×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Sith' Already Found Online

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the water-still-wet dept.

Star Wars Prequels 788

ScentCone writes "Of course it was bound to happen, so now it's mostly a matter of discussing why Lucas does or does not deserve to make the proceeds, or whether people would or would not have gone to see it now that the usual path has been carved around the opening weekend box office." I've yet to find a blockbuster movie that isn't readily available on the net after it opens, but somehow this is still news. It's still usually worth shelling out the cash to see a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

788 comments

Revenge of the Nerds (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583799)

I've yet to find a blockbuster movie that isn't readily available on the net after it opens, but somehow this is still news.
CowboyNeal confirms it, this isn't news.

Re:Revenge of the Nerds (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583983)

It has been on the Usenet for 2 months.

Useless crap-movie. Even worse than "The Empire Strikes Back", and that was one of the crappiest movies in history, topped only by masterpieces like "Star Wars - Nemesis".

Go see it in theaters (5, Insightful)

ValiantSoul (801152) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583803)

I saw it at 12:05am. The downloadable version is probably very crappy quality, especially the sound. See it in theaters - simply amazing! You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.

Re:Go see it in theaters (3, Interesting)

Joel Rowbottom (89350) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583851)

I've just got back from seeing RotS. The sound in the theatre (yes, I'm in the UK) was appalling and the print was dusty and scratchy. Sadly many films seen at my local cinema and at others don't seem to be 'clean' prints and I'd have expected better of an opening-night showing.

Y'know, I actually believe that had I seen a torrent it would have been *better* quality, sadly. Maybe I've just got used to DVD quality and stuff.

(Wakefield Cineworld, UK, please take note).

Oh, as a film, the first 2 hours sucked ass. The rest of it was cool. But that's a conversation for another thread ;)

Re:Go see it in theaters (4, Interesting)

magarity (164372) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583970)

The sound in the theatre was appalling and the print was dusty and scratchy

This can happen to the most pristine of prints when put in the load end of a projector in bad need of maintenance/tuning/etc. And movies are prescreened by at least the projectionist (all) if not also the rest of the employees (blockbusters) before the first public screenings.

Re:Go see it in theaters (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583857)

Yes but you are forgetting that plenty of casual fans value free stuff over better quality not free stuff.
Hell even Jesus himself wanted the free barn over the costly Inn to make his appearance to the world.

Re:Go see it in theaters (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583859)

It is crappy quality but it is not a cam rip. Since it was from a working copy of the film the audio is near perfect but the video has been highly compressed. There are also two timecode displays present and are quite annoying.

Re:Go see it in theaters (5, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583863)

True; if you watch it on your home computer, you won't be surrounded by people dressed as Imperial Storm troopers, Amidala, young lord Vader, etc. Uh, and this is a bad thing because... ?

Re:Go see it in theaters (1, Funny)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584016)

True; if you watch it on your home computer, you won't be surrounded by people dressed as Imperial Storm troopers, Amidala, young lord Vader, etc. Uh, and this is a bad thing because... ?

... because you won't be surrounded by people dressed as Amidala. Duh.

Re:Go see it in theaters (4, Insightful)

Neurotoxic666 (679255) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583870)

See it in theaters - simply amazing! You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.

You mean the young bastards with the laser pointers and cell phones? Or the Tall Guy sitting in front of you? Or the uncomfortable seats? Or the fact that you can't pause the movie?

Yeah. You're right. My computer isn't like that.

Re:Go see it in theaters (1, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584018)

Or maybe spend more than $2 at the discount theatre.

Personally, my theatre has a great sound system, stadium seating (tall guy not a problem, seats wide and comfy), never seen a laser pointer in my life, and I haven't heard a cell phone in ages (think that most people are clueing in these days).

As for pausing the movie, get an attention span.

Re:Go see it in theaters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12584039)

You mean the young bastards with the laser pointers

It is very surprising how pissy people get when they see a red dot on a black screen with sume puny amount of white text, during previews before the movie has even threatened to start.

Re:Go see it in theaters (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583891)

You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.

I use Windows I see the dark side everyday.

