A month before X-Men Origins Wolverine was set to premier, a workprint copy of the film was distributed via filesharing websites and many people got a sneak peek at the unfinished movie.
The studios swore they would not take this breech lightly and set out to discover just how this copy ended up on the ‘net.
Well after months of investigation in December 2009, one Gilberto Sanchez was brought up on charges of illegal distribution of copyright materials and was set to go to court.
Today we find out that Sanchez pleads guilty and will face a hefty fine and jail time.
The Hollywood Reporter reports:
Gilberto Sanchez, a New York-based glass installer and musician, uploaded a work print of Fox’s hit superhero movie a month before its May 2009 release. Sanchez pled guily at a March 14 hearing in federal court. He will be sentenced on September 19 by U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow and faces up to three years in jail and a $250,000 fine (or twice the gross gain or loss attributable to the offense).
I am not sure how they intend to prove how much this release may have affected the boxoffice. How do you put a dollar to that?
I think it is their duty to arrest and charge this person for sharing this pirated copy online. He is not being charged with stealing it; he is being charged with distributing it.
There is a geek prestige online being the one who did it first, but sadly they have to hide behind screen names to claim that glory. Perhaps charging the “first” to distribute this pirated content may cause others to hesitate. I doubt it.
There is no justifying stealing movies online, and its embarassing to watch people try. It is not your property and you stole it. End of discussion. You didn’t “preview” it or “borrow it” – it’s stolen. And it is illegal. Sadly until they start pressing charges more agressively, the “it’s only illegal if you get caught” pirates will casually multiply.
They should also be agressively charging street vendors who openly sell pirated movies on the sidewalks. How they are not being arrested wholesale is beyond me.
But the interesting thing is that the studio HAS to know which production house had this particular copy of the movie, and could determine what studio it was stolen from, but nothing public on that front.
I am sure SOMEONE got a stern talking to about their security measures.
Enjoy your downtime Sanchez. Was that “First” worth the prestige?
I think the valid argument is that the law is unjust. If someone were to break into a best buy, say a very large best buy for the sake of argument, and steal thousands of copies of a movie, then just give them away for free, they would likely face less of a penalty, and depending on location, less jail time.
Personally I value my actual property more than my intellectual property. Yes a studio’s intellectual property is worth a lot more, but it is not as if they are being impoverished by people pirating movies. No it doesn’t make it okay, but the impact of the crime is not reflected in the punishment.
Laws the Law.
Just ask Tommy Chong.
Just Sayin’
Just wanted to point out to a previous comment;
Rodney, it was you who made the comparison to Food, Drink and tobacco – no one else. We all know that it is a choice for the person to buy these things. I was just pointing out that it was a bad comparison to make as they are needed in some peoples life (I am not addicted to alcohol and I don’t smoke so I wasn’t defending it) but it’s much easier to go without a film than what it is to be able to turn down going to the movies.
I accpet your point of Blockbusters though this topic is about a film that is current and not waiting MONTHS for it be out on DVD (this piracy wasn’t a DVD rip, it was a ‘off the reel’ rip as it was unfinished)
Yes, there are options when going to see a film, though the 3D and specific seating aren’t realy ways to justify an argument as it doesn’t defeat the original price! Sometimes you dont get a choice on whether the film is in 2D or 3D, it would depend on the theatre and showing times. And also, if people aren’t willing to pay $10 WHY would they pay $20 for set-seating… — Again I’d like to point out your willing to pay that amount as you’re an avid movie goer, you’re not the general public, and it kind of comes across quite strongly in your arguments.
____________________________________________
The counter argument I would ask you is;
Have you ever leant friends a DVD so they can watch it and not have to pay for the privlidge?
Have you ever done the same with a CD, and borrow one to put on your PC?
Have you ever recorded a show without the ‘rights of the broadcaster as it is a federal offence’? such as certain sports programmes
Some of us are doing ‘Piracy’ and not even realising it.
