Potter Pirates Fail/Succeed to Copy Film on the Internet
November 12, 2002 8:29 PM Subscribe
Potter Pirates Fail to Copy Film on the Internet and Potter Pirates Swap and Copy Film on the Internet. C'mon Reuters, which is it?!
Way to go, Reuters.
Reminds me a bit of the twin-issues that big newspapers sometimes print for big events that could go either way...
Like the run of papers with "Gore Wins" as the headline.
But why would they do that for Harry Potter piracy?
The mind boggles.
posted by Newbornstranger at 8:36 PM on November 12, 2002
Reminds me a bit of the twin-issues that big newspapers sometimes print for big events that could go either way...
Like the run of papers with "Gore Wins" as the headline.
But why would they do that for Harry Potter piracy?
The mind boggles.
posted by Newbornstranger at 8:36 PM on November 12, 2002
Businesses feed this copy straight into news providers in the form of press releases which are (often) published verbatim. Someone's job was to disseminate the idea that the internet version is el crappo. Perhaps right after it went out, the same PR editor got ahold of the notion that the release would be more dissuasive if it mentioned instead decoy files (a common thing to find in screener piracy).
Extra hilarious that both of these ran!
posted by damehex at 8:41 PM on November 12, 2002
Extra hilarious that both of these ran!
posted by damehex at 8:41 PM on November 12, 2002
The *yawn* missing link.
Warner Bros, a unit of AOL Time Warner, said Tuesday that it had opened a copy of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" that it discovered in a hard-to-find location on the Internet and found it to be an empty decoy.
A company statement said the report it received about a pirated copy of the newest Potter film showing up on the Web turned out to be unsubstantiated. Warner Bros. had earlier said the copy that had been discovered was of poor quality.
posted by dhartung at 8:49 PM on November 12, 2002
Warner Bros, a unit of AOL Time Warner, said Tuesday that it had opened a copy of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" that it discovered in a hard-to-find location on the Internet and found it to be an empty decoy.
A company statement said the report it received about a pirated copy of the newest Potter film showing up on the Web turned out to be unsubstantiated. Warner Bros. had earlier said the copy that had been discovered was of poor quality.
posted by dhartung at 8:49 PM on November 12, 2002
What exactly is "a hard-to-find location on the Internet"?
posted by plemeljr at 9:03 PM on November 12, 2002
posted by plemeljr at 9:03 PM on November 12, 2002
So this hard-to-find location on the Internet... does it vibrate?
posted by sigma7 at 9:10 PM on November 12, 2002
posted by sigma7 at 9:10 PM on November 12, 2002
"What exactly is "a hard-to-find location on the Internet"?"
If I told you, then everyone would want to go there.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:10 PM on November 12, 2002
If I told you, then everyone would want to go there.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:10 PM on November 12, 2002
damehex, yeah, I read them as an industry 'Office of Disinformation' plant as well.
posted by HTuttle at 9:20 PM on November 12, 2002
posted by HTuttle at 9:20 PM on November 12, 2002
Hard to find = IRC.
posted by Optamystic at 9:24 PM on November 12, 2002
posted by Optamystic at 9:24 PM on November 12, 2002
its not "hard to find" at all, although its a set of "guy with a video camera in a movie theater" 320x240-ish DivX files.
Wife watched it, said it was "good enough for watching the movie". Erased it afterwards.
We'll be seeing it in the theater. Saw the first one, oh, six or seven times? Alamo Drafthouse theater(s) in Austin are *great*.
posted by mrbill at 9:28 PM on November 12, 2002
Wife watched it, said it was "good enough for watching the movie". Erased it afterwards.
We'll be seeing it in the theater. Saw the first one, oh, six or seven times? Alamo Drafthouse theater(s) in Austin are *great*.
posted by mrbill at 9:28 PM on November 12, 2002
technical wizardry = DV camcorder
on preview: i think the DivX version is frame decimated and the audio is down sampled. the original source is not that bad of quality for a cammed movie. or at least that's what i've heard.
posted by darainwa at 9:38 PM on November 12, 2002
on preview: i think the DivX version is frame decimated and the audio is down sampled. the original source is not that bad of quality for a cammed movie. or at least that's what i've heard.
posted by darainwa at 9:38 PM on November 12, 2002
Damnit Optamystic, now everyone's gonna know about this new IRC thing.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:23 PM on November 12, 2002
posted by eyeballkid at 10:23 PM on November 12, 2002
I just grabbed the sample off Usenet and it looks pretty good to me. Video is a bit washed out and sound quality has a little too much echo, but no shaky handheld camera work or audience noise.
posted by waxpancake at 10:36 PM on November 12, 2002
posted by waxpancake at 10:36 PM on November 12, 2002
It's definitely on the internet (hard to not run into a copy at this point), but really, why go to the trouble? Who wants to see a bad copy when they can just wait 2 - 3 days?
posted by rudyfink at 11:40 PM on November 12, 2002
posted by rudyfink at 11:40 PM on November 12, 2002
My question has always been "Why Harry Potter?". I fell asleep during the first one. The only reason it's popular is that it pays attention to a demographic that has been ignored for years. That doesn't make a bad movie good. "Harry Potter and the blah-blah-blah" gets its ass whipped by "Goonies" every day of the week.
posted by ttrendel at 11:47 PM on November 12, 2002
posted by ttrendel at 11:47 PM on November 12, 2002
"Harry Potter and the blah-blah-blah" gets its ass whipped by "Goonies"
Now there's a film I'd pay to see!