Re:Go see it in theaters (2, Informative)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583901)

You don't get that kind of experience from a computer

Of course, the entire film itself was made on a computer. (OK, two computers)

Re:Go see it in theaters (4, Funny)

carpe_noctem (457178) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583905)

You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.

What if I beat my head against the table a few times and then mailed George Lucas $7?

Re:Go see it in theaters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583923)

The downloadable version is probably very crappy quality, especially the sound.

I can tell you, its not crap at all. It is a working copy which has vhs+ like quality.

Get real (4, Interesting)

Eunuch (844280) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583804)

Actual damages from bittorrent have to be very small. Most people simply don't even know what bittorrent is. I know what it is, but I've only used it to grab large demos/obviously free stuff. I have better things to do with my time than wander through various video files in various states of compression (almost all lossy).

They are just being greedy for the small amount of money they might be losing. The lawyers likely take far more than that amount. The path to transhumanism won't require much money anyway. And that is what counts.

Re:Get real (1)

Goobermunch (771199) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583908)

How about this: They're just out to get the money that's fairly theirs? I mean, that's the deal, isn't it? Pay the money, see my movie. --AC

Wrong wrong wrong (1)

Eunuch (844280) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583995)

Tell that to state tax authorities. They often get 1/32 or less of certain taxes (like "use taxes"). Life is unfair...deal with it. Move on.

Re:Get real (1)

timmyf2371 (586051) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583915)

This may be very true, however the idea behind punitive damages are that they actually punish for the crime/tort committed rather than just costing the person who is in the wrong the amount it would have cost him had he acquired the copyrighted material legally.

Re:Get real (5, Insightful)

dwlovell (815091) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583925)

They are not just concerned about the cost of this movie being shared and the amount of money lost from this movie. Its more about the cost of not pursuing each of these movie postings.

If they dont do anything about it, it will happen more often, and in a more accessible way. Sure they can never eliminate the sharing of their movies, but they can ensure that the punishment is painful enough that the common citizen cannot easily get at it.

If you dont believe me, just look at Napster. I had totally computer illiterate friends who were able to use Napster to get free music. After that was shut down, they simply dont know how to use the other more complicated file sharing systems. (Not to mention they are aware that downloading is illegal now, so some stay away for that reason alone.) Shutting down Napster didn't stop music sharing, but it did curb it immensely and stop other Napster competitors from popping up and making it even easier.

So not all legal battles are immediately profitable, but the money spent can be an investment to prevent future infringement.

-David

I have to agree... (2, Insightful)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583941)

Anyone who would settle for the generally poor quality of bootleg movies probably in not a big spender on theaters to begin with.

Seriously. Somebody showed me the bootleg of Hitchiker's Guide the other day, and I was really sorry I saw it that way. I wasn't planning to see it, but I ended up enjoying it immensely; the only problem was that the low quality of the rip was a big distraction.

But come on, a movie like Star Wars was made to be seen on the big screen, and most of the public knows that.

Re:Get real (1)

downsize (551098) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583963)

without question they [MPAA/Lucas] just got 100,000 free hits and X amount of free advertising. MPAA will cry about loosing some money, but all it does it help make everyone aware (or those whom might have forgotten, missed the commercials, etc) that SW3 was released today.

If anything, they are complaining because their lawyers are jumping all over this and charging them (as you stated) more than what the perceived, guesstimated, loss of revenue.

anyway, someone with a shinyfeet.com [shinyfeet.com] premium account needs to share it to me :-} here's my id:downsize_sf

Re:Get real (2, Informative)

mattjb0010 (724744) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584007)

Actual damages from bittorrent have to be very small. Most people simply don't even know what bittorrent is.

I just got back from a bar where I was chatting to a girl (ie not a computer geek), and she brought up the topic of bittorrent. So the fact that a generic young (20ish) person mentioned it a bar means it's only a matter of time before the general populace cottons on to bittorents. IMHO.

Re:Get real (2, Interesting)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584038)

Most people of course have no idea what BT might be, but according to the current CNN poll [cnn.com] (probably as accurate as the /. one, but still), 26% would download it somehow.

