Pirate-ho!

June 7, 2004 5:30 AM

Keep your hands off! Warner Bros. distributes military-style night vision goggles to cinemas around Britain in order to scotch bootleg copies. "The staff have all been trained to use the glasses and are patrolling the cinema every 15 to 20 minutes." The company is determined to fight back after a deluge of poor-quality copies of the first two Harry Potter movies hit the black market.
posted by tcp (44 comments total)

I wonder if it's occurred to any of the visionary executive lemmings at WB to simultaneousely release a high quality DVD of the movie in response to obvious market demand?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:34 AM on June 7, 2004

No, because that would be a stupid business decision.
posted by Stan Chin at 5:52 AM on June 7, 2004

I wonder if it's occurred to any of the visionary executive lemmings at WB to simultaneousely release a high quality DVD of the movie in response to obvious market demand?

I can see why they don't do this, for a movie like Harry Potter. How many people are going to see this movie 2, 3, 5, 10 times before it leaves for DVD? Hit the consumer for $85.00 over 10 viewings, or hit them for $20 for a one-time shot on DVD.

Although I would love it, because I prefer to watch movies at home most of the time.
posted by benjh at 5:53 AM on June 7, 2004

The monoculars have been issued by the film's distributor
Given the picture which goes with the story is that of a bearded man looking through a "telescope" (Harrr - Tharr beee Piyrates, etc), then I'd question if this is real. Also, the source appears to be the Lincolnshire Echo, which is slightly puzzling.

(The Lincolnshire Echo is a local newspaper for local people. This isn't the sort of story you'd expect to see in it.)
posted by seanyboy at 5:57 AM on June 7, 2004

When was the last time you went to the cinema and a member of staff was present throughout the whole film? Or at all? They're busy selling hugely expensive popcorn and coke. Besides, there have been cam versions of the film floating around for a week or more...

Oh, and the BBC covered this story a while ago, so it is legit. Stupid, but legit.
posted by humuhumu at 6:02 AM on June 7, 2004

Interesting
It appears that I'm wrong.

They really are giving out telescope looking objects which can be used to find pirates.
Nail this one under Ironic.

On preview - What humuhumu said.
posted by seanyboy at 6:05 AM on June 7, 2004

Apparently the movie was available online within minutes of the close of the matinees on the east coast.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:09 AM on June 7, 2004

In related news I just made up, people who saw the low quality copy and didn't want to spend a dime for cinema are now renting the dvd because they liked the movie and now they want to see it again on good quality dvd.
posted by elpapacito at 6:12 AM on June 7, 2004

Video copyright violation is here, deal with it. There are many ways of dealing with it but I'd argue that potentially pissing off your customers is never the correct choice. Unless movie theaters are different elsewhere I no longer see ushers wandering through them. When I was a kid you would see them and they'd help you find a seat or hush annoying people. So you've enabled ushers to spy on your customers (which we, or they, should never forget: That's what we are) but it will be ineffective since there are no actual ushers in theaters any more. It will be effective in pissing off some people and making sure that they don't go.
posted by substrate at 6:28 AM on June 7, 2004

Also, the source appears to be the Lincolnshire Echo, which is slightly puzzling.

(The Lincolnshire Echo is a local newspaper for local people. This isn't the sort of story you'd expect to see in it.)


seanyboy, I discovered it at heise online which is a german computer magazine publisher (a good source IMO), I searched Google News for an english article afterwards. It sounds like an april's fool joke, I know...
posted by tcp at 6:31 AM on June 7, 2004

Ill take screeners over a cam recording any day.
posted by Keyser Soze at 6:36 AM on June 7, 2004

The company is determined to fight back after a deluge of poor-quality copies of the first two Harry Potter movies hit the black market.

Thank goodness. Those bootlegs have made the Harry Potter series a financial disaster for the studio!
posted by jpoulos at 6:40 AM on June 7, 2004

In other news: pimpled, 16-year-old movie theater ushers are cooing at the fact that their job now involves skulking up and down the movie theatre rows like Sam Fisher.
posted by cratchit at 6:44 AM on June 7, 2004

There are many ways of dealing with it but I'd argue that potentially pissing off your customers is never the correct choice.

