Movie Screening Phone Bans Reach Ridiculous Levels

from the oh-come-on... dept

For years, we've found it absolutely ridiculous that the movie studios have required that anyone attending early preview screenings remove and deposit their mobile phones in some (often unguarded) box. The entire policy has never made much sense. First of all, a mobile phone is unlikely to have a decent enough camera or enough memory to actually video tape a movie. Second... who cares? This is all part of studios stupidly overreacting to the idea that their movies might leak online before the official release date. Yet, as we've seen there's almost no evidence to support the idea that the availability of the movie online has any negative impact on box office proceeds. So, for the uncomprehendingly small chance that someone at a screening is able to record the movie with his or her phone and get it online, and that version of the film somehow destroys box office proceeds... Hollywood has decided it makes sense to treat everyone (including movie critics) who attend preview screenings as if they're criminals.

It's even being taken to more ridiculous levels now. Valleywag points out that Time Warner entertainment critic was stopped from watching a Warner Bros. (yes, owned by Time Warner...) screening, because he refused to give up his iPhone. Yes, the same iPhone that does not have a video recording function. Perhaps they were afraid he'd be playing games through the screening? Or maybe Twittering away a live commentary?

Filed Under: movies, reviews
Companies: time warner, warner bros.

AMC And IMAX Engaging In Deception? Calling Non-IMAX Films IMAX (And Charging More)

from the how-to-destroy-a-brand... dept

We've been big supporters of the idea that Hollywood and the movie theaters should be investing more in providing experiences like super large screen IMAX theaters, because that enhances the movie-going experience well beyond what can be replicated with a home theater today. And, indeed, we're starting to see some of that. However, it appears that some theaters and perhaps IMAX itself, have gotten the wrong message out of all of this. Via Digg, we're alerted to someone complaining that he drove out of his way and paid an extra $5 at an AMC theater in order to see the new Star Trek movie in IMAX. Except... he discovered it wasn't actually the IMAX that we all think about when we hear the word. A little investigating turned up the news that IMAX and some theaters have started marketing IMAX's new digital theater projection system as an IMAX-branded experience, despite it being nothing like what most people think of when they hear the word IMAX. It's difficult to see how that's not a deceptive and unfair business practice by IMAX and AMC -- especially when they're charging an extra $5 for it. What's really stunning is that IMAX would risk such massive damage to its brand with this stunt. It's difficult to fathom how massively such a move could backfire on a company whose brand image is probably its most valuable asset.

Filed Under: deception, imax, movies
Companies: amc, imax

German Movie Studio Demands Cash From People It Thinks Shared Its Movies Online

from the and-here-we-go... dept

While the recording industry made the fateful (and self-destructive) decision years back to start suing file sharers directly, the movie industry, for the most part has avoided going down that path (in part after witnessing how badly it failed for the RIAA). The movie industry has been quite active in trying to shut down file sharing systems and sites, but for the most part has avoided accusing home consumers of infringement. It appears that may be changing in Germany. Michael Scott alerts us to the news that a major German movie studio has started sending out threat letters to 500 people (out of a list of 10,000) that it believes shared some of its movies. The letter demands $1,000 per infringing work, or promises a lawsuit. What's unclear is how this list was created, and how accurate (or inaccurate it is). Demanding $1,000 from people without any real proof that they did anything illegal certainly seems to come quite close to the classic definition of extortion. We've see how some have used similar shakedown letters for profit, and it makes you wonder why they're allowed at all.

Filed Under: file sharing, germany, lawsuits, movies

Another Bogus Copyright Takedown: Can't Protest A Viacom Movie With T-Shirts

from the where's-the-infringement? dept

Boing Boing points us to the news that someone who was trying to protest the fact that a new Viacom animated movie was hiring Caucasian actors to play Asian or Inuit characters found that the t-shirts she was selling via Zazzle were taken down due to a claim that they violated Viacom's intellectual property. It's difficult to see what the violation of intellectual property here is. The shirts don't use any imagery from the movie itself. The t-shirts were designed by the woman herself. The only thing they have is a mention of the name of the movie -- but that shouldn't be enough to force the content offline. On top of that, plenty of the shirts don't seem to name the movie at all, but do name one of the characters. Again, it's quite difficult to see how this is an intellectual property violation, in any way. The explanation that Zazzle gave isn't entirely clear -- as it might not be a case of Viacom complaining directly, but Zazzle taking the matter into its own hands (which is equally troubling). Whether it's Viacom or Zazzle, this appears to be an overly aggressive attempt to stop perfectly reasonable public speech by hiding behind intellectual property claims. Update: Someone from Viacom stopped by in the comments to let us know that it has no problem with the shirts. Zazzle just took the shirts down on their own, and Viacom has asked them to put the shirts back up. Nice to see Viacom respond in this manner.

