UK Copyright Group Plans Heavy Anti-Piracy Measures For Bond Film Because Of How Successful It Will Be
from the wut? dept
FACT, the UK's anti-piracy group that has long waged war on cammers and occassionally likes to cosplay as law enforcement officers, has built quite a reputation for itself throughout the years. That said, as I find with most of these copyright and entertainment groups, I just can't seem to make sense of their lexicon. Only recently, FACT has made it publicly known that it is upping its battle against in-theater cameras that might record the upcoming Bond film, Spectre.
Due to the national and international importance of Bond’s latest outing, FACT have issued a somewhat unusual proactive anti-piracy statement, presumably to deter would-be pirates from leaking the movie.Except that's almost never the case. Risk -- assuming that FACT means financial risk at the hands of piracy -- is almost never really a factor in the AAA, box-office busting films. In fact, it's quite easy to draw a correlation between the box office success of a film and the levels to which it's pirated. Why? Well, because of the not complicated reason that good movies are good and people, all people, want to see good movies. Paying customers want to see good movies, as do those willing to pirate. Piracy doesn't necessarily make films successful, but it sure doesn't keep the massive releases from being successful, either. And it seems everyone kind of knows this.
“James Bond is a big risk and we will be working with cinema operators and the distributors making sure we will keep that as tight as possible. We really don’t want to see that recorded,” says FACT director general Kieron Sharp. “The bigger the film and the more anticipated it is, the higher risk it is. We have staff on extra alert for that. They are on alert, particularly with the bigger films like James Bond, to really drill down to who is in the auditorium and who might possibly be recording.”
While FACT are always keen to deter pirates, why the special fuss over Bond? The profile of the movie and its commercial importance are obviously key factors since Spectre is likely to be one of the biggest box-office hits this year.So FACT is ramping up the war on piracy because it knows that the film is going to be successful? How does that make even the tiniest bit of sense? Now, as for the real reason the industry is so concerned, it's because that same industry is going out of its way to make piracy a natural remedy for its own stupid release windows.
The real surprise here is that UK pirates are being given almost two weeks to record Spectre and begin online distribution before it hits cinemas in the United States and the rest of the world on October 6. That probably goes a long way to explaining why FACT are being forced to implement extraordinary security measures – a U.S. pre-release is exactly what the anti-piracy group is trying to avoid.And, make no mistake, those illicit copies will certainly be available. In other words, the industry was faced with two choices to deter piracy: it could valiantly fail to keep any camming from happening and being released on the internet or it could adjust to the reality of the market and release the film worldwide at the same time as the UK release. It chose the former, because apparently playing some kind of spy game to police a spy movie while not accomplishing anything is more fun than actually barely-altering a business model to give customers what they want.
But why take the chance that someone slips through the net? Hollywood knows that these windows fuel ‘camming’ yet MGM and Columbia are apparently prepared to risk “the most damaging form of piracy” by leaving the entire world dangling for 12 days while potentially millions of illicit copies of Spectre float around the Internet.
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: camming, copyright, fact, james bond, overreaction, spectre, uk
Companies: fact
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Note to self:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Note to self:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just sayin'.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
Even physics bothers me: "gravity exists, stuff falls." Who can follow that? We aren't all geniuses, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The newer ones, fucking disgusting propaganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No boxoffice, No pirating
Now, if Connery was still in play, even if Bond now worked from a Q tinkered wheelchair, things might be different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They will seek a picture of the back office with a cell phone and post it for all to see.
It will be the Howard brothers and Larry Fine! (aka The Three Stooges) whoop whoop whoop!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hollywood Accounting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Note 2 self: stay away from theaters. I don't want anybody drilling down on me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And not so much being called chicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
UHF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've stumbled across, erm, "adult special interest" videos online that beg to differ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That was my takeaway as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Been Warned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trolling, Anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trolling, Anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, that worked then
Having been more utterly underwhelmed by Skyfall (when I finally bothered to borrow it off someone) than by pretty much any film ever, my expectation wasn't high in the first place, so you're safe from me downloading it.
Given a trip for 2 to the cinema is usually the guts of £40 (um $60?), there's a whole list if other things to spend that kind of money on than being annoyed by rude people, (though, as an aside, people recording films are among the more pleasant cinema-goers being as they are usually quiet and still), but hey, it might have been a possibility.
The casual threat of "drilling down who is in the auditorium", however, has had the presumably desired effect of making it certain I will be no-where near one. Not that I've ever recorded or want to record a film (and why would I when there's usually a gazillion copies from the master or promotional pre-releases floating around within days if not before release?), just that I hate the shitty way you do business and have no desire to give you my money.
So well done, that's one less person that might possibly have virtually cost you virtual sales had they actually shown up in a cinema. On the other hand, good luck getting any money out of me at all for a film you've made me vehemently not care about, but it's nice to have won the "moral" battle.... right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as most films end up being uploaded to torrent sites
in the form of low quality camera recordings .