Why not? I mean, look at the spectacular effect that approach is having on the major-label music industry. (And the former fans thereof.)
posted by chicobangs at 7:01 AM on June 7, 2004

Eh, there were more "Do Not Pirate" warnings before The Day After Tomorrow than there were for Harry Potter.

But I've always wanted to get a group of people to bring their cameras and take a photo of the "Recording Devices Are Not Permitted In This Theater" slide.

Also? Jack Valenti is a very scary man.
posted by Katemonkey at 7:25 AM on June 7, 2004

How is this pissing off customers exactly? As long as the ushers just stay out of the line of sight and don't make any annoying sounds I'd welcome them actually staying during the movie.

All the good screen rips are telesynced anyway, which means they're not coming from people with cameras in the audience.
posted by fvw at 7:26 AM on June 7, 2004

It pisses off customers because you're going out of your way to spy on them. It pisses off customers because if they actually do manage to catch somebody recording the movie they'll distract the rest of the audience when they confront the person. The ushers job should be to ensure the customers have a good experience at their theater, not to play borg rent-a-cop for the movie industry. They'd never dream of kicking out the asshole who has a conversation on his cell phone but they'll waste time looking for copyright violations.
posted by substrate at 7:38 AM on June 7, 2004

Also, I'm not the kind of guy who likes being watched in the dark, even if I'm not doing anything wrong. (I have my moments.)

And fvw's right. This would only cut down on the crappy pirated versions, not the properly synced-&-dubbed stuff from the booth or elsewhere in the theater. (Not to mention overseas. With simultaneous releasing because of pirating concerns already a reality, are they going to police this the same way all over the world? Really? Shyeah, right.)

What this directive may actually do is make buying black-market DVDs a better bet, not the other way around. Only the good quality discs will make it to the streets, not the cruddy hand-held off-center digicam versions that are well-nigh impossible to parse and aren't worth the five bucks or whatever you pay for 'em.

Awesome! Thanks, movie narcs! Thanks, Hollywood Homeland Security!
posted by chicobangs at 7:49 AM on June 7, 2004

On the question of why they don't release a DVD at the same time as the movie is out, quite frankly the movie theaters would not permit it, even if the studios wanted to. This is the alleged reason that Mark Cuban is starting his own cable network and movie studio -- he couldn't find anywhere that would let him broadcast on pay-per-view and release the movie in theaters at the same time.

But really. Fighting piracy seems so weird when the movies that you know have been pirated do so well in theaters. Getting pissed about screeners getting out makes sense. Those are very high quality. I have a low tolerance for watching crappy free movies but even I will watch one of those if it's been well burned to a video cd. (If Valenti is reading, what I meant was "Ha ha! I only see movies in theaters or the dvds that I purchased from authorized sellers on approved equipment!) They send screeners to everybody (well, they did. Supposedly something of a crackdown) and surprise, a small portion of those people bootleg them.
posted by RustyBrooks at 7:56 AM on June 7, 2004

Oh, and on a related note... back in the day, long before dvds, I had a friend whose parents lived in the Philipines or Malaysia or something. I don't remember where. But this place's movie theathers used VHS, apparently, and the movie studios would thus send them VHS copies of the movie -- after the theatrical release in the US but before VHS was available in the US. So his parents would buy the bootlegged versions of these and send them to my friend here in the US, and we'd watch them. They were usually subtitled, occaisonally dubbed, VERY occaisonally neither (in some theaters there would be a small crew of people to do the lines LIVE while the movie was going in the native tongue of the viewers). Anyway, this has been happening ever since there was some kind of medium to do it with. The scale has undoubtedly increased, though.
posted by RustyBrooks at 7:59 AM on June 7, 2004

just went to see the new harry potter, as in 5 minutes ago, in Glasgow Scotland at one of the big movie theatres. heres how fun the cinema experience is here. I will explain it all in graphic detail so you can see just how much you are missing by not being in the UK.

