Ellen Degeneres: Pirate Enabler? Her Watermarked Copy Of 'Walter Mitty' Leaks Online
from the who-knew? dept
Each year, Andy Baio tracks the online leaking of various screeners for Oscar-nominated films. He apparently just noticed something interesting. On Thursday, a screener for The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, the new Ben Stiller flick, leaked online. That happens. But, there appears to be a massive watermark indicating that the screener copy belonged to talk show star Ellen Degeneres.
There's a chance, albeit small, that this watermark was added by someone besides 20th Century Fox — by someone trying to hide the identity of the actual source, maybe.Indeed, one of those possibilities is the most likely answer, as it's extremely doubtful that Degeneres herself suddenly decided to make a bit of a name for herself in the warez scene. Either way, I'm sure that 20th Century Fox and/or the MPAA enforcement division of the local FBI can now more easily track down the history of how this all got online. I'm sure that large sums of money will be spent tracking it down... without anyone stopping to think that the fact that this is online is unlikely to make even the slightest difference in the eventual revenue for the film, which currently has a 48% approval rating on RottenTomatoes. The film was going to leak online sooner or later no matter what. Does it really matter where it came from?
More likely, the watermark is accurate and Ellen's screener simply ended up in the wrong hands. A postal worker, one of her employees, friend, family member, or countless others in the production and distribution chain could be responsible for ripping the DVD and putting it online.
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: ellen degeneres, leak, screener, walter mitty
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
you appear to think so !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"without anyone stopping to think that the fact that this is online is unlikely to make even the slightest difference in the eventual revenue for the film,"
is it going to make any difference to the amount of revenue you will make if you are dead ?
I would think it would make a large difference, same for movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 10th, 2014 @ 4:06pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
know what a Fatalist is ?
might want to look up "defeatism" as well, and 'predeterminism'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: know what a Fatalist is ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
Here are two items far more important to everyone:
Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sessions-every-one-job-added-nearly-5-people-left-work force_774106.html
And, on that site, yet another variant of "cloudfront" with fake "security certificate" to host out: u6t6.cloudfront.net. These "security certificates" are the latest trick against those who try to avoid being tracked. Of course, since you kids have your browers in "track me, spam me, load malware, please" mode, you don't even notice.
Masnicking: daily spurts of short and trivial traffic-generating items.
12:14:57[n-197-3]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
If you don't think Mike's tackling the important issues, get off your lazy ass and start your own blog instead of freeloading off this one. I'm sure it'd be hugely popular...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
She's a failed content creator hoping to be handsomely compensated by the magic of copyright, etc. and I'm fairly certain she's not being paid by any legacy industry because she's too nutty for them. I understand she's a regular on the conspiracy theory circuit, but isn't very popular and can't admit it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
Not about the actual blog entry, but to pontificate pusillanimously on what you think he should be posting about.
Start your own bilious blog where you alternate raving about how large corporations are all evil, and then about how the government granted monopolies in the form of Copyright and Patents to create mega-corporations is the opposite of evil. And how criminalizing people is the best way for the mega-corporations to make a profit.
Or write about your balding cat or your obsession with your neighbors underage daughter. I don't care. But if you can't find a blog you like... Make your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what are they going to do about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what are they going to do about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watermarks
I don't pirate music, but I can't guarantee someone who has access to my computer won't post all my music online. That's why I avoid iTunes and only buy music I know contains no personal information of any kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watermarks
I'm more concerned with the changing of words, punctuation etc of the author(s)' content in ebooks to create a unique "fingerprint"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Watermarks
You really have nothing to worry about, then. Different versions of e-books sounds VERY clever when you first hear it, but give the matter some thought and it's even more trivial to crack: just compare two copies and list the differences.
Seriously, this strategy for texts was obsolete the instant UNIX created the -diff command decades ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, actually, it does matter
It matters because this will be yet another case showcasing how 'piracy' is only something bad enough to ruin a life over when someone 'small' does it, but not even a blip on the radar when someone big or 'important' does it.
Had it been some no-name reviewer, or someone not as well known, you can bet there would be multiple companies and groups out for blood, bound and determined to make them pay by absolutely burying, and bankrupting, them through lawsuits and charges.
Because it's someone so well known however, someone who has connections, and fans, and most importantly money, they'll likely chalk it up to an 'innocent mistake' or something equally bland, and/or try and pin the blame on someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, actually, it does matter
Another conclusion not supported by the situation.
Aside from knowing that this was a copy specifically sent to Ellen, we have no idea if (a) she ever got it, (b) if it came from her copy and not a duplicate made at the time it was created, and (c) perhaps one or more of the people who might have access to her material borrowed it.
See, piracy apologists always want to be able to say "SODDI" - some other dude did it. They blame weak wireless standards, friend who paid a visit, the neighbor's kids, their own kids, whatever excuse that you can come up with. "The dog clicked my mouse on the porn video, he thought that b**ches in heat was about dogs!". Everything comes with an excuse.