— I don’t want to seem like I’m targetting you, though I honestly dont think that anyone could answer those questions without admitting they have done one, if not all of them. Your arguments sofar have targeted people who choose to use their money on addictions, buying fancy food and overlooked any argument made about the credit crunch. Just because they MAY not have affected you, they ARE issues for the GENERAL PUBLIC; not an avid movie fan. I was trying to point out ways Piracy could be helped…
(Oh and you also mentioned about the offer days – you obviously didn’t read the part where I said they should lower the prices weekly due to restictions that affect the GENERAL PUBLIC – Tuesday price cuts aren’t good for people who work evenings, nights or are children who cant go out to watch them. Look at the Bigger picture rather than your own perspective)
Sorry for the Typos – forgot to spell check it. I meant to put at the top;
“…but it’s much easier to go without a film than what it is to be able to go without something addictive”
Have you ever j-walked? Have you ever broke the speed limit? Are those less illegal just because you didn’t get caught? Do you argue weak rationalizations when the cop is giving you a ticket? The cop doesn’t care if you say “but no one else was on the road and I was in a hurry” He writes the ticket because you broke the law. Doesn’t mean it isn’t illegal.
Piracy is stealing. It is the law. People who get caught distributing intellectual properties are stealing whether they benefit from the redistribution of a property they do not own or not. Rationalizing or saying “everyone is doing it” doesn’t change that. Ask a judge.
There is ALWAYS an option. If you disagree with the price of admission to a film or you feel that you do not have an option between 3D or not, you HAVE the option to not see it. Stealing it is not an acceptable rationalized alternative. You can wait for DVD release, you can drive further to another showing, or you can choose not to go at all. There is always a choice. Choosing to steal is still stealing even if they apply some weak rationale that “they had no other choice” because clearly they did.
You didn’t want to pay. That’s the rationale, and that is the choice.
But just to point out, lending someone a movie is not “distributing”. The copy leaves possession of one person and is granted to another. You have the right to part with possessions you legally acquired, just like the person who receives it has the right to give it back. And if they don’t give it back, do you not consider it stolen? Ownership of a copy of a movie grants you that right. You cannot however, make a copy and give them one. That is distribution, and a violation of copyright. People who try to dance around that saying they didn’t steal it because the studio still owns it are just making excuses and do not understand the law, or choose to ignore the law. It’s called an intellectual property because its physical presence is not what is disputed.
TV shows and broadcasts can be recorded for personal use. You missed the original broadcast and you can watch it later. That is well within fair use copyright. The rights to view the copy comes with the broadcast. If it wasn’t PVRs would be illegal. Distrubuting copies of those recordings are illegal.
And your Tuesday Cheap nights argument is hardly valid. People attend Tuesday showings in DROVES. There will ALWAYS be showings and opportunities lost to some demographic. Matinee viewings traditionally have lower prices, but those hard working 9-5ers who go to cheap Tuesday don’t care.
Its a choice.
Ahh… Rodney,
If you live in Canada recording on a VCR or DVR for the purpose of time-shifting is ilegal. The Sony VCR case was in the US only and in Canada it never went to court. So technically the VCR and DVR’s in Canada are only legal to transfer material for which you own the copyright.
Nope I’ve never Jaywalked as I live in England lol
I think we will just have to appreciate each others arguments here; I know everything you have said is correct and I went into this thread agreeing with your points. I feel I have just crossed wires while trying to make points; I was merely looking for ways that could help the Industry lower the rate of priacy — not justifying those who actually do so. My ideas were just to point out areas in the market that could be approached and ways that would be beneficial for the entire market.
– I will say though; yeah you’re right about the Tuesday offers, but again have missed my point. The people that go to this are those who aren’t working at that specific time and thus it breaks off some of the market from being able to see the film. – My argument was merely; Why does it always have to be Tuesdays?