Sit down 15 mins before scheduled show time, watch the fun slide show of crap ads that movie theatres decided they could make some money with. except they only had about 4 ads that kept looping for 15 minutes, one for a seafood restaurant called mussel inn (har), one for a stretch limo service, and two different ads for offroad "street legal" 4X4 offroad things for your kids. I dont know how a gas powered offroader made for kids can be street legal if their target demographic cant have drivers liscences but hey.

then 5 mins AFTER the posted movie time it gets dark, finally. wrong. 13 tv commercials, yes I counted, for dog food, cereal, harry potter video games. blech. that takes about 10 minutes. there were two ads in there from some anti harry potter company that told kids "there are no happy endings, go read something else" and had a bunch of pseudo harry potter books being thrown in the bin, that was amusing. There was also an ad for the real harry potter books with a bunch of smiling kids which was much more coherent and to the point.

then movie trailers, around 6. all looked crap. garfield the motion picture. eh.

by this time I had forgotten what movie I was going to see.

then 2 cell phone ads for the companies that sponsor the cinema

then there was the obligitory turn off your phones and go buy popcorn instead message from the cinema, but last time I tried and they dont butter popcorn here because its "too messy" WTF. I hate this country.

then there was an ad saying that this movie theatre may be protected by night vision cameras, and you shouldnt try to copy it. (hence this reply)

then I thought it was all over but no! They somehow snuck in an ad for that piece of crap haunted mansion with eddie murphy, not for the movie, to buy the freaking DVD. goddamn. I had to sit there and watch how cool the bonus features were as they were demonstrated for 2 minutes of my day, and granted, I would like to be made into a spooky ghost and talk like the guy from the princess bride but ill do it on my own time. inconceivable

then the movie happened, 37 minutes after the theatre got dark. I mean come on people. it was a good flick though ;-) Ill post it to kazaa later tonight. (note to FBI and MI5, sarcasm)
posted by outsider at 8:02 AM on June 7, 2004

Big Brother is watching.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:19 AM on June 7, 2004

Katemonkey, then this is for you. [warning: boingboingfilter]
posted by hattifattener at 8:21 AM on June 7, 2004

outsider; that's an amazing and repulsive story. If cinemas are getting that atrocious, then video piracy is mere market forces at work: they damn well deserve to lose business to bootlegs. It makes me think that perhaps the appropriate response for cinemas would be to actually make an effort to make seeing it in the theatre an enjoyable experience again and not the gut-churning hell you've just described.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:37 AM on June 7, 2004

Yeah. And that clerk at the 7-11 was rude to me, so therefore I am justified to pocket that bag of chips without paying for it.
posted by herc at 9:07 AM on June 7, 2004

Great vibrating quidditch balls, outsider. That's a bit extreme.

Although, to be fair, nothing gets me in the mood to enjoy a little half-baked escapism like (doing the math, carry the one...) fifty-two minutes of commercials and warnings.
posted by chicobangs at 9:18 AM on June 7, 2004

herc, no one's saying that. But if the 7-11 clerk is rude to everyone, and posts a big sign out front saying I'm Going To Follow You Around The Store In Case You Steal Something, then people might eventually feel invaded and irritated enough to go somewhere else to buy their metaphorical chips.

I'm not saying it's right or legal. I'm saying it's capitalism in action. You can't dispute that it's happening, and Jack Valenti might do better to make the moviegoing experience more pleasant so people might keep Going to the Movies, instead of putting the fear of Big Brother into everyone who deigns to shell out a sawbuck (or more) to watch 52 uninterrupted minutes of commercials.
posted by chicobangs at 9:31 AM on June 7, 2004

If cinemas are getting that atrocious, then video piracy is mere market forces at work: they damn well deserve to lose business to bootlegs.

If convenience stores are getting that atrocious, then shoplifting is mere market forces at work: they damn well deserve to lose business to theft.