Filed Under: copyright, movies, protests, t-shirts, takedowns
Companies: viacom, zazzle

Lord Of The Rings Fan Film To Debut... Raising Some Copyright Questions

from the that's-quality dept

Stephen Turner alerted us to a story about an impressive looking fan film "prequel" to Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy that is being released this weekend. The project cost all of £3,000 and involves a huge cast and crew of volunteer fans -- but still looks amazingly professional (and stunningly like some of the real actors/characters in Jackson's version): Once again, we're seeing how modern technology allows people to create nearly the equivalent of a high budget production on a shoestring budget. But, of course, there are copyright questions raised by this whole thing. Tom sends in another version of this story that quotes the EFF's Fred von Lohman saying that it's not at all clear if the film violates anyone's copyright. While the characters are the same, the story was created by a fan. In the original link above, the guy behind the project, Chris Bouchard, notes that he "got in touch with Tolkien Enterprises and reached an understanding with them that as long as we are completely non-profit then we're okay." So, it's unlikely that any copyright lawsuit will arise from this, but the original question does remain: what if people made such a creative film without reaching such an agreement -- or without promising to be totally non-commercial? Would that be so wrong? It wouldn't take away from or harm Tolkien or Jackson's work. It would only enhance it. So why should these fans even need to gain permission to create such a movie?

Filed Under: copyright, fan film, lord of the rings, movies

BBC Presents MPAA Propaganda On Movie Piracy, Claims It's 'Fully Balanced'

from the on-one-side-of-the-scale... dept

You may recall back in 2007, that the BBC put on a program all about the "dangers" of WiFi that was entirely one-sided and had shoddy reporting, bad science and (best of all) conflicts of interest, as one of the main participants sells products to protect people from so-called radiation. The program was widely criticized, and many months later, the BBC finally admitted it made some mistakes with the program -- but the only one it would admit was that it was unfair in how it presented the one dissenter who pointed out that there's little to no evidence that WiFi causes any harm.

It looks like the BBC has done the same thing yet again. TorrentFreak notes that it just did a segment on all of the harm done by "piracy" to the movie industry, including quoting the already discredited report, paid for by the movie studios, claiming that movie piracy funds terrorism. Beyond that, the BBC program speaks to four different people -- all of whom agree that movie piracy is a hugely dangerous problem that could (they claim) end the movie industry in the UK. Do they present any evidence? Other than the discredited Rand study, not a bit.

So when someone complained to the BBC about the piece, you would think that maybe they'd realize that the piece had been a bit one-sided, but instead, they responded:

This report focused in on a legitimate problem for both the film industry and the authorities as they try to tackle what is an ever increasing and profitable criminal activity. We feel the report outlined the laws surrounding the issue of film piracy adequately and that the interviewees from the film industry were entirely appropriate people to comment on the problem.

Impartiality is the cornerstone of all our output, and we feel this report was fully balanced in it's coverage of copyright theft.

You see, apparently there is no other side to the story, and you can take the word of the industry insiders, because they're the only ones who can or should comment on the issue.

Amusingly, TorrentFreak also points out that the previous segment on that same broadcast, was about pirate radio, where the participants are described as "lovable." Yet, suddenly, when it switches to movies, they become "no laughing matter." Why? Did it ever occur to the folks at the BBC that perhaps the issues are actually the same -- and the people involved in both types of "piracy" are effectively doing the same thing? Apparently not.

Filed Under: fairness, movies, mpaa, piracy, propaganda, uk

Real DVD Copying Case Gets Off To An Inauspicious Start

from the not-a-good-sign dept

The latest joke of a lawsuit from Hollywood, over Real Networks' RealDVD software, began today. The movie studios were actually able to get the judge to close the courtroom and kick out the press, despite not following the normal procedures to request such a move. If you haven't followed the case at all, basically Hollywood is suing RealNetworks for making software that allows you to back up your own DVDs, though it places significant limitations on them. What's really odd about this is that there are tons of free DVD rippers out there that put no restrictions whatsoever. In Real's case, it puts significant limitations on the backup copies -- and courts have shown in the past that making a backup of a digital good is accepted as fair use. Taking Real's product off the market makes almost no sense at all.

However, it seems like Hollywood's argument is based on the claim that Real somehow is using "hacker" technology in its product that violates the DMCA. It's not clear why using hacker technology should make the situation any different than having built your own. The MPAA is also claiming that there is no fair use defense to backing up a DVD, which is difficult to believe, given that fair use covers backups of music and software. What makes a movie so different? Well, the MPAA, of course, will claim (as it did in a previous case, against 321 Studios) that the encryption makes it illegal.

