Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
from the punishment-=-crime? dept
The ridiculous over-punishment of those caught infringing continues. Earlier this week, Judge Margaret Morrow sentenced Gilberto Sanchez to one year in jail for daring to upload the "workprint" copy of the movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine. 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 helped the movie at the box office 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.I still think that Fox missed a huge opportunity in its idiotic response to this leak. It could have acted cool about it, and said something like:
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!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.
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: gilberto sanchez, jail, uploads, wolverine
Companies: fox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
LOL
Yes, they totally lost sales from me because I watched the leak.
I should stop consuming anything from the MAFIAA to justify their idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: LOL
*Returns to troll swamp*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LOL
No instead they want others to take the PR hit, they want others to be responsible for their business, they want others to care when they don't care about anybody.
Oh this makes my blood boil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
They do not get a dime out of me.
Guess what this guys got the kind of sentence I go in 1988.
Busted: Selling an 1/8 ounce of Cocaine by the DEA
Sentence was:
18 months in Lewisburg Penitentiary
$3600 Fine
6 years of "supervised release".
This man gets a year plus whatever else they threw at him for a completely non-violent and non-drug act.Real nice of the studios to give this guy the hammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I read this as incinerated and agreed with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reddit Community Reaction
http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/njfhf/man_gets_a_year_in_jail_for_uploading_wolveri ne/
It is frightening to me to think that a man could sit in a federal prison for a year because someone in a corporation believes that there was harm done (or that a court ASSUMES there was harm done)... yet no harm can possibly be proven in this case. No lost sales can be demonstrated; in fact the opposite is true as Mike points out.
The "cost" of the actual thing he stole (let's say it was a USB stick or a DVD)... what would that be? $4.95? Maybe he should still be punished... but not like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is terrible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could put them out of business in a week and we would all be the better for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure why he has to go to jail though. Can't he just be fined and put it through his house insurance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the problem is one we have seen over and over, no one "in charge" of the laws wants to take the time to see the difference in commercial vs noncommercial. They accept the envelope of cash on top of the flawed study and prewritten bill and run with it.
This case should be a wakeup call to studios, that you can spin these sorts of things to your benefit. But at the same time I fear their fake attempts to have an advertising firm create a campaign to make this happen for them under super controlled conditions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Commercial or non-commercial is a somewhat stupid distinction. Putting the video online, he is likely responsible for millions of copies made. That has to be at least as big a deal as burning a few hundred copies and selling them on the street.
The lack of direct payment for P2P doesn't mean he didn't get indirect benefit, social boosting, whatever.
The results are the same - and no, it's not a "envelope of cash" that is changing things, it's common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1) No harm could be proven to have been done to Fox. The movie made loads of money both in theater and DVD sales. They made a profit. They could not prove that harm was done to him.
2) While he may have received some benefit, whether that be financial or social, was that benefit made by causing harm to another person or business? Not that can be proven.
3) if the only benefit he gained was social and no harm was done to Fox, why is he being punished? Is it now a crime to raise yourself socially?
While I can understand copyright law as it currently stands, there are too many scenarios and too many variables to really make this a black and white area. That is what this court did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
2) The harm is caused, like it or not. If a single person saw the torrent and never saw the movie as a result, then some harm was caused.
3) The crime was committed, and benefit obtained. You don't need to go any further.
Basically, your defences for him would require that every human on the planet be brought to a court of law and questioned, attempting to show actual harm. It is not going to happen. Dude was handling and distributing stolen material, plain and simple. We don't have to have a national brain scan to figure out that he broke the law.
Why are you defending a pirate so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or maybe, he copies the file, and left the original still on that computer. How is that stealing again? Definition fail on your part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
2) See #1.
3) Why is it a crime to not hurt someone else? Sure he uploaded a video. People watched the video and the film still made a profit. Was his intent malicious? Not that was ever proven.
My defenses of him are not to make the process of prosecuting real crime more difficult or impossible. It is to show that not everything is as cut and dry as you wish it to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fox did not make ALL OF THE MONEY.
