this was a huge deal, but neglects to mention the commercial success of the movie, which suggests there weren't many people who used the downloaded version as a substitute for the real thing.
It suggests no such thing. They can't point at X Million dollars and claim that it "should" have been higher. You can't point at X Million dollars and claim that it "shouldn't" be higher.
You can tell exactly nothing about the effect that the cell phone recording had on the commercial success of the movie by examining box office revenue - there's no alternate reality to compare it to.
Give me anecdotal evidence? Sure. Show me surveys that show that people who watch cell phone recordings still go see the movie? Sure. But don't point to the cash flow, show that it's still moving, and claim that you can spot a variance of a few percent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad logic
Indeed. It could have been higher. But the point is that the industry makes out these doom and gloom scenarios, insisting that if people can download a movie, they won't go see it in the theaters. This is pretty clear evidence that's not true at all. This movie was available everywhere online based on most reports. Yet millions still went to see the movie.
The point is that the damage done isn't nearly as bad as the industry implies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re #7 dumb bunny
She only recorded about 10 seconds just to show her brother that she was there.
I somehow doubt that recording 10 seconds is worth jail time.
OH WAIT! I WOULD use a 10 second clip instead of seeing the movie, that would certainly keep me satisfied. NOT!
She was in no way harming them. No way at all.
They say no recording of film, she was taking pictures of herself. Chances are you couldn't even see the whole screen because she was in the way, but they didn't mention that in the article I read. But yah, she should have in no way been taken out or fined or anything for that. It was only 10 seconds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I feel the same way
If it were no different than stealing then it wouldn't be called copyright infringement.
With that said. It does appear this person knowingly broke the law. He filmed the entire movie and then uploaded it on the internet. Did it do any harm? Probably not. Are the penalties too harsh? Yes. But it is still a very clear cut case of infringement (NOT THEFT!). I have little sympathy for this guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That being said, some of the posters are exactly right on a few points. You can't say that the phone copy didn't hurt the number of people who actually paid to go see the movie. You also can't say that it is just industry propaganda that copyright laws are bogus.
Be careful what you ask for, are you sure you would want to live in a world free of copyright or patent laws?
Chris, I understand your frustration, but if the studios released the DVD on the same day as the movie comes out, the theater owners would revolt because they know their revenue would drop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
RandomThoughts defends shilling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, actually. If you look at the evidence, you would see that such a world turns out to be a better place with more innovation and more content. So... yup. I certainly would.
Look at the history of places like the Netherlands when they got rid of patents, and innovation boomed. Look at folks like Verdi who created many more works when there was no copyright, then when copyright was put in place and he could rest on his laurels.
You are making assumptions that simply don't hold true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact you can go to prison and be fined thousands and thousands of pounds is just rediculous.
Stand up for yourselves you dumb yanky idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yanky idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone posted 10 seconds of The Simpsons Movie (2007) to YouTube.com
According to the entertainment industry's views, Why dont they sue Google instead? ...Google owns YouTube.com and also has money.
/end extremist comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a consumer, I want cheap prices. As an investor, I want maximum profits. As an inventor, I want the right to profit off of my inventions. How do we square all this? I agree, patents, copyright and other things is not the end all to be all, but investment chases return. Without return, who will bother to invest in R&D? Karl Marx was pretty much right and a lot of his thinking is coming true today, the world is a different place. When all is said and done, you still have to reward innovation, you have to reward great inventions, not everything can be based on services. Industries can be, but that can't be the only thing going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One of the most important drugs of all time, penicillin, was brought to market with no patent protection whatsoever. Companies bring things to market all the time that they can't patent. Nowadays they spend more marketing their brand and discouraging doctors from prescribing non-patented drugs than they do "inventing" new ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright
Imagine you're Aerosmith... no longer do I have to write songs!! Just send out a team of guys to clubs, and steal whatever songs I want!
While I'm at it, I'll just rebroadcast HBO over the internet. That'll show HBO... no need to pay! Free Sopranos!
Then, I'll start a business printing copies of Harry Potter for 50% off the price at the store. Heck, I think I'll even change the ending!! Mine's better!!
Next, I'm going to create a new MP3 player (well, I'll just buy one from China)... put a nice shiny Apple logo right on the back... no one will know the difference!! Suckers! It's the new iPod!