Seems pretty similar to me. Not to defend the actions of the movie industry, nor the folks operating the cinemas in question -- bad service sucks and those places deserve to lose patronage -- but violating the law is not the same as taking your business elsewhere.
posted by herc at 10:00 AM on June 7, 2004

Perhaps what they need is competition. I'm happy to live in an area where first-run films are shown in both locally-owned cinemas and big chain cinemas. I invariably go and watch them in the locally owned cinemas, partly because I prefer that a higher proportion of the money I'm spending go into my neighbor's pockets and enrich my communmity than get sent out of state and enrich someone else's, and partly because the local cinemas don't show commercials -- and are friendly, and you can talk to the owner about policy, etc. etc.

This is pretty atypical, though - most places the big chains are the only ones that can get first run films. With no competition for the latest big draw, there's no incentive to not treat the audience with contempt.

herc, you're quite right. If the choice is between paying to see it legitimately and watching a pirate, choosing to watch the pirate deprives the studio of legitimate revenue, and it is a form of theft, I won't quarrel the details. However, I might add that if it's a choice between seeing a pirate copy and not seeing it at all because the theatres are so appalling, then the studios haven't lost a cent -- they weren't going to get any money from you anyway and their quarrel is with the cinemas that are driving customers away.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:09 AM on June 7, 2004

Here's another option - don't bother going to see it in the theater and wait for the movie to come out on some form of legitimate consumable media (VHS, DVD, etc.)

outsider's experience isn't the exception, it's the norm. I've given up on seeing movies in the theater, in part because I'm not paying that much to watch 30+ minutes of advertising, and in part because I'm not paying that much to listen to the less-than-witty comments of the anencephalic twit sitting behind me.
I'm in no hurry to be first, and the experience of seeing a movie on the big screen is ruined for me by bad food, sticky seats, screaming three-year olds, cell phones, and loud-mouthed idiots. The last time I saw a movie in the theater, it's because my company paid for an entire run and so I was surrounded by quiet, polite co-workers instead of noisy, rude fools.
These days, I just wait several months then pick up the second or third DVD release and watch it in the comfort of my living room. Good food, good company, comfortable seating, and quiet surroundings, and the only drawback is the small screen and weak sound system.

I can live with that.
posted by FormlessOne at 11:15 AM on June 7, 2004

If cinemas are getting that atrocious, then video piracy is mere market forces at work: they damn well deserve to lose business to bootlegs.

If convenience stores are getting that atrocious, then shoplifting is mere market forces at work: they damn well deserve to lose business to theft.

The problem with this analogy is that, at least in the US, you're comparing the unauthorized recording of a first run movie (not in and of itself a crime) with shoplifting, which is a crime. I'm not sure there is any fair use within the movie theater, but at worst the act of recording with a video camera is still a civil matter.

The act of unauthorized and commercial distribution is to shoplifting as recording a film in a movie theater is to using the bathroom at the convenience store without buying anything, even though the sign states "RESTROOMS ARE FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY".

The criminal element of privacy does not use cameras in the theaters anyway. They either get copies of screeners or get a high quality copy from any number of other means.

The entire attack on consumers by the entertainment media is FUD, not fact. It's amazing that they've sold their lies to so many as being the truth.

I'm not a fan of piracy and don't, nor have I ever, used P2P or BBS or IRC to pirate any software, music or movies. However, I'm not a shill for the industries, who have long since been abusing monopoly powers. If I own the CD, DVD or software and a license to use it, I'm going to copy it for my own damned personal use. I'd not bring a movie camera into a movie theater either, nor can I think of a legitimate reason to do so, but the act of recording a movie does not strike me as being criminal, just like owning a gun does not someone a murderer.