Therefore my coughing harmed them irreparably. Prove it didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=comicbookadaptation.htm
Wolverine is in 17 place of the all time earnings for comic book adaptations, I say that is pretty obvious that no harm has come from piracy, one even may wonder if it didn't help it, because if that is a flop I think many people would like to fail like that, it opened to the tune of $85 million dollars, how many other movies made that much? Only four apparently, from which 3 of them are in the same general ballpark of $150-160 million dollars.
It beat AVATAR that opened to $77 million dollars the all time gross maker to this day and you are saying it was harmed?
If anything else the pre release made people curious and wanting to see the "finished" movie to see if it was any different, that may explain the super weekend record ticket sales and subsequent sharp decline, apparently good movies lose less than half the tickets sales of the opening and when they are bad they go down to one quarter the sales is all there in the numbers, people where expecting it, very few movies of its kind made more money in its opening and somehow there is loss?
Plot the graph if anything, more than likely the leaking of the pre-release movie acted as an stimulant, because it got people curious about it, how would you explain the sudden decline from one week to the other to $28 million from the $85 million?
Wolverine is probably one of the few that show a positive side to piracy, because by the numbers the most probable cause of that huge opening intake was due to the piracy marketing, which faded away once people realized it was not that good even after the especial effects where added.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To address your points:
1. It is Fox's responsibility to show that harm was done. If they cannot show harm than how can punishment be determined? It is highly unlikely that Fox would have sold more without the leak as the movie did quite better than expected considering the comparison to similar movies with more favorable reviews that did not do nearly as well. If the leak did not help the movie (which also cannot be proven although the numbers suggest it did) then it is a statistical anomaly in comparison.
2. I don't follow your logic. As has been pointed out numerous times, just because he watched the movie via download does not mean that the viewer would have ever paid to watch the movie whther it be in the theaters, a rental/stream, or purchase the dvd. Again no harm can be shown and there is nothing presented by the prosecution to indicate that there was even one lost sale. And again, the statistical evidence (although possibly anecdotal) would indicate that the movie did better than it should have.
3. While yes there was a crime committed, it does not follow that there was a benefit obtained. Nothing in the court filings indicate that the defendant received any financial benefit. Social benefit is irrelevant and impossible to measure, but again nothing was presented to show any evidence of this either.
Following the benefit argument, I would argue that the public trial may have given the defendant more of a social benefit than the pre-release ever could have. Now his name is attached it the release and people know who is, many people are outraged at the severity of the punishment, and Fox has essentially made a martyr out of him rather than provide a deterrent example. As usual, it seems the industry has once again lowered their standing in the public eye and lost even more of the already exponentially small amount of respect they have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you bothered to read the actual links in the story (too difficult for you, I know), you would know that one of them does a nifty comparison to a number of very similar movies to Wolverine. That is, sequels in similar genres/budgets/target audiences... all of whom got much better reviews... and all of whom performed significantly worse than Wolverine. I think there's plenty of evidence that this movie did well beyond expectations, and significantly beyond what comparable movies did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So someone giving you an 'atta boy' is worth how much in imaginary dollars? We might have figured out how losses are being computed by the industry now.
And nope its an envelope of cash, a small pile of cash, to get a TX representative to propose breaking the internet for groups based on either coast and NOT in TX.
You should check the memo before selecting a target... Rule 34 - Phear the guy in the Fawkes Mask.
0/10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
they have no understanding of the internets...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So the MPAA just wants their +1,000 internets back?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, when Sanchez gets out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But Mike, this guy was a terrorist! (essentially)
/hyperbole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/howAmIDoingPretendingToBeDarryl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People who know how this copy was leaked understand that what this man did was actually quite wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would agree if it was something isolated to a few individuals and not millions. If millions are doing it the law is unenforcable. If it is unenforcable, than it is not a law at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More importantly, why would the movie company want to publicly come out and say "hey, it's okay to pirate our stuff, we are fine with it. In fact, just for you, we will stop locking the doors at our mastering facilities, and you guys can all come in after 10PM and make all the copies you like"?