And last, but not least, I'm going to download a copy of Photoshop, and resell it for $99. I know I can be rich that way. Why put 20 years of effort into writing software... that's just a waste of time in no-copyright land!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
If you're going to go around proclaiming yourself "Copyright Champion" then you should at least learn the difference between copyright, trademark and fraud. Otherwise you just look like an ignorant fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is a red herring. First of all, as we've pointed out before, pharma patents are a relatively new phenomenon, and plenty of countries that didn't have patent protection for pharma had thriving pharma industries, including creating new drugs. So, your claim that this wouldn't happen is bogus.
Second, studies have shown that pharma patents tend to lead research in the wrong direction, away from curing cancer and more towards lifestyle drugs.
Third, much of the important pharma breakthroughs have actually come from university research, rather than through industry in their desire to secure patents.
Fourth, even if someone else could copy the drug, it doesn't mean there aren't business models that would make the original cancer drug maker a ton of money. You just need to understand the economics.
Fifth, without patents on pharmaceuticals, there would be greater emphasis on finding alternative cures for things that don't rely on pharma. Read Andy Kessler's "The End of Medicine" to see why the focus on pharma has seriously hurt many other types of cancer research that could do a much better job in saving lives.
As a consumer, I want cheap prices. As an investor, I want maximum profits. As an inventor, I want the right to profit off of my inventions.
The first two are reasonable, the last is not. You don't have a "right to profit." No one has. You have a right to *try* to profit. That doesn't mean creating artificial scarcity and granting you a monopoly. Just because YOU aren't creative enough to understand the economics and come up with a business model that doesn't involve artificial scarcity, it doesn't mean you need gov't protectionism.
I agree, patents, copyright and other things is not the end all to be all, but investment chases return. Without return, who will bother to invest in R&D?
You make a HUGE incorrect assumption here: that without IP protection there's no return. Sorry, it's simply not true. It's never been true and studies have shown how incredibly wrong that is. So, investment does occur, because there ARE returns -- and the returns can actually be much BIGGER without IP protection, because you learn to leverage the infinite goods to make other things more valuable.
When all is said and done, you still have to reward innovation, you have to reward great inventions,
Yes. And there's no reason you need monopoly protection to do that. Get rid of that assumption, because it's wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1)
"umm, they made hella sales, so obviously this guys piracy had no effect."
wrong. people pirate Micro$oft Office, and they still have hella sales. Do you honestly think people get a pirated copy, and then go buy the real thing?
2) the quality was bad
yup. your point?
all this having been said, your point about phone memory is great. I've never heard of a phone that takes longer than 10 second clips. it's not even the drive space that's an issue (i've got two gigs). it's the actual ram. phones can't write to flash fast enough, so they take the video to RAM (small, maybe 12 megs). then, slowly, they write from RAM to the flash. not in realtime recording-speed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By the way, you're aware that M$ got into the software business with a copy of someone else's operating system to start with, aren't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute...
What is the memory capacity of the standard cell phone? What is the quality of the video being recorded: the lower the quality, the less space it will take up on the card.
And if cell phone (still) cameras still can't compete with digital cameras, why does anyone think that the quality from a cell phone video camera can even come close to a regular video camera? Oh, that's right- the point is that a "pirate" got caught, not whether he actually had technology that was capable of doing what people claimed it could do.
And yet, the movie industry isn't going after screeners who will release DVD (or HD-DVD) copies of the movie to the p2p sites. Then again, we should probably thank the MPAA for helping to get the crappy, camcordered versions off the p2p sites. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where exactly in the world does a country have a booming pharmaceutical industry where patents are not protected? Italy isn't one of them. UK isn't, Germany. Where are the big drug companies? Lets see, Glaxo pretty much moved to the US, Novartis is pretty much here, Sanofi-Aventis is here. India? Uhhh, the used to ignore patents but realized that in order to move upstream, they needed to protect the investment in R&D so they now recognize patents.
You tell me how the economics of no patents work for the pharmaceutical industry. A billion dollars to bring a drug to market (most of the cost in clinical, not research, which is why no university has ever brought a drug to market) so if there is no patent, then a generic company copies the drug and has the exact same drug on the market in 6 months. Who would invest that billion dollars?