In the United States, all over the country, at swap meets, fairs, flea markets, used music stores and even on the good old internet, you can buy untold numbers of illegal copies of movies, music and software. For the most part, this happens in plain site of law enforcement and little is done about it. These are people who are copying a DVD, selling it with high quality inserts (not always indistinguishable, but sometimes are quite good) and telling the consumer they are new. This is a crime, can get you arrested and is rampant. The piracy industry is huge worldwide and it's a lot more visible and damaging than anything P2P was ever capable of. But, yeah, let's make sure someone kid is not recording Harry Potter. That'll learn'em.
posted by sequential at 12:27 PM on June 7, 2004

The pirates should come to Beckenham Odeon, they don't even check your tickets properly...Still, at least the staff are polite and friendly and the toilets are clean and have locks on them, unlike the Streatham Odeon the last time I went.
posted by terrymiles at 2:26 PM on June 7, 2004

The MPAA probably thinks they lost my business because I watch pirated versions of the movies, but that's not why they are no longer getting my money.

We definately don't go to the theater as much as we used to - the crowds are annoying, the ads before the movies really piss me off (the prices go up, and there are more ads? I don't get it), the tickets are just too expensive, etc.
posted by tomplus2 at 2:57 PM on June 7, 2004

I don't mind going to the movies because it is a welcome breake from the usual weekly routine. I'm also picky about quality so I don't find $6 too much to pay for a big screen, stereo, and quality control. If something does not interest me enough to pay $6, I don't see why I should bother downloading a bootleg.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:31 PM on June 7, 2004

Come on people, this is HARRY POTTER we're talking about! Any and all measures to secure that everyone PAYS to see it are not only authorized but they are required. The world would come to a stop if people stopped paying to see stupid kids movies that weird grown ups who wear lederhosen and think they can fly glom on to in a vain attempt to recapture some of their childhood spirit.

Besides, its not like there's a war going on where those night vision units could be used to defend our soldiers or anything. Oh wait.....
posted by fenriq at 4:00 PM on June 7, 2004

It will be effective in pissing off some people and making sure that they don't go.

Only if they planned to record the movie and distribute it illegally.
posted by oaf at 6:04 PM on June 7, 2004

Outsider, I (think) I go to the same cinema you do (judging by the ads), and although your experience is the norm, I'd like to defend it, because it's the best cinema about, by a head and shoulders.

37 minutes is a bit unusual, though: are you sure?

I ask because the UGC's usually utterly rigourous about having exactly 20 minutes of trailers. And I love that. It means I can turn up 10-15 minutes after the showtime and sit down just in time for the screening. Other cinemas are all over the place, time-wise, and you can't judge it correctly.

The five minutes late thing is queue control -- if lots of people have just bought tickets or there are huge queues downstairs they delay the start, another plus.

I went to see HP there too, and went in time for the scheduled start (for once). I think there were 25mins of crap, all in, but I was OK with it, because when else am I going to see adverts so utterly not for my market? It kind of shocks me seeing how targeted children's advertising is these days.

IIRC, there were 25mins of ads before LoTR too.

BTW: Have you *ever* had butter popcorn in our lovely country? Sugar or salt only. I was grossed the fuck out when they dripped grease all over my popcorn in the US.
posted by bonaldi at 6:26 PM on June 7, 2004

I unilaterally refuse to go to movie theatres. Something about them just makes my skin crawl...it's like claustrophobia and other people all jammed in together...*shudder* bleh!

I find that there is nothing I can't wait a few months to see. Yes, I'm sure the experience is magnificent on the big screen...but at my house, I can pause it to visit the ladies room, I can make popcorn (sans grease), I can stretch my legs and cater to my short attention span by wandering off periodically to look at a plant, play with the baby, see what that thing is under the couch, rewind to watch the elf ski down the elephant again...and all for under $3.00.

With the added bonus of not having strangers breathe on me, or ill-behaved little heathens screaming and throwing things, or infidels talking on telephones...frankly, I hate the public and I'd just as soon not have to deal with them in an enclosed space...but I'm certainly not going to pay $20.00 for the privilege of being trapped in a dark room with noisy, grease slurping disease monkeys.

