Universal Pictures has teamed up with the trade group Industry Trust for Intellectual Property Awareness in the United Kingdom to produce an anti-piracy advertisement which incorporates footage from the studios upcoming release “Battleship“.
The thirty-second spot (shown above) is part of Industry Trust’s “Moments Worth Paying For” campaign aimed at enticing viewers away from illegal downloading and into the theater by suggesting some films are just meant to be seen on the big screen, or at the very least… meant to be paid for. The advertisement intercuts scenes from the film with shots of audience members watching and enjoying the movie.
The Industry Trust is a member supported trade group established in 2004 to promote the benefits of copyright. The “Battleship” spot is the first in a series being produced for the “Moments Worth Paying For” campaign. Each will feature a different movie.
“Battleship” opens on April 11th in the U.K. and the anti-piracy trailer will run in theaters throughout the country until May 10th.
In a press statement announcing the “Battleship” spot the Industry Trust’s general director Liz Bales said:
“Using new release content to engage with our audience on the important issue of copyright infringement is a proven approach embraced by both the film and TV industries. We feel certain it will provide great benefits to the marketing of the release while continuing the great strides made in change attitudes and consumer behavior around copyright theft.”
Popularity: 1% [?]
A Warning To Copyright Infringers At Cornell
It looks as if the MPAA may be spying on college students, or at the very least monitoring their file sharing activity. Last week on CNET’s daily tech news podcast Buzz Out Loud the hosts read an email from a listener named Chris who explained how the MPAA has been leaving notes for students they believe are sharing movies online.
Illegal (and legal) file sharing is a constant topic of discussion on Buzz Out Loud as are the attempts of the MPAA and RIAA to prosecute those who participate in such activity. So Chris, a college student who lives in a dorm on the Cornell University campus, wrote in to pass along the news that the MPAA has identified his dorm as a den of illegal downloading. He writes (no emphasis added):
…my university (Cornell) has had run-ins with the MPAA and RIAA in the past over our school’s file sharing network. Everyday when I get back from class, I see a new notice on the message board in the lobby. About once a week there is a particular kind of message; this week’s reads:
‘Attention! Someone in Eddygate (my building) IS or WAS uploading the movie THE FIGHTER. STOP NOW!!! PARAMOUNT PICTURES WANTS YOU!!!
Last week it was ‘SONY PICTURES IS WATCHING YOU!’ for some other movie.
Are they now threatening college students specifically? … Are they possibly monitoring our specific building?… Are they really going through the effort to contact landlords and apartment managers to tell their residents to stop committing the ultimate evil?
Read More »
Popularity: 3% [?]
Less than 24-hours after we posted a story on the lawsuit filed against Muvico by a 22-year-old for being arrested for filming inside a movie theatre an email arrived from Patrick Corcoran, the National Association of Theatre Owners’ Director of Media & Research.
Corcoran not only provided a statement about Samantha Tumpach’s suit, but along with Brigette Buehlman also filled in a few details about the organization’s Take Action reward program.
Tumpach was arrested in November for filming portions of “Twilight: New Moon” during her sister’s birthday party inside a Chicago movie theatre. Her suit alleges that she was given no warning to stop filming and that even after the MPAA suggested releasing her, the theatre’s management had her arrested to collect a reward for stopping a camcorder pirate.
In our previous post Corcoran pointed out that Tumpach’s assertions were printed as fact, rather than allegations. Fair enough. That the history being presented was being drawn from Tumpach’s allegations and news reports could have been made clearer.
Corcoran also wrote:
“Any upset or unpleasantness Miss Tumpach believes she has suffered was a consequence of her own actions. Muvico was well within its rights to act as they did. Recording any part of a movie in a theater is illegal.
Read More »
Popularity: 5% [?]
Samantha Tumbach
Remember back in November of last year when the industry was abuzz about a 22-year-old woman who was arrested and jailed for using a video recorder inside a Chicago movie theatre during her sister’s birthday party? Well, she’s back in the news again.
This time Samantha Tumpach wants to go to court on her own terms by filing a lawsuit against Muvico over the arrest for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotion distress, defamation and negligence. Tumpach had hinted she might sue the theatre back in December so he lawsuit doesn’t come as a complete.
When Tumpach was originally arrested in November she spent two days in jail before being released. Facing the possibility of a three year jail sentence, Tumpach insisted she was only shooting her sister’s birthday party which was taking place at a showing of “Twilight: New Moon”. Though the theatre and prosecutors didn’t back down, initially they ultimately dropped the charges.