Your fake press release is just sucking up to the pirates and making it sound all okay and wonderful. It's a crime, and the guy has been treated like a criminal. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When I hear stories about people getting life in prison for shoplifting some groceries on their third strike, I think "that is seriously unjust and something about that legal framework is broken" - that doesn't make me a shoplifting apologist.
Lots of people oppose capital punishment - are they all murder apologists? Lots of people oppose torture and extraordinary rendition - are they all terrorism apologists? Lots of people oppose red light cameras - are they all poor driving apologists? Lots people oppose corporal punishment by parents and schools - are they all undisciplined-children apologists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I don't think any form of sharing an infinitely copyable pattern of bits should be a crime. But if it is, then the punishment must fit the crime. Jail time, or civil penalties of millions of dollars, or denying someone their freedom of speech are nowhere near the realm of reasonable. The "victims" must be able to provethat significant harm was done. This is like jail time for a first time offender parking ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's evidence. While perhaps not by itself dispositive, it's certainly probative and material--it tends to make the fact that Mike is a piracy apologist more probable than it would be without this evidence. It's certainly enough to hand the question over to the jury. I mean, what would a piracy apologist say about this situation that Mike didn't say already? There's not much left. Mike is thorough in his apologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
After reading the first four words, I have decided that Mike is not apologizing for any piracy. He appears to be saying that the perp was "over-punished". Notice he said "over". That would suggest that Mike thinks he should be punished, but that his punishment should be somewhat less. This does not fit the "pirate apologist" shill attack criteria. Please proceed to direct insulting and personal attacks... that is all.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A summary of Mike's post:
The punishment doesn't fit the crime (he didn't say he shouldn't be punished).
The judge called the crime "very serious", but it isn't.
There was no provable harm done to the movie's ability to make money. (IMO it made far more than it deserved.)
Fox could've taken the opportunity to make itself look good to fans, which has provable benefits to a company.
Fox's actions instead make them look bad to fans, which has provable harm to a company.
The FBI has far more serious crimes to investigate.
I'm struggling to see how any of these points can be described as piracy apology, and even if you do, the issues raised are far more important than your incessantly repeated accusation. No actually cares what you think of Mike, stick to arguing the issues instead. We'll still disagree with you, but you'll look like less of an asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now this 49 year old glass installer is some sort of super hacker able to hack into Fox's network and download unfinished movies!
Please, please cough up mate, we want to read the REAL story, and you appear to have it.... oh include links.... me likes to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The street vendor thing is another one of those "two black youths" of the day, because obviously if he knew where he got it, it could have easily implicated them. He appears not to have done that.
As for "this 49 year old glass installer is some sort of super hacker", I don't think that at all. Right place, right time... maybe some help, who knows? He clearly didn't convince anyone of his innocence in the deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111220/18294817149/guy-who-uploaded-early-version-wolv erine-which-appears-not-to-have-hurt-movie-all-gets-1-year-jail.shtml#c193
We were teased with the "real" story...
still waiting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More importantly, why would the movie company want to publicly come out and say "hey, it's okay to pirate our stuff, we are fine with it. In fact, just for you, we will stop locking the doors at our mastering facilities, and you guys can all come in after 10PM and make all the copies you like"?
Your fake press release is just sucking up to the pirates and making it sound all okay and wonderful. It's a crime, and the guy has been treated like a criminal. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and no one will waste their time remastering your discs to make them less crappy.
try again troll :)
0/10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copywrite Boondoggle
I wish there was a jerk list so I'd know who to boycott. I've stopped buying all copy-written music because most of them are jerks too.
I wish Google would half the rank of all copy-written content, so the fair minded content creators would float to the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copywrite Boondoggle
Forbes Fortune 500 List
Hope that helps ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copywrite Boondoggle
Do that and they never get a dime from you and you still get to watch something.
or just read good books and listen to the radio,etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copywrite Boondoggle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compare and contrast
Steal $1.2 billion dollars (see: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-jon-corzine-mf-global-and-unaccountability ): nothing. Oh, maybe a token fine or something, but that's about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compare and contrast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Compare and contrast
"I simply do not know where the money is, or why the accounts have not been reconciled to date."