>video files in various states of compression (almost all lossy).

Well what did you expect, raw HD footage? ;)

Story posted by MPAA/RIAA member TIME WARNER (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583808)

What did you expect, really?

Re:Story posted by MPAA/RIAA member TIME WARNER (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583960)

> What did you expect, really?

Are you suggesting IT'S A TRAP?

It's not "out there" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583810)

until it's been posted to alt.binaries.

get off usernet you fuckin lucite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583840)

torments is teh furniture!

Re:get off usernet you fuckin lucite (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583885)

Less traceable downloads and 500K/sec speeds. I can download movies faster than I can watch them.

"less traceable" (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583948)

The key word is "less", as your isp would have no troubles tracking you, and reporting you to the 'piracy agency' as they are required to.

Once this becomes law of course.. Its not a requirment to report. Yet.

xyz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583812)

xyx xyz

Cam-rips are usually unwatchable (5, Insightful)

croddy (659025) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583813)

Cam-rips are usually unwatchable... I can't imagine a low-resolution recording of a movie being any sort of substitute for actually seeing the film.

But from the number of people I've heard are downloading it, it seems pretty popular -- I wonder if the MPAA is watching them...

Re:Cam-rips are usually unwatchable (5, Funny)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583842)

Interesting, "unwatchable" was exactly the word I was looking for. Of course, I was thinking about Ep. 1 at the time...

Re:Cam-rips are usually unwatchable (1)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583860)

I can't imagine a low-resolution recording of a movie being any sort of substitute for actually seeing the film.

Highlander 2, Highlander 3, Riddick, need I really say more? A cam version can so much soften the impact of a really bad Vogon poetry reading, er, turkey of a Hollywood flick...

Re:Cam-rips are usually unwatchable (5, Informative)

Bri3D (584578) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583955)

This isn't a cam, it's a workprint. I know because I have it. It's fairly low-res MPEG-2, but the sound is fairly good. Only problem is the two workprint timers at the top.

'Shit' found online? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583815)

I've found lots of Shit online before. Oh, wait...

Tomorrow on CNN (0, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584017)

"Sex clips found on Internet"

"Cell phones are popular"

"'Information Superhighway' begins to take off"

Not really surprising to me... (3, Funny)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583826)

(...)a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.

After reading the script, I'd say the movie itself is fuzzy with garbled writing.

Sadly, since I don't use BitTorrent with much success and instead rely on eMule/aMule, what copies I get will likely take two weeks to finish downloading and be in Spanish with German subtitles. Oddly, this will probably be easier to follow anyhow.

Why Lucas does not deserve the proceeds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583835)

Because I spent money to see Episode I twice, the second simply because I thought I blacked out and missed the plot, but upon another viewing realized that no, it was just a crappy movie. I will not give Lucas another cent until I get to see a good movie made by him for free.

Re:Why Lucas does not deserve the proceeds (3, Insightful)

whitearrow (680715) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583899)

If it hits $100 million domestic before Memorial Day, are they *still* going to whine and bitch about how downloading is ruining their industry? Yes, I know. But it strains credulity. I suspect a lot of the people downloading either 1) already saw the movie/plan to see it this week and just want a copy to watch at home until the DVD comes out or 2) have some kind of vague curiousity but aren't planning on seeing it in the theater anyway. It's hard to imagine that any self-respecting geek would be willing to settle for watching an inferior copy on a small screen instead of seeing the movie in the theater.

News? (2, Insightful)

tpoo22 (813505) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583846)

I'd say it's news for the same reason that the other half-dozen or so Star Wars related stories which have made the mainstream press - because lots of people are interested, and Lucas has damn good publicists. A few thousands or tens of thousands of downloads won't make much of a dent in the takings, and stories like this all help to create the buzz.

Re:News? (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584005)

due to the shear number of people who will be trying to find the copy on bt i am willing to bet more poeple will read this post than see it on the computer before they see it at the movies.. anyone want to help keep count ?