The lawsuit claims Tumpach was never given a warning to put her camera away. She was filming the first scene in the film “hoping to capture the title and beginning as a memory of this exciting event.” Then when she was removed from the auditorium by theatre personnel the police questioned whether making an arrest was really appropriate. Tumpach pleaded with authorities that she had know idea she was doing anything wrong by recording inside the theatre. The suit alleges that when the MPAA was contacted they told police to erase the content from the video camera and simply file a report.
Read More »
Popularity: 7% [?]
Here’s a new twist on the old story of camcorder piracy and movie theft. A recent news blip published in Australia’s Herald reported an incident in which movie theatre personnel at a cinema in Glendale spotted a man video taping a showing of “Avatar”. The catch is, the man was 88-years-old.
The cinema manager got the gentleman to stop recording and called the police. When authorities arrived the man, who was wearing large glasses and got around with the aid of a walking stick, informed them that he was recording the film for his wife who was unable to make it to the cinema.
While awfully kind of the man to be thinking of his wife, he was informed that such activity is illegal. The police proceeded to delete the movie from the man’s camcorder and let him sit through the rest of the film. As the Los Angeles Times points out, he may not have been let off the hook so easily in the United States, senior citizen or not. In 2005, the Motion Picture Association of America sued a 67-year-old man for $600,000 after pirated movies were downloaded onto his computer via a peer-to-peer service.
I wonder if the 88-year-old Australian man will get any credit simply for knowing how to work the camcorder or for his willingness to hold it through a movie that’s more than two-and-a-half hours long.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Danny Boyle at the premiere of "Slumdog Millionaire" in India (EPA/STR)
Less than 24-hours after “Slumdog Millionaire” picked up 10 Oscar nominations on Thursday, filmmaker Danny Boyle’s rags-to-riches movie about a teenage boy from the slums of Mumbai opened on Friday in India stirring up a bit of resentment and controversy. In fact, rather than being greeted by long lines of moviegoers, according to The Times of India the release of the film caused a small riot at the Inox Multiplex in Panaji.
As a story in the Los Angeles Times details, some in India are dismayed over what they see as the stereotypical portrayal of their country as filled with corruption and impoverished throngs. Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), a pro-Hindu group, petitioned the government to ban or censor “Slumdog Millionaire” stating that the movie would upset the religious values of millions of Indians due to references of Hindu deities and a misrepresentation of the Lord Ram. Then on Friday, a large group of Shiv Sena activists vandalized the only multiplex in Panaji (the capital of the Indian state of Goa) when theatre managers would not cancel showings of the film. Read More »
Popularity: 36% [?]
The Motion Picture Association of America has been hinting for some time now that internet service providers should prevent copyrighted material such as movies and televisions shows from being distributed illegally through their high speed broadband networks. Back in July of this year, the MPAA filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission over the “net neutrality” issue, warning the agency that any laws put into place should allow providers to monitor their network traffic to detect the transmission of pirated intellectual property.
On Tuesday MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman pulled no punches in speaking about the issue at a seminar titled Legal Risk Management in the Web 2.0 World . (Try saying that seminar title five times really quickly). CNet.com quoted Glickman as saying:
“Their [ISPs] revenue bases depend on legitimate operations of their networks and more and more they’re finding their networks crowded with infringed material, bandwidth space being crowded out. Many of them are actually getting into the content business directly or indirectly. This is not an us-versus-them issue.”
The reality is, in the United States ISPs are relatively immune from the liability of their networks being used to distribute pirated material. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act established in 1998, an ISP is not held responsible for the illegal activity of their subscribers as long as they “they don’t condone copyright infringement, that they remove infringing material when notified and that they aren’t deriving financial benefit from it.” So, don’t look for your internet provider to boast that they have the fastest bit torrent downloads any time soon.
What it seems Glickman is suggesting is that ISPs either prevent pirated material from being transmitted over their networks or that they throttle the bandwidth speed way back when illegal content distribution is suspected. Such throttling, known as traffic shaping, has been a real hot button topic among hard core techies of late given that Comcast (in the U.S.) and other ISPs around the globe have been caught limiting the bandwidth of heavy internet users.
Ironically Glickman may get his wish in having ISPs join the MPAA in fighting movie piracy, though not due to the efforts of his organization. More so because internet providers find it is in their best interest to optimize their network by curtailing bandwidth speeds to non-commercial users generating the most traffic. In techie language. . . that means those using file sharing programs to distribute pirated copies of the latest blockbusters.
Popularity: 22% [?]
Entries RSS