If you do, I have this terrific bridge made entirely out of unicorn bones that I'd like to talk to you about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Compare and contrast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds about right to me
This guy pirated a movie before it was released to theaters. That movie, if I am not mistaken, went on to do very well at the box office. So no harm was done, physical or otherwise. So a year in jail sounds about right.
Wait, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the guy "only tried" to rape the woman, he didn't ACTUALLY do it, so no charges at all, better luck next time, laugh it off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
equating to completely unrelated "crimes" to create the illusion one is like the other.
illicit an emotional visceral response and leave the target no way to call you out without you being able to play a card making him look unsympathetic or uncaring about women being raped.
3/10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I explain for the slow people, if you take the logic set used to dismiss something that happened, committing the crime that he went to jail for, which you pirate/freetard types are dismissing since he didn't profit, didn't hurt anyone, its not a big deal
and apply the logic set to another crime, if it doesn't hold up, generally the logic set is flawed, it isn't the crimes being compared, but the logic used to reach your conclusion, but you don't see that, because it doesn't support your twisted view, it doesn't support your entitlement view of free downloads no matter what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not saying any of those things necessarily apply in this particular case - but the point is that copyright infringement is a hell of a lot more nebulous, with a hell of a lot more variables and exceptions, than rape. So yeah: apples and oranges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I explain for the slow people, if you take the logic set used to dismiss something that happened, committing the crime that he went to jail for, which you pirate/freetard types are dismissing since he didn't profit, didn't hurt anyone, its not a big deal
I believe you may have misread the article and the majority of the comments. No one has dismissed the crime. What many people have said (including the post author) is that the punishment is disproportionate. A year in jail simply does not fit a crime where no harm can be shown.
Your "logic set" analysis does not hold up to scrutiny. To say your analysis of crime A, when applied to crime B means that you condone crime B because you disagree with the sentencing result of crime A is completely preposterous.
Rape is a particularly poor example because attempted rape is a crime as much as the actual act. Certain crimes have to be carried out in order to be considered criminal activity. You can not be convicted of attempted speeding or attempted tax evasion. Just thinking about or wanting to do some things is not a crime. Other crimes may be criminal once you have taken action towards the end goal of the criminal activity but failed to reach the desired end.
The main point most of the commentators here have made is that he did not profit from his crime, and to address your point, nor did he attempt to profit from it. There was no conspiracy to defraud Fox, there was no breaking and entering, and there was no intent to do anything other than share something he came to posses with the rest of the internet. He had the movie, posted it up online, and called it a day. This is not something that warrants a year in federal prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
it kept you spamming this website :)
1/10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The workprint was watchable but it was missing nearly all the special effects.... I went to the pictures to watch it after I'd seen the workprint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fortunately it hasn't been passed yet, so I'm OK until it does. Of course, since it's retroactive until the beginning of time, by this time next year I'm screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course I can't PROVE that I don't have any other copies, so I'm still guilty. Damn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Welcome to Techdirt! All bias now served with a side of prejudice--FREE!
You nailed it, though. The assumption is that piracy can only help. Never mind the fact that this defendant consciously and deliberately chose to criminally violate other people's rights. Apparently it's supposed to be OK for people to deliberately take criminal actions so long as some nontrivial argument exists that the criminal was in fact helping the victim. Techdirt Logic 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Copyright has ceased to be useful, gradually the populace are waking up to that fact and eventually changes will be made.
Given that Congress and the Senate can no longer be trusted to work for the people I'd imagine there may well be bloodshed some time in the future. The same can be said of most of the Western political systems, the one here in the UK is just as bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Generally, I consider the opinions of average people to be no more than annoying background noise, to be filtered out. Average people are responsible for the current crop of elected officials, as well as the new contenders. Average people shop at Walmart and buy cheap, crappy goods manufactured overseas, and when they fail, buy them again. No lesson is ever learned.
