Ellen Degeneres: Pirate Enabler? Her Watermarked Copy Of 'Walter Mitty' Leaks Online

from the who-knew? dept

Fri, Jan 10th 2014 3:33pm — Mike Masnick

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.

Baio notes the likely possibilities:

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.

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.

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?

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

44 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 4:02pm

"Does it really matter where it came from?"

you appear to think so !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 4:06pm

and eventually you are going to die, there is nothing you can do about it, sooner or later you will die, so you might as well kill yourself now, does it really matter when you die?? if you are going to die anyway !

"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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 4:14pm

know what a Fatalist is ?
Fatalism, all actions and events are due to fate, its your central argument with copyright, "its going to happen anyway, so might as well accept it and profit however you can"

might want to look up "defeatism" as well, and 'predeterminism'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 10 Jan 2014 @ 4:15pm

Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
You end on a question that should stop you from posting this tripe. But, late Friday, you're desperate.

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 thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 10 Jan 2014 @ 4:17pm

So what are they going to do about it?
I bet the studio was expecting to nab a grip or someone. I can't imagine they'll stop sending Ellen screeners.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Listens to Music, 10 Jan 2014 @ 4:19pm

Watermarks
This is why I don't buy music containing personal information (e.g. anything purchased through iTunes and Amazon MP3 albums which state they include "record company required metadata").

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 4:24pm

Re: know what a Fatalist is ?
You don't know what words mean.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 4:25pm

Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
It's a wonder that you can even use the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Jan 2014 @ 4:59pm

Yes, actually, it does matter
The film was going to leak online sooner or later no matter what. Does it really matter where it came from?

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 thread ]
Just Sayin', 10 Jan 2014 @ 5:18pm

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 10 Jan 2014 @ 6:17pm

It's free online?
Still don't care enough to watch it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 6:19pm

Send in the Cops!
Send the cops after that dirty pirate! She can prove her innocence in court. That's what the MPAA says should happen, and for once I agree with them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 6:52pm

Re: Send in the Cops!
SWAT team! SWAT team!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bergman (profile), 10 Jan 2014 @ 7:50pm

It IS possible Ms Degeneres did leak it...
...only she didn't think of it as a leak. She thought it was good and gave it to a friend to read, who gave it to another friend, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 7:53pm

Re: Watermarks
identifying information in mp3s is limited to id3 tags (which can all be easily stripped out) or proprietary extra "garbage" at the beginning or end of the audio (again, easily detected and stripped out).

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 thread ]
JMT (profile), 10 Jan 2014 @ 8:26pm

Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
"Here are two items far more important to everyone"

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 thread ]
gyffes, 10 Jan 2014 @ 8:27pm

I dunno
I've watched these screeners for years and have never seen m'mom's identifying information so plainly. Having said that, we're under pretty strict orders when we watch these to keep 'em to ourselves, for fear they'd get out like this one has.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
santa clause, 10 Jan 2014 @ 11:51pm

so go after the place it got leaked
everyone involved on the pirate side should get banned from piracy ...cause this is a trap....meant to gain inroads so they can nerf a few more kids
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jarfil, 11 Jan 2014 @ 2:26am

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 10th, 2014 @ 4:06pm
So, your point being... since I was not going to watch it anyways, it was as good as dead already, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
qw, 11 Jan 2014 @ 3:13am

Re: Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
We should all share a username 'Into_the_blue' and timeshare the trolling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2014 @ 5:11am

Yet another remake
So Hollywood's still completely void of originality, eh? Sad, but not particularly surprising.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PopeRatzo (profile), 11 Jan 2014 @ 5:59am

Could be anything
What if she just tossed it into the trash and her housekeeper picked it up and brought it home and her son saw what it was and put up a torrent?

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 thread ]
techflaws (profile), 11 Jan 2014 @ 7:24am

Re: Re: Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
Don't you know, ankle-biter #1 invented these glorious horizontal lines and dashing codes so everyone can be sure the sheer stupidity posted is his and his alone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reality Check (profile), 11 Jan 2014 @ 8:57am

Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
Again, you feel the need to chime in...

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 thread ]
Mike, 11 Jan 2014 @ 3:08pm

Walter Mitty? I'm serious, I've never heard of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 12 Jan 2014 @ 2:18pm

Re: Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
I like how Blue has somehow determined what items are important to people he doesn't even know. Also, I only counted one item (unless that cloudfront babble was item #2? It's hard to say.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 12 Jan 2014 @ 2:21pm

Re: Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
Blue knows very well that nobody would read his blog, so he has to come where there is actually an audience. By his definitions, he's just grifting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
evilk666, 12 Jan 2014 @ 4:17pm

invisible/inaudible Watermarks
You'd be surprised what achieved ages ago in means of invisible/inaudible watermarking. Especially what kind of massive picture degradation they survive.
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 thread ]
Anonymous, 12 Jan 2014 @ 5:12pm

Re: invisible/inaudible Watermarks
Back when the Disney movie "The Princess And The Frog" was in theatrical release, I downloaded it from the internet. At one point, the words "Property Of Walt Disney Studios - Do Not Duplicate" appear for a few seconds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
evilk666, 12 Jan 2014 @ 6:19pm

Re: Re: invisible/inaudible Watermarks
Well, that's hardly what I meant with invisible ;)
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2014 @ 9:42pm

Re: Re: Yes, actually, it does matter
Yes, she is a victim. And since copyright enforcers have always been out for blood, they should have been out for hers on the usual bullshit claims of "subscriber tied to the account" and "negligence". Had this been the case she would be defended.

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 thread ]
Julian Perez, 12 Jan 2014 @ 10:13pm

Re: 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"

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 13 Jan 2014 @ 12:54am

Re: Re: Yes, actually, it does matter
Thank you for proving my point AJ.

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2014 @ 1:13am

Re: Re: Yes, actually, it does matter
"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."

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 thread ]
Pragmatic, 13 Jan 2014 @ 7:04am

Re: Re: Mike blazing a trail to blithering irrelevancy.
She did, it bombed, and so she's here frantically seeking attention. Her funniest moment was attempting to whore out her alleged article-writing skills to Mike right here in the comments. She even promised to be good and not insult us. Nothing doing, so she's back to insulting us in the Longest Tantrum Ever.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2014 @ 8:14am

Did the black helicopters full of Navy Seals, FBI, Swat, ICE, and Walt Disney descend on Ellen DeGeneres' compound yet and seize everything she owns while taking her into custody?

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 thread ]
Pragmatic, 13 Jan 2014 @ 8:33am

Re:
It's actually pretty good, with Stiller playing an amiable goofball. As usual. Okay, I liked it.

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 thread ]
Pragmatic, 13 Jan 2014 @ 8:36am

Re: Yet another remake
Good point; I'd be interested to know if they licensed it from James Thurber's estate, the grifters! /s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John85851 (profile), 13 Jan 2014 @ 2:32pm

This isn't as bad as cam-cording
You say vast sums of money will be spent getting to the bottom of this? Sorry, but I disagree 100%.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2014 @ 6:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Yes, actually, it does matter
what can you expect from someone who cheats on all of his exams.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 4:18am

Re: Re:
Okay, I just have to ask: Why?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2014 @ 9:36pm

horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gab4moi (profile), 23 Jan 2015 @ 9:45pm

Re: So what are they going to do about it?
Well in Ellen's case, not likely a best boy... boom boom... slinks away...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2015 @ 11:27am

Re: Re: Yes, actually, it does matter
Try to make some sense in your next post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]