Studio: Good chance FBI can trace 'Wolverine' leak
FBI agents have started looking for whoever uploaded to the Web an incomplete version of the unreleased movie "X-Men Origins: Wolverine."
The new X-men film was leaked to the Web and the FBI may be able to trace the copy back to whoever's responsible.
(Credit: Marvel.com)The film, which reportedly cost $100 million to make, was not scheduled for theatrical release until May 1 but was leaked to the Web Tuesday evening. Laura Eimiller, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Los Angeles field office, said Thursday that the agency is responsible for investigating copyright infringement and allegations of piracy.
She said the bureau received a call within the last 24 hours from 20th Century Fox, the News Corp.-owned studio that produced "Wolverine." At this early stage in the investigation, Eimiller said the agency is without suspects.
However, studio representatives told news agency Reuters because of forensic marks, the authorities would be able to trace the source of the leak.
Studios embed identification marks on prints and film copies and that's how authorities tracked down Kerry Gonzalez. He was the New Jersey man who uploaded the superhero film "Hulk" to the Web weeks before its 2003 theatrical release. Gonzalez pleaded guilty to felony copyright infringement charges and was sentenced to six months house arrest and ordered to pay a $7,000 fine.
That case is an example of how hard it is for studios to protect their multimillion-dollar products, according to a film industry insider.
Gonzalez had nothing to do with the movie business. He told FBI agents that he obtained a videotape copy of the film print from a friend who worked at an advertising agency connected with the movie.
The problem comes down to two issues: lots of different people need access to a working print of a feature film. The second problem is the Internet hands anyone the power to disseminate digital information to a vast audience with little effort or expense.
"You have to realize that toy manufacturers, advertisers, editing houses, preview houses, they all need access to some form of the film cut," said the industry source. When it comes to business partners, the studios are "only as safe as the partner company's last hire."
"When they find this guy," the source continued, "and they will, he will become the poster child for never doing this again."
Not everyone agrees that a movie is harmed by this kind of early Internet release.
"Sicko," director Michael Moore's documentary on the health care industry, appeared on the Web a week before being screened in theaters. The film still saw a respectable opening when compared to other documentaries.
Some say the Web can act as a promotional tool for films, provided that they receive positive word of mouth. In the case of the "Hulk," the movie was widely panned after going out on the Web. When it reached theaters, the film saw a big opening but quickly lost steam and is considered a financial flop.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
That movie was awful.
Begone, troll.
This leak was intentional. That's proof enough.
have. It's really funny when you think of the way Hollywood, the RIAA have been relentlessly pursuing
their agenda at the cost of other far more potent threats to security.
...and why? Because someone low level wants some sort of cache with their buddies? Because people on the internerd will think they're cool?
Rule 1 in any creative industry: never show the unfinished product if at all possible. It's too difficult to drive through people's thick skulls that "it won't be like that in the finished product".
So never mind that loss of sales from a wrong impression (wouldn't be so bad if it was the final cut I suppose) will impact jobs, revenue and earnings which in this fragile economy can make the difference between a company surviving or collapsing. Never mind that loss of revenue, no matter how you spin it, means loss of pay, less funding for new film projects, unempoyment. Never mind that if this was a physical theft you'd have no problem wrapping your head around the idea that it is perfectly reasonable for law-enforcement to be involved.
In this case, you don't look at the individual cost of this case (which is probably quite low anyway in the same way that it's easy to track people who try to not pay for their petrol), you look at the result in that if everyone who does this is caught, a lot of other people who might be thinking of doing so will be entirely put off by the obviously high likelihood that they'll be caught. The 'Hulk' case wasn't even overly harsh in the sentencing, you'd probably get more for stealing a car but it's harsh enough that no-one would want it for themselves.
So yeah, some dweeb has breached his employment contract, leaked an unfinished version onto the internet which reflects badly on the film and will probably impact sales meaning that future projects won't have as much funding because it's just not there so there are less jobs and less contracts for effects houses, etc. meaning less jobs and you think it's a waste of time for the FBI to do something to ensure this happens as little as possible?
Never mind that the movie industry has had record three years in a row. Despite how they whine to congress, they are in no danger of collapse.