Perhaps you should apply your own fuzzy, weak, and never responsible standards to Ellen. By your standards, she's a victim, not a responsible party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, actually, it does matter
Since she was not, it reinforces the original point of "high court, low court". Celebrities have never been dragged through the mud or courts when found allegedly infringing on copyright.
You're an idiot if you can't see that point being made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, actually, it does matter
In two consecutive paragraphs you both try and claim that it's 'not her fault' because 'reasons', and then, immediately afterwards claim that 'piracy apologists' are the ones always trying to shift the blame.
So which is it? Are you admitting to being a 'piracy apologist' by trying to shift the blame to someone other than the person who's name showed up in the watermark in the file, or is that glaring double standard I mentioned rearing it's head, and suddenly it's everyone's fault but hers, simply because she's rich and well known, meaning it couldn't possibly be her fault?
And heck, if we're going to talk about 'wrongfully accused victims', off the top of my head I don't exactly remember you ever defending those accused of file sharing elsewhere, it was always 'they were accused, they must be guilty', and in those cases it was a matter of IP address, something far less likely to accurately identify a person, this case involves something that literally has the person's name attached to it, so why aren't you calling for the blood of the 'filthy pirate'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, actually, it does matter
I seen nothing in TOG's post that refutes that idea. But that wasn't the point he was making. All of the above could apply equally to anybody else identified in this way. However, I suspect that you'd be one of the ones baying for blood rather than allow that they could be innocent - the exact point being made. If DeGeneres isn't going to face the full consequences that would face a lesser-known person, it's a double standard.
However:
"piracy apologists"
Stop with the lying and name-calling. Making wild attacks on people you've never met, using absolutely zero evidence of any wrongdoing on their part will just make you look like a lying ass.
This argument would be so much easier if people like you didn't feel the need to defend a broken industry at all costs and lie about people who question them. The point being made above is simple - DeGeneres appears to be allowed greater benefit of the doubt and less likelihood to face legal consequences than a lesser-known person would in the same circumstances. Why not address this actual argument, rather than the strawmen you constructed here?
"always want to be able to say "SODDI" - some other dude did it"
Wasn't that exactly what you were trying to argue in the first part of your post I quoted? It's hilarious to see someone try to deflect criticism of someone whose copy was pirated by blaming someone else, then attack people for using the very argument you just used. Logical consistency is as important as sticking to the facts if you want to be taken seriously - try it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, actually, it does matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, actually, it does matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still don't care enough to watch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And I paid to see it, copyright shills. We pirates DO go to the cinema, etc., and buy tickets for the stuff we like. It's a myth that we want everything for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
After all the stuff this site covers, why would you still throw money at hollywood like that, knowing what they use that money for?
If you really must see a movie put out by hollywood, wait until it's been out long enough for the dollar theater, or Redbox/Netflix, and at least minimize the money going to those parasites. As an added incentive, waiting allows you to check the review for a movie, so you're less likely to waste your time and money on a crappy film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Send in the Cops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Send in the Cops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It IS possible Ms Degeneres did leak it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dunno
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so go after the place it got leaked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another remake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet another remake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could be anything
I mean, come on. When we buy a DVD are we now on the hook for making sure it is disposed of in a secure way so nobody can ever copy it? I'm sure that's in the Trans Pacific Partnership.
I've dumped tons of copywritten material in the garbage over the years (including a fair amount of my own). I don't believe I'm responsible for anything that happens to it after I drop it in my wastebin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
invisible/inaudible Watermarks
They are designed to survive even the worst cam-rip encoded at a catastrophic bitrate.
Though, that kind of watermarking would require a full re-encoding per Screener-DVD. Re-Encoding is done already, however, just by small snippets (every few minutes a visible watermark is stamped into the picture for a couple of seconds/minutes).
Re-encoding a full DVD is not that a time-consuming task nowadays. Especially if billions of dollars are at stake, as they keep on telling everyone all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: invisible/inaudible Watermarks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: invisible/inaudible Watermarks
Digital watermarking is mathematically altering the picture in a way you will not recognize with the naked eye. You can choose to either embed more data that is less robust or less data that in turn is very robust. Usually the latter one is preferred. Expect something like 0.2 bits of data per second - i.e. you have to wait for 10 seconds in order to gain 2 data bits or wait for 1 minute to receive 2 bytes. In order to embed a unique ID you'll need a couple of bytes=minutes, which shouldn't be a problem for movies, tv-series etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've got the popcorn and am flipping through the news waiting for it to happen. This is going to be epic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't as bad as cam-cording
First, the MPAA isn't going to risk offending its own screeners over this "accident" or "miscreant", especially someone as public as Ellen Degeneres. Does anyone think for a minute that Degeneres, or any of her staff, will even be questioned about this?
Second, I would be willing to bet that there will be a story from the MPAA in the next few days about how they just scored another "win" by arresting a teenager trying to record 5 seconds a movie on her cell phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]