Help me Yoda (0, Offtopic)

Spoonito (849497) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583850)

This is sort of offtopic, but:
My younger sister has never seen any of the movies, but she's aware of a lot of the mythology and stuff. And she was trying to quote the scene where Luke first discovers Leia's recorded message on R2D2, and my sister looked at me very seriously and said, "Help me Yoda, I'm in trouble." That's a true story. Dumb story, but true.

News? Yeah right. (3, Insightful)

Telastyn (206146) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583852)

Just like "take our Star Wars quiz!" and "was Darth Vader born evil?" [also CNN content] are news? The site has been posting Star Wars crap all week as a marketing blitz for the premiere.

This isn't news, it's thinly veiled marketing.

Re:News? Yeah right. (1)

Thijs van As (826224) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583949)

Just like the loads of undercover Apple marketing at Slashdot ;-)
Seems like they've entered the world of the corrupt...

Well, I'm just kidding, we all like this stuff, right? :-)

Nice phrasing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583858)

"It's still usually shelling out the cash to see a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though."

It takes some skills to convey the idea and at the same time avoid using the word "worth".

So what? (4, Insightful)

dogas (312359) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583864)

The kind of people that would watch a crappy version on their computers are NOT the people who would pay $9 to see it in the theatre. Will this affect anything? No.

It seems to me just like the MPAA pumping the press to make it look like a huge deal. It's not.

Do they buy what they download, or not? (2, Funny)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584035)

The kind of people that would watch a crappy version on their computers are NOT the people who would pay $9 to see it in the theatre. Will this affect anything? No.

Slashdot Citizen! Do not oppose the Group Think that P2P is used for 'TEST DRIVING' content, and that EVERYONE buys what they download! And that if Hollywood/MPAA only produced better stuff, we'd...buy...more of...

Wait...I thought we said we bought everything we downloaded?

Aaaaaaa! [head implodes]

Passe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583865)

It seems that, in a few years and in hindisght, and whatever you think of the film, there'll be good geek points for having seen it at the cinema, and sad geek points for having watched it from the download. Downloaded movies are passe :)

Not worth it yet (1)

tpet (719329) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583869)

I have yet to understand why anyone would rather watch a movie on their computer screen when it's available in the theaters. If it's worth 2 hours of your life, it's worth a few bucks too. The only time I understand downloadable movies is when they're only available on DVD, because then you're watching it on a smaller screen/worse sound system either way.

Re:Not worth it yet (1)

gumbo (88087) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583964)

I don't think people are watching these on their computer screens. At least, I hope not. I've always assumed that everyone else does what I do, which is burn it and watch it on my TV and surround system.

Re:Not worth it yet (1)

77Punker (673758) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584019)

See, I can sit here and play Counter-Strike until it downloads, then watch it for free with some good tasting microwave popcorn. My other option?

Drive to the theater, pay too much money for a ticket, pay too much money for popcorn, sit without the ability to pause to go take a piss or answer the phone, and then leave and try to be happy.

I mean uhhh...piracy is still wrong! I mean, stealing intellectual property? I might as well be selling crack!

Obligatory 1337 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583871)

tEH n00 5t@r W@r5 m0v135 r tEH sux0rz!!! D0|\|7 w@5t3 |_|r b@|\|d\/\/1d7H!!!!

Captain Obvious to the rescue.. (2, Funny)

devross (524605) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583873)

It's still usually shelling out the cash to see a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.

Yes, yes it certainly is worth.

Lucas might be peeved... (2, Interesting)

jnaujok (804613) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583874)

The copy that's on the web (yes, I know where it is, no I won't tell you) is a direct copy from a work print. Thus, it's not a "crummy handheld in a theater". So it's more than likely that Lucas is going to be really peeved about this.

Considering that it has the time-code on the bottom, I'd imagine it's uniquely coded so that Lucas knows exactly who leaked it.

And no, I haven't downloaded it, although my eleven year old will probably try and "whine" his way into it.

Re:Lucas might be peeved... (1)

rufuseddy (781982) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584006)

It just has a timer at the top and it doesnt have any secret code that only lucas knows about. Anyone that had access to the workprint, although I wouldnt imagine it's too many people, could of released it. It's accually a decent release of the film. I'm not gonna say if I have it and watched it at 4:00am this morning, but I will be seeing it in the theaters even if I did.