As for the miricle drugs that were brought to market with no patents, what is keeping people from doing that today? Absolutly nothing. Some brilliant researcher could be out there doing the research and is free to forgo patent protection. Guess what? It hasn't happened recently. Wonder why? Dr. Saulk did it, but it hasn't happened lately.
As for there being money for alternative treatements, what, that isn't in place today? I always wonder why people wonder why drug companies don't fund studies on healthcare other than drugs? Ummm, maybe because thats not what they do and others do that type of research?
Andy Kessler? He has some great ideas, but I don't see what that has to do with the pharmaceutical industry. Again, he is talking about things that are at the beginning stages, stages with appear before the pharmaceutical industry gets involved. Diagnostics is becoming more and more important, but a lot of work has to be done in this area. Genetic screening has great potential, but we are a long way away from personalized medicine. Even with that, pharmaceuticals will still be needed. Something simple like exercise programs would greatly increase the health of people, but again, nothing is keeping people from doing that now and thats not the pharma's job. Kesslers main point is that you reduce healthcare costs before people get sick. I agree with that, but people will still get sick. Pharmaceuticals will be a part of treatement for a while.
I have to wonder if you are trolling on some of these topics, you are bright, so that may be the case. If not, you tell me how companies can invest billions in research without expecting big returns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why should he tell you something that he obviously doesn't believe? That's the kind of thing shills like yourself do. Your implication that he said such a thing is just another of your dishonest practices and with someone like you arguing in favor of patents I'm now more convinced than ever that they are a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Needed? That's provably false. It wasn't needed in the past. Why is it "needed" today?
Where exactly in the world does a country have a booming pharmaceutical industry where patents are not protected? Italy isn't one of them. UK isn't, Germany. Where are the big drug companies?
Ah, see now you're the one being misleading. First, countries like Italy *HAD* thriving pharma industries, until the big pharma companies from OTHER COUNTRIES lobbied hard to have the laws changed. Now the pharma industry has collapsed.
Secondly, "where are the big drug companies?" It doesn't have to be BIG drug companies. In fact, without patents, what Italy saw was a much more competitive market of numerous small to mid-sized companies, rather than large monopolists.
You tell me how the economics of no patents work for the pharmaceutical industry. A billion dollars to bring a drug to market (most of the cost in clinical, not research, which is why no university has ever brought a drug to market) so if there is no patent, then a generic company copies the drug and has the exact same drug on the market in 6 months. Who would invest that billion dollars?
Yes, it takes a billion dollars, and much of that is clinical, but you seem to be misunderstanding the situation as if that's necessary. The *problem* is the fact that it costs nearly a billion dollars in clinical tests before a drug is approved. That's got nothing to do with patents, it has to do with serious problems with the regulations we have in place. There is no incentive to create cheaper methods for proving the efficacy and health of treatments. The reason it costs a billion dollars is BECAUSE of bad gov't policies, and your solution is MORE gov't policies? Sorry, don't buy it.
Guess what? It hasn't happened recently. Wonder why?
Because hiding behind gov't protectionism is easier. But that doesn't mean it's better.
He has some great ideas, but I don't see what that has to do with the pharmaceutical industry. Again, he is talking about things that are at the beginning stages, stages with appear before the pharmaceutical industry gets involved.
Then you clearly didn't read his book. Come back after you have.
If not, you tell me how companies can invest billions in research without expecting big returns?
Heh. This is like that guy from NBC Universal who asked me to explain how the movie industry should spend $200 million to make a movie. The answer is that you're asking the wrong question. Shouldn't you be asking *why* it costs a billion dollars to bring a drug to market?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Depends on the cameraphone
Mike wrote: used a cameraphone to record the movie, which (if true, it seems hard to believe that he had enough storage to record the whole thing)
Depends on the camera. With a fresh memory card, my Treo could pull it off. I'm not saying the result would be all that pleasant to watch, but it is possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for hiding behind govt. protection? You mean like the FDA approving drugs? That protection? Yeah, lets get rid of that.
Oh, and it costs billions of dollars to prove the drug safe. You want to turn that over to computerized models? Maybe Google can work that one out. The FDA isn't perfect, but it is the best system available today. Underfunded of course (funded mostly by drug companies) but lets remember why it was put in place. People say that the FDA approves too many drugs too quickly and people say they are too slow to approve drugs, its not an easy thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's an odd assumption, since it's based on plenty of historical evidence.