This is why the average Joe will be the ruination of the country. Sheer force of numbers. See the movie "Idiocracy" for a preview of the future. It may have been written as a dystopian comedy, but now appears to be a legitimate prophecy, and we are well along in the process. I'm actually glad I am old and ill enough to know that I won't live to see it. I do fear for my descendants, though, but the process is too far along to stop now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Show us ANY SHRED OF FUCKING PROOF that the leak hurt sales of tickets and/or downstream revenues/profits for this film.
Do it or shut the fuck up!
Fucking corporate apologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Straw man. Troll harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do you make such a big deal about Techdirt being biased? Of course it is, it's an opinion blog. Your bias is just as strongly displayed, except your constant harping about bias adds a dollop of hypocrisy on top.
"The assumption is that piracy can only help."
That's BS. There are no assumptions; instead there are references to numerous non-industry studies that show the losses from infringement are far lower than claimed, and to numerous non-industry studies that show there are indirect gains resulting from infringement. If you interpret that as "piracy can only help" then your comprehension skills are lacking.
"Never mind the fact that this defendant consciously and deliberately chose to criminally violate other people's rights."
You say that as if all rights are equal. Copyright is not an inalienable human right, or a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a government-granted privilege that should only be upheld if the net benefit is to society, as was originally intended. The government is supposed to pass laws that reflect the will of the people, and it's become quite obvious that the general public has a very low opinion of these rights. So your moral outrage is noted, but dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where is the proof that actual harm was committed. Fox can't provide it. The prosecution couldn't provide it. So with this lack of any proof of harm, why is this guy being locked up for a year?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What are the sales of Avatar?
Why didn't Wolverine sell like Avatar?
Clearly, Wolverine lost potential somewhere. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1. It was a crap film that wasn't as good as the other X-Men movies.
2. It wasn't in 3D.
3. Two completely different movies in style/content/Genre. Apples and Oranges again, both fruit but both completely different.
It could be argued that the workprint actaully made Wolverine more successful that it would have been had hte workprint not leaked.
I watched the workprint, I was so interested in how they were going to fill the "missing CGI gaps" that I went to see it as the cinema, when I was planning on renting the DVD when it was released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Okay, to that effect, you're being intellectually dishonest. You have no proof the leak WAS harmful in at least some way.
See how easy it is to change one word and use the same stupidity on you? You have no proof, thus, you're being intellectually dishonest and a blatant studio apologist. For shame!
You know, I think I like this. My new thing for the trolls is going to be "you don't have proof, so ha!". I'm not going to provide any to disprove them, just say they have none to prove what they say and end the convo by insulting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, this guy knew the possible consequences. He had been caught before and didn't learn his lesson.
If I was a movie studio exec, I probably would have done the same thing. "Hey, what you did probably helped us in the long run, but that doesn't change the fact that you did it again after we warned you last time, and we don't want just anyone to think that they can do this."
Also, if I were in charge, I would probably find ways to experiment with this effect. I don't think you can do a double blind experiment with movies, since it's hard to qualify exactly what makes one movie succeed and another bomb, but I'd try to figure out something.
Maybe take a mid level movie, do only minor advertising, and release a real low quality version to see if it could work as super cheap advertising.
The internet is like a hammer. It can be a weapon or a tool, and it all depends on how you use it. They should be brainstorming ways to make it work for them, instead of trying to push it back.
Something kind of internet judo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is actually the real crime here?
That said, I do think that the "the movie did well anyway so no harm no foul" approach is perhaps a little counterproductive. Because pointing at any direct causality between the two is, no matter which way you look at it, by no means a simple affair.
If it is proven that he took the movie and then distributed it without permission I think the discussion should be about what kind of punishment (if any) that act in and of itself warrants - regardless of how much it affected sales of the finished movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In that case, I would then be without the stuff. So it's entirely different.
Strip away all the hubris around copyrights, trademarks etc. and what you have here is plain and simple theft, like the kind resulting from someone breaking into your house.
No, actually. It's not at all the same. In the latter case, something is actually missing.
If you want a real analogy, how about this: what if I suddenly got a copy of everything in your house. You had no idea that it happened. You're not missing anything and it has no impact on you directly. Not so horrible, is it?
It is only the least creative people in the world that defend this behavior.
Really?