Re:Lucas might be peeved... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12584044)

The time code is on the top. The quality is decent (better than a cam), but not perfect. The aspect ratio is wrong as it looks like the 16:9 has been stretched to 4:3. Still very watchable and has convinced me to see it in the theater (I was on the fence prior to viewing it).

As far as the movie goes, the action and CGI are tremendous and the acting is better than I expected even if Lucas has no touch for writing subtle dialogue. Natalie Portman, as much as I lust for her, really chews the scenery though (hmm chews scenery -> cardboard scenery -> cardboard boxes -> munches boxes . . . .what were we talking about?). She just doesn't have the gravity or emotional depth to pull it off. Well worth seeing, though, and definitely not the embarassment the first two were.

Bit-torrent New? (1)

QuaZar666 (164830) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583875)

"BitTorrent file-sharing network -- a new and increasingly popular technology that allows users to download large video files much more quickly than in the past."

if I remember correctly bittorrent was created in 2000 or 2001 which to me is not that new.

Re:Bit-torrent New? (1)

yrogerg (858571) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584041)

Blogs are finally getting the spotlight and they're probably older than bittorrent. The media is just a little .. how should we say .. not tech savvy?

Quality! (1)

Valiss (463641) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583876)

Well, I doubt G. Lucas will loose major cash over this. Espcially when people find out the torrent is only 772.89 MB. I garuntee that ain't a great copy.

Re:Quality! (2, Informative)

Mr._Galt (608248) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583953)

actually, its closer to 1.4GB..and it looks pretty good

Re:Quality! (1)

Valiss (463641) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584025)

Guess it depends on the site you are on....

Either way, it's getting decent reviews. People should spend the ca$h and see the matinee.

leaping Lizards, batman! (1)

Borg453b (746808) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583880)

What's with Obi's noisy reptilian mode of transportation?

You'd think you'd pick something less peculiar, and more silent when stealth matters..

Blaurgh! Blaurgh!

Ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583886)

Anyone else find it ironic this is right above a story entitled "Canadian Music Swappers Win Court Battle"?

Been online for at least a week (1)

CliffH (64518) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583888)

This not only isn't news (as most people already knew about it), if anyone on here has done any searching they would probably figure out that it isn't a cam rip either. It's one of the review screeners. Not that I've downloaded it (was tempted). I actually want to go out and see this on the big screen and get the full effect of all the people around me as well. Some movies, yeah, you download. Others, nothing is going to replace the experience of being around a mass amount of other people sharing the same experience.

Re:Been online for at least a week (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12584030)

Wrong.

The leak happened yesterday afternoon. It hasn't been online for a week. Try 24 hours.

Actually not too bad (1)

Mr._Galt (608248) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583897)

Its actually a finished (or nearly so) workprint of the movie. The picture quality is really good, much better than the usual early releases. As is the sound. I just dont have the money to see it until payday, so I thought I'd enjoy it asap first. I WILL definately see it in the theater though, as should everyone else who downloads it.

It's a victory (0, Redundant)

Wind_Walker (83965) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583912)

Video games, movies, and new CDs are often out on the 'net weeks before they finally are released for mass consumption.

Just the fact that Star Wars: ROTS was only found after somebody (presumably) recorded it inside a theatre means that they've done something right.

Saw it at the midnight showing last night (1)

phantumstranger (310589) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583917)

... and I'll be seeing two more times this weekend. That being said, I'm downloading the torrent right now so I can just drop in and watch it when I want till I buy the DVD.

i heard it sucks (0, Offtopic)

b17bmbr (608864) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583939)

perhaps this isn't the forum for dissing star wars, but can we be honest for a moment. the first movie, circa 1977 was one the greatest films of all time. a true masterpiece. the later two were really good as well. now, the prequels, or whatever they're called, are all about comptuer wizardry and natalie portman's tits. okay, i don't mind that, but the stories kinda blow. the acting is lame, and without the effects, what have you got? nah, i'll take the first three, of course i'm old enough to have seen the original in a theatre when it originally came out.