On the other hand, the big city near me does have one or two dinner/comfy chair theatres, and those are quite nice.
posted by dejah420 at 8:45 PM on June 7, 2004

I'm beginning to take my new home town for granted. Within two blocks, I have the two best movie theaters I've ever been to. On consecutive weeks at one theater, I saw The Life of Brian and Super Size Me in a renovated music hall, with a balcony and opera seating. (The opera seating doesn't appear to ever be used.) In all, it's a small theater by corporate standards, but it's a local cornerstone. I avoid it when it's insanely busy, like when they used to premier the freaking Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Ugh. I met the turtles. No senses of humor on them.

I haven't been to the other recently, but it's small. One of the rooms is as large as your average living room. I've seen Spike and Mikes there a few times and a few independent films. Between the two of them, I haven't needed to visit a mainstream theater since I moved here. (I haven't seen Shrek 2 or Harry Potter 3, but I'll be renting them from the equally amazing movie rental place of the same name when they arrive for the holiday season.)

We thought about going to see a few of the newer releases that have us tempted, but instead we rented "BubbaHotep", "Vernon, Florida", the best pizza this side of New York and walked our butts home spending less than we would have to drive to the theater, seat ourselves and be inundated with ads for 35 minutes before we watched the damn movie.

The last movie I saw in the big theaters was RotK, which we saw at midnight the day night before the premier. That was fun, but a long, long movie to see a midnight showing of.

It's easy to say you'll do without when you have a wealth of options. In Florida, we had no options. Blockbuster or Muvico. *shivers* We stopped going to Muvico when in the middle of Big Fish, a man started yelling death threats to the noisy kids in front of him. Serious, angry, violent threats. Security came in and removed the kids. Really ruined the movie. And Blockbuster is only useful when they send me a discount cards to get me to come back. $2 a rental isn't bad to catch up with the new series I missed on TV and new releases I missed in the big theaters.
posted by sequential at 9:58 PM on June 7, 2004

there were two ads in there from some anti harry potter company that told kids "there are no happy endings, go read something else"

This alone is impressive. In America, ads which denegrated the material they were displayed before would never be allowed to run. Self-censorship on the part of the theaters would stop them in their tracks.

Unless someone in the States has seen something similiar?

We're getting closer, though. The law stopping this ad was decalred unconstitutional recently.
posted by botono9 at 10:05 PM on June 7, 2004

That's a bit misleading, actually. The adverts are for a series of books aimed at children. They have faux-potter covers, but the ad pitch is "No Wizards. No Happy Endings". I didn't understand the "read something else" pitch, unless reverse psychology works on The Kidz these days.
posted by bonaldi at 10:18 PM on June 7, 2004

Self-censorship on the part of the theaters would stop them in their tracks.

It's not self-censorship. It's basic rules of advertising.

One can't expect to sell advertising for competing products and show them in the same space. This is most popularly known in TV and radio, but I'd think the same would apply for movies. If anything would piss off other advertisers in the same spot, the place that is selling the air time doesn't show it. The last thing they want to do is piss off an advertiser who wants their money back *after* the ads were shown.

On the other hand, if bonaldi is right, it's probably just opportunist marketing by someone looking for a niche on the coattails of a popular book and movie series. This happens a lot in advertising and politics. If you can fit on the coattails, ride them, they're free.
posted by sequential at 10:41 PM on June 7, 2004

Here's a solution for you - stop going to see multiplex trash. Although, when I went to see some dodgy arthouse movie in London last week, they had the annoying anti-piracy measures there too...
posted by ascullion at 1:55 AM on June 8, 2004

This is why I gladly pay the $4 premium at Arclight Cinemas/Cineramadome in Hollywood...

I get an assigned seat, so no line.

The screen has no slides or ads while waiting for start time.

At start time, an usher comes in to describe the movie in person... typically 2-4 minutes.

Theater darkens, screen goes up, and you get:
1. 3-4 trailers
2. Arclight Cinemas bumper
3. Feature

No one is allowed in 15 minutes past the start time.
You can have a person evicted if you catch them using a phone or are being disruptive.

God, I love that place.
posted by linux at 11:52 AM on June 17, 2004