As even pirates find it hard to get a high quality copy of a movie until its released on dvd ,unless its leaked on the web.
This is like the people that buy a 50 dollar rolex watch .They are not the people who can afford to buy a real 400 dollar rolex watch.
The type of person who downloads and watchs a low quality cam video
of a bond film is probably unlikely to buy the dvd or blueray when it comes out.
Every single big film release ends up being uploaded
to a torrent site .
Maybe the film industry should look at the music industry .
they reduced piracy by making their product avaidable at
a reasonable price from itunes and various streaming
services all over the world .
And most films end up on netflix or amazon video
at least for a limited time .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
having something to
say
Was very hard to
read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would happily pay companies money to have the physical copies of films I enjoy Instead it's watch it digitally once or not at all.
Perhaps instead of making it harder to buy movies they could open the access to purchasing them.
I am reffering more to decades old movies than the current ones. I find most of the new films these days not worth watching even for free. Completely wooden actors, and bad plots with lots of "action and splosions to distract"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Read my mind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all misdirection
On the other hand (that they don't want you to see) are the 1080i Blu-Ray versions giving out to critics and screeners, which somehow end up on the torrent sites.
So, it's better to blame cam-corders instead of coming down on screeners and friends of the studio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or, "letting the rest of the world pay for it when it comes out in the US" like 90% of the other movies out there (though they are getting better at worldwide releases)
Or, "letting people who can't make it to a cinema pay for it at home on release" as per the majority of cinema releases where people are forced to wait months.
I know it's often more complicated than that, but it will never cease to amaze me how they will spend tens of millions on advertising their product, deliberately block a large chunk of the people they've advertised to from buying their product, and then act surprised when people find alternative methods of viewing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I'm not going to play that game any more. What used to be a wall full of movies now fits in my pocket. Like many movie fans, I could give a fuck if they start innovating now, because I already have the setup I want.
Let the copyright police do whatever they gotta do. Their cause is not only futile, it's unjust. But by all means, let them lock up all their customers--I'm sure that'll work out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About FACT
Three: Last year I, an Australian, bought almost $1,000 worth of old English comedy TV shows on DVD from Amazon UK (saving about $1,500 compared to buying them locally). Nearly all of them have the FACT logo on the back but I've seen hardly any FACT ads on the discs, so if I didn't already know, I wouldn't even know what the hell "FACT" is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: About FACT
Not true, although it's the corporations they represent who steal copyright from independents, not those corporations having their copyright stolen.
"Nearly all of them have the FACT logo on the back but I've seen hardly any FACT ads on the discs"
I think they backed down a little after they realised they were only pissing off the people who weren't pirating by lecturing them on their legally purchased property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not good enough
People might try and record the films with their phones, so forbid people from bringing those into the theater entirely. And much like candy, people might try and sneak them in anyway, so clearly pat-downs and/or scanners are needed to make sure.
Basically I'm all for anything that makes going to the theater as unpleasant as possible. The ones making the films hold blatant contempt for those that keep them in business, and their customers deserve to have this demonstrated to them until they get the message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not good enough
If you have some money you want to loose here is a way to do it.
Go to the theater, wait until the movie starts, take out your phone and hold it infront of you. I garantee you will leave the room in less than 20 minutes and some nice police guys will search your phone, jacket, pocket, bag and whatever you have on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not good enough
it's one thing to have dumb CCTV cameras recording you walk round a town centre, quite another to be scrutinized in the dark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the twelve day window
The Different Release dates allow for some creative Hollywood accounting, There was "all that copyright infringment" so the studio bosses can say they didn't turn a profit, and they can't pay out any percentages owed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bond, James... Who?
Oh, what did you say? He uses wierd technology like driving a car with a cellphone from the backseat? You must be talking about someone else. For the last couple of years the most high-tech thing James Bond used was a gun.
The only reason I see for this PR stunt is well... the PR. With the new Bond the whole "Bond, James Bond" thing fell apart and became a "I'm f'ing Bond mother*peep*er! Give me the freaking code before I beat the #+o0 out of you!!!"
But hey, if you killed a successfull franchise you got to use everything you have to break even. And if you don't blame them pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bond, James... Who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bond, James... Who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bond, James... Who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bond, James... Who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bond, James... Who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bond, James... Who?
Isn't that more true to the novels?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple. You are a human being, so you view financial success as a yes/no question. They are capitalists, and in capitalism, there is no such thing as making too much money, anything else be damned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coming to a cinema near you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coming to a cinema near you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Coming to a cinema near you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nothing of "wut" here
And no, they don't want "free publicity" from torrents, they want people to pay for viewing. There's nothing unreasonable in this idea.
And yes, prohibit cameras in movie theater is also sensible thing to do. Since when caprip became OK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clearly not that much or they release would be simultaneous worldwide, drastically reducing the possible impact from camming.