"Never mind that loss of revenue, no matter how you spin it, means loss of pay, less funding for new film projects, unempoyment."
A flop has the same results. It's arguable at best how much this will cost them in loss revenue. The people taking the time to down it are probably not the theater going or even DVD buying type anyway.
"Never mind that if this was a physical theft you'd have no problem wrapping your head around the idea that it is perfectly reasonable for law-enforcement to be involved."
If it was a physical theft, they'd actually be deprived of something. As I said above the extent of losses are arguable at best. No doubt they will jack up the cost though, it is common practice to over inflate the losses from piracy.
"In this case, you don't look at the individual cost of this case (which is probably quite low anyway in the same way that it's easy to track people who try to not pay for their petrol), you look at the result in that if everyone who does this is caught, a lot of other people who might be thinking of doing so will be entirely put off by the obviously high likelihood that they'll be caught. The 'Hulk' case wasn't even overly harsh in the sentencing, you'd probably get more for stealing a car but it's harsh enough that no-one would want it for themselves."
Perhaps but then it only takes one person.
Losing money because of the actions of someone else against me is the same as loss of money through my own incompetence. If I lose my wallet, it's not the same as getting mugged, is it. If I have the talent and work hard to produce something that's of a high quality and because of some bonehead loser people think it's not nearly as good as it is, that's not the same as if I produced Babylon AD.
If it flops on its own lack of merit then that's the fault of the people who made it, if it flops because of some nerdlinger with no friends other than those on the internet uploaded material he had no right to access and certainly no right to distribute, that's his fault.
Oh, and don't talk to me about how much money the studios make, that's no reflection on how much money the people involved in the film will make or if they'll get hired again and most of them are not highly paid actors or directors, the low level lighting technicians and the guy who holds the boom are _not_ paid in millions.
Logical fallacy number 2:
That this is about 'potential sales' and not damage to reputation. Enough with this 'if it was a physical theft' philosophical garbage. Someone took and distributed a working print that's several months old and to which numerous changes have been made because it was considered to be not up to snuff and it doesn't matter if it only costs one sale or one million. This isn't some homeless guy stealing food, they should just not have done it. End of story.
Logical fallacy number 3:
Because we can't prevent all incidents we shouldn't even try.
Well, I'm real glad you're not in charge of any law enforcement. Guess which crimes have a conviction rate of less than 5%
Read what I said. "A flop has the same results." As in if you loss your money or it's taken from you, you're out the money either way. I said nothing about whether it was right or not. I did however question the extent of the losses from this leak..
"If it flops on its own lack of merit then that's the fault of the people who made it, if it flops because of some nerdlinger with no friends other than those on the internet uploaded material he had no right to access and certainly no right to distribute, that's his fault."
Don't believe I said otherwise. Though I seriously doubt the movie will flop because of this leak.
"Oh, and don't talk to me about how much money the studios make, that's no reflection on how much money the people involved in the film will make or if they'll get hired again and most of them are not highly paid actors or directors, the low level lighting technicians and the guy who holds the boom are _not_ paid in millions."
If studio earnings have no effect on the pay or employment prospects of low level individuals then why are you bring them up? Did I say everyone made millions? Don't think so
"That this is about 'potential sales' and not damage to reputation. Enough with this 'if it was a physical theft' philosophical garbage. Someone took and distributed a working print that's several months old and to which numerous changes have been made because it was considered to be not up to snuff and it doesn't matter if it only costs one sale or one million. This isn't some homeless guy stealing food, they should just not have done it. End of story."
Again didn't say it was right or wrong. Damage to reputation is as arguable and hard quantify as lost sales. Anecdotically speaking, at least one reviewer gave the unfinished cut a good review before Fox fire him for it.
"Because we can't prevent all incidents we shouldn't even try."
No, but I do think some crimes are small and petty enough that the cost of investigating and prosecuting it is not worth it.
You seem to be looking at everything as a matter of morality, I am looking at only costs. These so called logical fallacies are the result of attempting to apply my statements to the morality of this and that was not my intent.