Its all About the night out (1)

cerebralpc (705727) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583952)

Going to the cinema is all about the night out.

I take my girlfriend out for a quick dinner, see a movie and usually afterwards meet up with some friends for a coffee (they may or may not also come to se the movie)

And the best part is we leave the baby with her grandparents.

WHO HOOOO! A NIGHT OFF!

Re:Its all About the night out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12584036)

Sounds like you'd be better off sending the baby to the cinema.

Maybe the girlfriend too.

Proceeds... (2, Funny)

soupdevil (587476) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583958)

why Lucas does or does not deserve to make the proceeds

Let me be the first to say that I think Lucus should make a cut of the proceeds from P2P downloads. In fact, I'll send him 10% of what I paid to download it on BitTorrent. What's your address, George?

Yeah, and...? (0, Redundant)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583959)

I never could see the big deal here. Those who want to see a movie will. Those who don't may download it or just ignore it altogetehr.
The last time I remember downloading a movie prior to watching it was Finding Nemo. My son wanted to see it, so I downloaded it, watched it to make sure it was appropriate.

I then took him to the theater to see it - twice, and eventually bought the DVD.
Did the movie studios lose any money by my actions? No.

Is watching on a 17" or 19" monitor even close to "the movie experience"? No.
Now if they'd only release Revelations in the theatre.

From the Article (1)

Zermatt (834637) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583961)

"The movie was time-stamped, suggesting it may have come from within the industry rather than from someone who videotaped an advance screening."

I don't blame the MPAA one bit for going after thieves for distributing a pre-release copy.

Both sides need to get a grip. (5, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583967)

I don't know which is funnier:

  • People claiming BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate" (funniest example of this was a guy who blurred out the "legitimate" torrents and had torrentspy in a browser window behind the torrent client)....OR...Hollywood claiming BitTorrent/P2p is only used for illegitimate purposes
  • Downloaders claiming that they see/buy everything they download, as does everyone else on p2p....OR...Hollywood, claiming that every download = not just the lost ticket price, but some insane multiplier, when most people don't even bother to "seed" more than half or less of what they download.
  • Downloaders whining about how they'd go see/buy more movies/music, if only it was better, but still download the "crap" and don't go for independently produced stuff...OR...Hollywood claiming that downloaders are hurting them, while ignoring massive Group Think among producers, directors, and writers for churning out crap not worth paying over TEN DOLLARS to see in a theater where you'll be given the opportunity to pay $3.50 for a small bottle of water, your eardrums will get blown out, and your shoes will stick to the floors for a week.

I'm tired of both sides taking absolutely ridiculous, unsupportable positions...

Re:Both sides need to get a grip. (5, Insightful)

gumbo (88087) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583997)

People claiming BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate" (funniest example of this was a guy who blurred out the "legitimate" torrents and had torrentspy in a browser window behind the torrent client)

Of course BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate." Are you trying to say that HTTP and FTP aren't legitimate because they can be used to transfer illegal copies of things? Is the US mail system not legitimate because you could mail someone a DVD-R of Star Wars?

Nobody's claiming that BitTorrent isn't used for illegal things (I hope), but that doesn't mean that it's not "perfectly legitimate."

"but somehow this is still news" ???? (2, Informative)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583976)

"I've yet to find a blockbuster movie that isn't readily available on the net after it opens, but somehow this is still news."

Well, for the love of god, stop treating it like news.
Post something else. Shess.

It will do better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12583977)

It will do better for an online version. This point of view is well supported by research on music downloads.
An few fans will watch this first, I mean this is the LAST TIME EVER you will see a Start Wars you haven't seen before at the cinema - no tru fan will watch this first ( especially not with that time code on it ) but fans will download it and watch it to get all the dialogue.
Fans will also buy the DVD and the Merch - honestly this will just feed the fever - and it got headlines on all four British news Channels that it was available online.
Thats a lot of free advertising. A good Torrenting is a lot of free publicity.
I saw Star Wars 9 times at the cinema - I believe I will see the Sith many times.
I believe all the films will be reappraised to be one of the finest myths of our time - it will speak to us down the generations and in future times. But it speaks of now, of liberty and individual responsibilty, it speaks of Sacrificing Democracy to a well set up plot, it opposes the Army of the Federation, it is a History of the loss of power of the American Citizen the worlds finest democray to it presenent day plutocracy and federal dictatorship. Its art is that of Orwell and if I believe it will rebalance the force.