Its amazing how many people think that everything around them is simply free and that laws really don't apply to them.
That's not what anyone said. Please. We're trying to have an adult conversation, and simplifying it to the level that you have doesn't help. Your kind of thinking was debunked decades ago. Please keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all of you who think pirating movies is OK are douchebag idiot losers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: all of you who think pirating movies is OK are douchebag idiot losers
Um. Please look around at this website. It is a collaborative effort for which I invested a lot of money and hired staff, hoping to earn income from my creative productions.
Please try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Man in jail uploaded but didn't leak the film
The man being sentenced to a year in federal prison and a year of supervised release just bought a DVD off the street corner near his house, thought it was interesting, and shared it online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP Theft is real!
That is how the adversial legal system in the USA, Australia and UK works.
Rarely is there a common middle ground.
However as a vicgtim of IP Theft I can say that losses are often real and huge.
We do live reptile shows http://www.reptileshows.com.au in Melbourne Victoria Australia and two years ago, a bootlegger ripped off our trademarks online and was using SEO to rip us off at the rate of more than one client a day. In dollar terms that’s about $500 a day.
We eventually stopped him, but that was more than two years after we’d sent him a friendly cease and desist letter and he’d said he’d copmply then.
Because of repeat business with clients, our losses ended up as being well over $1 million (you do the math).
It is likely the matter will be heard by a judge and I have little doubt that the IP thief will trivialize our losses to minimize his penalty.
If (as contended here) the Wolverine bootlegger did not cause great losses (as alleged by posters here), it may be that the court sought to make the case an example to deter other would be bootleggers.
My hope is that he succeeds.
Surely it’s not too much to expect people to behave ethically and respect other’s property, whether that be physical (like a house) or intellectual, like copyright and trademarks.
All the best
Snakeman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP Theft is real!
I will not speak for Mike or anyone else here and will instead say that, my understanding of this conversation was how disproportionate the punishment was to the proven facts for the case.
This man did an illegal act and was caught. Good.
He was sent to prison for a year. I just cannot equate the crime to the punishment handed out. Yes, I agree he needed some form of punishment (Although I am curious of his motives, as he was a way too eager fan?)
I wish I could think of an appropriate punishment for him. I cannot. Worse yet, with that in mind, the "harm" caused was not very well proved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bussiness model
If the movie then flop, I can always blame on the "pirated" unfinished version. Maybe the general public won't believe it, but at least I have an excuse to sell to my investors and/or banks, "It's not that the movie sucks, it's those d**** pirates."
If the movie succeed, well, I got other "avenues" in place to complement my "profits", i.e. start a "legal" extortion racket from suing everyone downloading/hosting/linking/watching/hearing about/talking about/thinking about/dreaming about the "pirated" version.
Note, I own the copyright to this idea, and will let anyone copy/use it, with the understanding that I'll be cashing in such efforts (read: sue your ass off).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal Wolverine upload
I read these dumb articles from time to time, and then scan a few comments,
which are even dumber. The law is the copyright proprietor controls the performance of his work. The law. It's one of the few laws embedded in our Constitution. Hello? These comments include the usual drivel about how the damage to Fox can't be shown. So what? When I see my car has been stolen and it is found nearby a few hours later, should I be happy when the cops tell me they caught the thief but they dropped the charges because they could not see that the car had been damaged? It would be nice---never going to happen---if the anti SOPA crybabies would simply grow up. "Hey man, why you giving me this speeding ticket? Why aren't you looking for real criminals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal Wolverine upload
I read these dumb articles from time to time, and then scan a few comments,
which are even dumber. The law is the copyright proprietor controls the performance of his work. The law. It's one of the few laws embedded in our Constitution. Hello? These comments include the usual drivel about how the damage to Fox can't be shown. So what? When I see my car has been stolen and it is found nearby a few hours later, should I be happy when the cops tell me they caught the thief but they dropped the charges because they could not see that the car had been damaged? It would be nice---never going to happen---if the anti SOPA crybabies would simply grow up. "Hey man, why you giving me this speeding ticket? Why aren't you looking for real criminals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]