I am not arguing whether taking and distributing the movie was right or wrong.
story wise, it was terrible. not only did they mangle the weapon X story, they mutilate logic and common sense for the sake of making the movie easier to watch.
honestly, i wouldn't want this piece of trash leaked to the net, because its really not that good.
btw they kill deadpool at the end.
meh
it's not illegal if they intentionally released it to gague reactions to it.
Fixing computers with Bot nets and Trojans that have this media stuff on them im sure movie companies are not sending viruses and Trojans out in these promos are they.
Exercise in futility, just like Blu-Ray's DRM as well as prohibitively expensive. I'd also be interested as to how post-production should be done with the best software available for the task when it all has to support some DRM locked format if it's to be used at all. The whole raft of video-editing/effects software and all the 3D software (Autodesk, Adobe, Apple, SideFX, etc) would have to support it. If you want to work out the logistics of pulling that off with the horrendous cost due to almost zero economy of scale, be my guest.
As the article has mentioned, they've used a level of digital watermarking which should tell them where the leak came from as they can use a separate watermark for everyone they send it out to. Then it's just a matter of tracking it down to the individual. As study after study has shown, the greatest detterent to crime is the likelihood of getting caught. If they can show that those chances are close to 100% then only the occasional idiot will try it. Under such circumstances, why would they spend so much money on something that won't work anyway?
WOW...6 months house arrest and pay $7,000 fine...That's real deterrent isn't it?
If the IDIOT Prosecutors don't throw the book at criminals like this, then who cares?
There's NO PUNISHMENT for this crime.
FUBAR
Personally, I'll just try to be happy that the very few prison cells there are seem to currently be reserved for those who actually pose a direct and ongoing threat to others. You know, crack-heads, rapists, gangsters. People whose threat to others can only be reduced or removed if they're confined.
Now, I don't know about you but I, for one, can't afford to take a six months enforced unpaid 'vacation' or spare $7,000 on top of that (how much is six months unemployment worth over there?). I should think that unless you're quite well off that should be quite the deterrent for anyone. That is, of course, unless you're less interested in just keeping the law and more interested in self-righteous tub-thumping and petty vengeance.
The RIAA has been taking away $150,000 PER SONG leaked on the internet. Even if it's not a pre-release.
And the Movie Industry is able to sue for up to $25,000 per movie.
So really...he should be thankful that's all he got. Even though it's still harsh, I'll admit, it's nothing like what it coud've been.
Hulk2 was much better than Hulk 1 simply because he verbalizes and emotes much more. This, combined with the acting, elicit much greater empathy with the audience.
The studios made a big mistake by not sticking to Stan Lee's image of the Hulk as a combination of Mr Hyde and Frankenstein's monster being the uncontrolled subconsciousness of ordinary people given free reign and great power. The Hulk is NOT a mindless beast, or a brainless monster. Yes, he has animalistic cunning. Yes, he is a violent, nearly uncontrolled force of destruction. But he is two sides, in conflict with each other, of the same man. The comics character has survived for as long a he has because he verbalizes and has a distinct personality; characteristics necessary to "humanize" him.
Seriously, what's with Hollywood these days? Is everyone on dope or what? Anyway, getting back to the Wolverine "work print," it was kind of cool to see the unfinished CGI effects. Movies today are more addicted to silicon than the porn industry is to silicone. I now realize how little the "real" actors are coming to matter to mainstream film makers. I think they'll be happiest when the whole thing can be done inside the box and no human beings are required. That day is coming sooner than everyone thinks. As to the movie, see it, or don't see it. Its all the same to me. Though frankly, those who wait for the DVD will probably have a better experience than you'll get seeing this in the theater. Unless of course your an teenager out with your main squeeze and looking to cop a feel in the dark.
It's a 3-4 month old work print which has been heavily reworked because it was considered sub-par and is now at least 20 minutes longer. Shots have been taken out and replaced, cut, extended.
But never mind, because this guy's mind is made up.
Mind, he's also missed that spending on physical effects is increasing.
- by Altotus May 4, 2009 1:25 AM PDT
- F!!! this misuse of taxpayer money! How much resources wasted? The genie is out of the bottle and the FBI is working on OUR public funds if its sooo special why don't the money bastard pay for private eyes and leave the feds alone to do their business.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(39 Comments)