Yeah, see it in a theater... (1)

nweaver (113078) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583980)

Where you can appreciate that while it doesn't utterly suck like the previous two movies, lucas's dialog is still extra craptacular when spouted by a 12 foot head of Hayden Christianson...

I'm getting it (1)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583984)

98.8%, quality is pretty sweet too, shame about the big timer at the top of the screen but that can't be helped, being from a studio cut.

Are Lucas arts loosing out on my cash? Hell no, I'm going to watch it at the cinema, the film, story wise, might suck but the action is pretty sweet (I'm assuming, watched Ep II twice at cinema because of this). Sure I'll watch it at home with this rip.

And when the dvd comes out, I'll buy it, it has starwars in the title, sounds stupid but there you go.

So what have they lost? I know what I've lost, atleast £30, I have the orginals on VHS, they cost me £30, now I'll have to shell out more for the new remastered DVD's, no exchange scheme, nothing.

Lucas Arts owe me.

This is exactly why... (0)

stubear (130454) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583986)

...Copyright law is just fine the way it is, no need to shorten the terms. Even if we went back to 14 years plus 14 year extension this would still be a violation. This fight over copyright hasn't been about the terms of copyright, it's always been about the specific right of distribution granted to intellectual property owners. People want to be distributors without being granted a license and this is wrong under any reasonable copyright law.

Record Sales (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#12583996)

This may end up being the most profitable opening night in history, but i bet you they will still bitch that a few people downloaded a copy that STILL went to the show.

Some go BEACUSE they saw it on a download first. They dont want to waste money watching a bad show.

But then again, thats their plan, make you pay up with no chance of a refund even if the movie is terrible. With no chance of a 'preview'.

Quoting a friend who watched a rip: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12584001)

"That was pretty good. I didn't see the last two, maybe I should actually go see this one."

My Naive Boss (4, Funny)

ranson (824789) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584003)

Our whole company was treated to a screening of ROTS this morning. My boss, who doesn't watch television and later admittidely never saw a Star Wars movie prior to today, asked us after it was over, "So do you think they'll make movies about those two twin babies now?" I still have not stopped laughing.

Already?! (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584009)

Damn!

I left for Japan on Wednesday and now I don't get to see it until I get back (in two weeks). If I wanted to download it, I would... but frankly, and I think many people will agree with me on this point, I don't want to see it until I can see it in its full glory. Seeing it compressed and trashed and tiny isn't the way to see it the first time.

Now if I enjoyed it, I might download it and keep it until the DVD is released... then I'll buy he DVD when it comes out.

I wish the jackasses at the MPAA would just figure it out too.

I don't understand.. (1)

bmantz65 (642864) | more than 8 years ago | (#12584031)

There are certain movies I deem that have to be watched in theaters. Of course, Star Wars is one of them. Maybe people are downloading this to say they have a bootleg of the last Star Wars. Then 50 years from now, the story will propagate in that the person had the original bootleg. Other than that, might as well wait ~6 months for the DVD.

I'm nearsighted, MPAA discriminates against me (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12584032)

I wear thick glasses (-14), I dont drive, I dont go to a theater, I watch tv and movies on one of my laptops, because I can keep the screen close to my eyes. I've been wearing glasses since I was 6 (now I am 53)

Because my eyes are bad, according to MPAA I am supposed to wait for months (or years) until the DVD comes out. Why? Sure I will download the bootleg. I am doing nothing wrong, when the dvd comes out, I will buy it.

They should offer downloads for visually impaired the moment the movie is out in the theaters. For Star Wars, I would pay twice the price of a movie ticket, even if the download were copy protected.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...