And no, they don't want "free publicity" from torrents, they want people to pay for viewing. There's nothing unreasonable in this idea.
Behind the idea perhaps not, but the execution of it? Absolutely. They could absolutely gut the demand/interest in torrents of the film if they would only get past the idiotic idea of 'release windows'.
Go through the hassle of finding a torrent, download it, hope the quality is decent or at least passable, or go to the theater, shell out some money, and watch it on a huge freakin' screen.
Most people are going to choose option #2 if possible, but when option #1 is the only one available because some morons are still enamored with the idea behind 'release it at location 1 on day/month X, release it at location 2 on day/month Y', despite the fact that the internet allows global communications in near real-time, some people aren't going to feel like waiting.
Some of them wouldn't have gone anyway, some of them probably would have but won't after downloading, and some of them will download and still go. 1 and 3 can be dismissed, as their behavior wasn't going to change with or without the torrent option, but #2 are the studios deliberately leaving money on the table, as they are people that would have paid, but now aren't, simply because of the needless staggered release.
(And just to head off a possible counter argument... Should people in the example, and in general, engage in copyright infringement? No. However, this is meaningless, as despite 'should' or 'shouldn't', it still happens, and will always happen. You can fight the tide, complain that it shouldn't be coming in, and be washed away, or you can adapt and act in such a manner that the tide coming in doesn't affect you, or ideally helps you.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem with these arguments is that the morons on the other side think that reality is binary - i.e. pay or pirate. They always forget the other options - wait for DVD, wait for cable/Netflix, wait till you can borrow your mate's DVD, etc. Plus, the one they definitely never consider - don't buy at all and buy from a competitor instead.
"However, this is meaningless, as despite 'should' or 'shouldn't', it still happens, and will always happen"
...and has *always* happened. I remember seeing a pirated VHS of E.T. when I was around 9 years old, which was obtained primarily because the studio were scared of releasing it on VHS at the time. Strangely enough, the film still managed to make money when they stopped crapping themselves and released it legally. There should have been a lesson in that, yet here we are 30 years later still trying to teach the same things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nothing of "wut" here
Yes, it's predictable that they'll act in such a silly and ineffective manner. That'll be why we're talking about it.
"They think that movie gonna be success, and therefor want to monetize this success."
But, they won't do any of the things that will actually help that (e.g. worldwide release, making the theatrical experience better), they just want to grandstand.
"And no, they don't want "free publicity" from torrents, they want people to pay for viewing."
Want it or not, that's what they'll get. No matter how much they piss off the people who are paying others will continue to pirate. There's not a damn thing they realistically can do about it, at least not without attacking the people who are already paying.
"And yes, prohibit cameras in movie theater is also sensible thing to do. Since when caprip became OK?"
Since when was that the only use for a camera? If they don't want to lose sales, maybe "don't come near this cinema else we'll confiscate the camera you had with you for the other things you were doing today" isn't the best advertisement?
Also, if the biggest threat to your box office receipts is that somebody might decide to watch a blurry, shaky cam of a movie with other patrons standing up and down in front of the camera instead of watching it properly, your movie has bigger problems than the existence of that footage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ultimate anti-piracy measure
Do please try it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The ultimate anti-piracy measure
It would be cheaper and easier to just not have any cameras on the set while the actors are acting. Then there's no movie to put in a vault and throw in the ocean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need centralized planning, yes?
1) Make a movie
2) Distribute it as permitted under the laws of the various countries, at whatever date it wishes to.
Without being forced to choose between being pirated or reducing the anticipated gross revenue its highly paid financial analysts feel will maximize the revenue.
When Techdirt starts having skin in this game, say by contributing a million or two or fifty towards the production, or owning a major portion of the common stock of a studio, then it should have a binding say in how and when the movie is distributed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need centralized planning, yes?
Whether you like it or not, reality dictates that piracy exists, and the best way to encourage it is to artificially limit paying customers' access to the product. Now, I'm sure analysts and studios would love it if this weren't the case, but dancing around the issue in a fantasy land of your own imagination.
Reality exists, deal with it, profit from it. Don't deny it just because your fevered imagination can think of somewhere you could have made more money.
Oh, by the way, I have "skin in the game", because I'm one of the non-pirates these people are supposedly trying to convince to pay for their product,as I've paid money for every Bond movie produced so far in history, often multiple times. Crap like this convinces me not to this time around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need centralized planning, yes?
Hollywood and cinemas are wasting money focusing on the wrong things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need centralized planning, yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need centralized planning, yes?
Nobody gets to choose whether their stuff is pirated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need centralized planning, yes?
Bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need centralized planning, yes?
I agree that is bullshit. It's about as stupid as saying that only pirates are allowed to have opinions concerning piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, given the choice between supporting them in screwing me over, and spending the money on creators who don't hold me in blatant contempt, I know which one I'd go with, even if doing so isn't likely to have any noticeable difference on the parasites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]