And that's where the problems come in. Thanks to the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA, an action that is clearly fair use (backing up a movie) becomes illegal not because of the backup, but because of the circumvention of the DRM. That should go against all common sense: if the action itself is legal fair use, why should it matter how it's done (or who made the software)? Unfortunately, we don't often see common sense win out in these cases... and the early reports from the court room suggest that the judge is siding with the MPAA. Perhaps this isn't a surprise. Marilyn Hall Patel is the same judge who declared Napster illegal as well, despite a strong safe harbor defense. In this case, she told RealNetworks:

"They have the copyright. That's the issue here right? They have the copyright. They have the right to exclude."

That's actually a somewhat scary quote from the judge who should know better. Copyright does give them a right to exclude, but a limited right, which is supposed to be weighed against the rights of consumers, including their rights to fair use for things like (drum roll....) making a backup.

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, backups, copyright, dmca, dvds, fair use, movies
Companies: mpaa, real networks

Would You Rather Renegotiate Your Contracts... Or See Your Business Collapse?

from the which-is-more-stupid? dept

You see it all the time with companies in trouble, where they are able to renegotiate certain contracts for the sake of saving the overall business. So, I have a lot of trouble with Hollywood studios claiming that they simply can't figure out a way to offer movies online, because the contracts they signed won't let them. In the link above, Slate's Farhad Manjoo tries to figure out why the movie studios aren't offering up a decent, easy to use online movie service, and unfortunately falls for the studios' claims that they know they need to get online, but they just can't because of "a byzantine set of contractual relationships between many different kinds of companies studios, distributors, cable channels, telecom companies, and others." That sounds good, and it's no surprise to see Hollywood lawyers jump all over this as a defense -- but it's laughable. If the studios, distributors, cable channels, telecom companies and others actually realized how quickly the market is changing, they'd rush to change those contracts. No, it wouldn't be easy, but it is doable. Not doing so is a cop out from a group of folks who don't want to change and are hoping that things "just work out."

Filed Under: contracts, movies, online

Did Miramax Give Torrent Seeker A Free Movie Ticket?

from the odder-things-have-happened... dept

Really not sure what to make of this one, but people keep submitting it, so might as well put it out there to see what people think: apparently, a girl in NY complained on Twitter that she couldn't find the movie Adventureland online to download as a torrent, and Miramax (which put out the film), Twittered back telling her that she shouldn't download it (and, in a slightly creepy way, included the hashtag #fbi). The girl supposedly wrote back: "Okay I won’t, JUST FOR YOU," at which point, Miramax promised her two free tickets to the movie (though, in the end, she supposedly only got one).

What's odd is that the reactions among submitters has gone to both extremes -- with one group finding it freaky and suggesting that it would piss off fans of the movie -- while others actually found it oddly humanizing and endearing by Miramax (though... pretty much everyone felt that the whole FBI reference could have been left aside). I'm leaning a bit towards the latter option. As I noted when the Wolverine leak happened, studios are never going to be able to stop unauthorized file sharing, but they might as well figure out ways to act cool about it, and leverage it to their best advantage. It's not clear which side of that line Miramax is on right now... but hopefully it closer to acting cool, rather than acting as a creepy stalker.

Filed Under: adventureland, downloads, movies, twitter
Companies: miramax, twitter

Shaking, Rumbling Movie Chair Puts You In The Driver's Seat

from the zero-to-sixty dept

With 2009 showing very strong ticket sales, the movie industry seems to be doing a good job of giving people, who are perhaps looking for a bit of escapism, a reason to get out of their houses. Furthermore, IMAX and 3D continue to boost ticket sales and draw huge lines for movies like Monsters vs. Aliens. Fast & Furious rumbled onto the big screen this past weekend, generating $72.5 million in ticket sales in three days, already earning more than the previous installment of the series, The Fast & the Furious: Tokyo Drift. At Mann's Chinese Theater in Hollywood, movie-goers have yet another reason to check out the film on the big screen. The theater is equipped with 15 computerized movie seats that move, shake, tilt, and rumble to match the action on-screen. As a result, viewers are immersed more fully in the film, an experience not easily reproduced at home for which the Chinese (and one other theater in Arizona) are charging an extra $5 per ticket. We've said this many times before, but maybe the movie theaters are finally starting to understand the concept that it's the experience, not just the content, that gives people a reason to go out to see movies at the theaters.

Filed Under: fast & furious, movies, reason to buy, theaters