Without patents today, many people would die.
Actually, there's pretty good evidence of the opposite. A recent study out of India found that India's latest decision to start allowing pharma patents is likely to end up hurting Indians tremendously. So, actually, (once again) it looks like the evidence goes against you.
s for your many small competitive drug companies, they don't bring all that many drugs to market because they can't afford the clinical trials.
Again, you make the false assumption that clinical trials need to cost as much as they do. Stop thinking that. It's the same thing as thinking that a movie has to cost $200 million to make.
Without the big "monopolists" (which I find it funny to believe that there are any) since none of them have over 15% market share of the drug market) again you wouldn't have new drugs.
Again, you make assumptions without anything to back it up. History has shown the exact opposite.
As for hiding behind govt. protection? You mean like the FDA approving drugs? That protection? Yeah, lets get rid of that.
No. You misread what I said. I'm not sure if you're doing that on purpose or if you have trouble reading. The protectionism I was talking about was patents. Granting an absolute monopoly to a company.
My point on the FDA approving drugs wasn't to get rid of it, but to change the process.
Oh, and it costs billions of dollars to prove the drug safe.
It does now. With the way it's done now. But it doesn't need to.
The FDA isn't perfect, but it is the best system available today.
Based on what? How many other systems have we tried?
You make an awful lot of assumptions, none of which seem backed up by data. Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, maybe you can explain how a drug company can be a monopoly when no drug company has over 10% of global market share? What are your assumptions?
I agree, the future for clinical trials, medicine and healthcare will be different. We still need something to bridge that gap (and its a pretty big gap) but getting rid of patents for drugs won't get us there and will hurt research. You talk about cheap clinical trials, but in fact the technology does not exist. People don't trust the FDA, think they will trust a computer model yet?
Here is a twist. Increase drug patents to 25 years. Make it harder for generic manufacturers to attack valid patents. The industry would go for that. As a counterbalance, the govt. would regulate prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the specific drug. The patent gives them a monopoly.
I agree, the future for clinical trials, medicine and healthcare will be different. We still need something to bridge that gap (and its a pretty big gap) but getting rid of patents for drugs won't get us there and will hurt research.
You keep making this claim, but the history of patents in the pharma industry suggests exactly the opposite. I'm not sure why you continue to insist on making these false assumptions.
ou talk about cheap clinical trials, but in fact the technology does not exist. People don't trust the FDA, think they will trust a computer model yet?
Did I say it was a computer model? Again, I'd suggest you read Andy Kessler's book.
Here is a twist. Increase drug patents to 25 years. Make it harder for generic manufacturers to attack valid patents. The industry would go for that. As a counterbalance, the govt. would regulate prices.
Say wha....? You want to give MORE monopoly protection to companies? That means LESS competition and LESS incentive to innovate. And you want MORE regulation on top of that?
My goodness. Have you picked up an economics text lately? It might help you out a little. Because, right now you seem to have a severe misunderstanding of even the most basic economics, let alone anything more advanced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see movies here all the time...NEVER heard such an announcement before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RandomThoughts is a Shill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As long as I keep my cell phone on vibrate and go outside to have the actual phone conversation (or briefly whisper "can't talk now, I'm at the movies" or just not answer) in short, as long as I don't bother other people with my cell, nobody can force me to turn my cell phone off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All you seem to want is more and bigger government with more protectionism and less free market. Seems that's what YOU have in common with Hillary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When have I EVER suggested that investment doesn't chase returns? I've never said anything of the sort.
However, you seem to have a problem understanding the broken window fallacy that creating any kind of return is good, even if it's net negative to society. The point is that you can create tremendous returns in healthcare by moving away from protectionist policies. Then, yes, investment will follow return.
As for repeating something over and over again without making it true, you seem to be guilty of that. I've got the research and data to support my position. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have anything, other than a faulty understanding of economics.
Based on your reasoning, we'd all be better off if the gov't guaranteed profit to certain companies. After all, investment chases return, right? So shouldn't the gov't just pick the winners so we all know where to invest? But that's ridiculous and I would think that someone like you who's so sure of his position would understand this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sdfsdafasfsadf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the simpsons is the best show on tv............
[ link to this | view in chronology ]