Ahem.
posted by chrismear at 1:30 AM on November 13, 2002
Now there's a film I'd pay to see!
Ahem.
posted by chrismear at 1:30 AM on November 13, 2002
Reminds me a bit of the twin-issues that big newspapers sometimes print for big events that could go either way...
Like the run of papers with "Gore Wins" as the headline.
Well, um, technically . . .
Nah, forget it.
posted by dogmatic at 3:10 AM on November 13, 2002
Like the run of papers with "Gore Wins" as the headline.
Well, um, technically . . .
Nah, forget it.
posted by dogmatic at 3:10 AM on November 13, 2002
"Harry Potter and the blah-blah-blah" gets its ass whipped by "Goonies"
Now there's a film I'd pay to see!
The DVD is fantastic. The commentary is great, and just seeing the cast all grown up is worth admission.
My kids get a real kick out of the film, now. Just the other day, I was taking something out of the freezer, and two or three items from the top shelf fell out with it. I, geek that I am, immediately said: "What is this, a Booty Trap?" My 6 year old, walking through the kitchen, without breaking his stride, said: "You mean a Booby Trap?" I said: "Yea, that's what I said: Booby Trap."
Ah, good times...
posted by thanotopsis at 6:30 AM on November 13, 2002
Reminds me a bit of the twin-issues that big newspapers sometimes print for big events that could go either way...
Like the run of papers with "Gore Wins" as the headline.
Or like those Game 7 Stanley Cup Finals/Superbowl champions hats that they make for both teams. Where do you suppose the unused ones go? Or is it some cranky old seamstress with a stitch-ripper making them ready for resale?
posted by damclean2 at 7:36 AM on November 13, 2002
Like the run of papers with "Gore Wins" as the headline.
Or like those Game 7 Stanley Cup Finals/Superbowl champions hats that they make for both teams. Where do you suppose the unused ones go? Or is it some cranky old seamstress with a stitch-ripper making them ready for resale?
posted by damclean2 at 7:36 AM on November 13, 2002
Or like those Game 7 Stanley Cup Finals/Superbowl champions hats that they make for both teams.
Except, they never bother making hats for the Leafs...
posted by timecube at 8:19 AM on November 13, 2002
Except, they never bother making hats for the Leafs...
posted by timecube at 8:19 AM on November 13, 2002
My family got to see the new HP at a sneak preview over the weekend. They liked it quite a bit. The action moves briskly, and the horrible cgi we saw in the first is much less noticeable in this one.
I was rather unimpressed by the first one, as this is the all too often case of the movie in no way equalling the book. Still, I'll be dropping my $8.50 to go see it.
posted by Windopaene at 8:44 AM on November 13, 2002
I was rather unimpressed by the first one, as this is the all too often case of the movie in no way equalling the book. Still, I'll be dropping my $8.50 to go see it.
posted by Windopaene at 8:44 AM on November 13, 2002
thanotopsis: To be pedantic, it was technically "Booty Tlap!"
By the way, did anyone see Goonies again after childhood and gasp in amazement that they actually named the pirate "One-Eyed Willie?" Hee!
posted by rusty at 9:18 AM on November 13, 2002
By the way, did anyone see Goonies again after childhood and gasp in amazement that they actually named the pirate "One-Eyed Willie?" Hee!
posted by rusty at 9:18 AM on November 13, 2002
I guess "Hard to find" also means Usenet. Took me about 3 minutes sorting through newsgroups to find the movie.
posted by Tenuki at 12:53 PM on November 13, 2002
posted by Tenuki at 12:53 PM on November 13, 2002
Or like those Game 7 Stanley Cup Finals/Superbowl champions hats that they make for both teams. Where do you suppose the unused ones go? Or is it some cranky old seamstress with a stitch-ripper making them ready for resale?
I'm the proud owner of an Oregon Ducks mid-west bracket champion/Final Four T-shirt from last year, found by my father-in-law in one of those distressed/overstock outlet stores...
Really, it'll be worth something...I swear.
posted by jalexei at 1:36 PM on November 13, 2002
I'm the proud owner of an Oregon Ducks mid-west bracket champion/Final Four T-shirt from last year, found by my father-in-law in one of those distressed/overstock outlet stores...
Really, it'll be worth something...I swear.
posted by jalexei at 1:36 PM on November 13, 2002
---
The action moves briskly, and the horrible cgi we saw in the first is much less noticeable in this one.
---
Yes, the CGI is a lot better in this one. I didn't even cringe once. I'm no big fan of Harry Potter, but this film was admittedly better than the last.
posted by digiboy at 3:03 AM on November 15, 2002
The action moves briskly, and the horrible cgi we saw in the first is much less noticeable in this one.
---
Yes, the CGI is a lot better in this one. I didn't even cringe once. I'm no big fan of Harry Potter, but this film was admittedly better than the last.
posted by digiboy at 3:03 AM on November 15, 2002
« Older Omar Zabir's Portal | The Human Penknife Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:34 PM on November 12, 2002