– Driving further to get a cheaper movie ticket defeats the point as you spend what you save in extra fuel prices
– Waiting for a DVD isn’t always the answer as when it’s released it costs more than a movie ticket would have anyway
I relaise I made some bad examples, but it’s nice to know you didn’t approach the CD comment – you must have some ‘guilty pleasures’ which you borrowed for your iPod haha
But at the end of the day, Kids; Piracy is Wrong. At least we can agree on that
This isn’t the first time that a studio has taken out frustration and made a scapegoat out of someone and it certainly wont be the last. Hollywood is having a hard time determining how to exploit the internet to their benefit and sometimes they take their frustration out on guys like this.
This one is one of the more publicized stories but I think we’ve all heard about that grandma that got sued to high hell cus her grandkids downloaded a movie without her knowledge. The extent to which they exercise their frustration rubs people the wrong way. period. We’re finally at a time when movies are experimenting with learning hot to use the internet to their benefit with simultaneous on-demand/dvd/theatrical releases to try to finally get a sense of what direction they should head. These are the growing pains.
Should this guy get prosecuted? He’s no modern day Robin Hood but he has the empathy of the internetz. That won’t help keep him out of prison. I’d like for him to stay out of prison but he crossed a line when he uploaded the movie to megavideo.
Movie piracy will not go away. People want to watch these latest blockbuster movies but simply do not want to pay a hefty $10 bucks for it, given today’s economy. That’s why most of them resort to downloading DVDrip movies online. As for these blockbuster/highly anticipated movies, it’s just a matter of studios putting extreme safeguards on their movies before releasing it to the market. Yet I wonder if the studios are really making enough money to justify a profit ?
Hefty 10 bucks??? Since when is that a lot of money? “In today’s economy”?? That’s bull. That economy line gets thrown around like it is the answer to global warming. It lost its effectiveness before people even started using it. When the economy was doing fine people were still stealing movies.
How many of those people crying that $10 is too much money eat at restaurants, smoke or drink??? Are people stealing THOSE because they cost too much? No. They want it, so they pay for it. The people that are stealing those things, no one has a problem calling THEM criminals.
The cost of a movie is NOT the problem. Food prices in the theater are a crime, but the ticket to see a movie is completely reasonable. These people “resort” to downloading because they want to steal it. Its not the ticket prices that drive them to it, its the ease of access and the lack of ethics.
Extreme safeguards do not exist. For everyone smart enough to create a safeguard there’s a dozen smart enough to break it.
Rodney, you are taking that from your own perspective. A LOT of people wouldn’t want to pay $10 for a film that they weren’t fully prepared to see. As I mentioned in my previous comment, I am one who will check out reviews and trailers before putting my hand in my pocket to see a film – it doesn’t mean I’m going to download it for free.
I can tell you’re an avid movie watcher so you feel you have to justify the price for the fact it helps business’ with funding for future movies which is completely admirable. Though it’s obvious you have the financial backing which enables you to go and watch films on a regular basis – for the fact it’s become a hobby more than anything else.
However – Yeah some people smoke, drink and go out to eat. But food is a must, and the others are Addictions! And I think you’ll find that the price of food, alcohol and tobacco changes depending on brand and the stores you buy it from – you dont really get this kind of choice when going to watch a movie as you know a ticket is going to cost $10 and then it’s a CHOICE for any extras.
@ThePunisher, I feel that you were pretty much trying to make the same point as what I had previously stated.
There should be some system which allows people to go and see these films they’re not entirely sure about at a reduced price. It’s not going to kill off piracy but would be a small step in the right direction (And i’m not just talking about Off-Peak times where the cinema is normally dead or a fixed day of the week as it’s not fair for all of the people due to life restrictions; work etc)
I go to see a film thats been out for 3/4 weeks allready. I pay Full Price. When I get in there the place is empty apart from maybe 1/2 other people — What’s better here; HAVING to show the film to 3 people who paid full price or getting in a crowd of 20 people who decided to go and watch the film because it was at half the price of the release week. Theatres are bound to make more from concession sales alone.
Never said food is not a necessity. However, dropping $20 at Applebee’s when $10 of groceries gets you three times the food is just frivolous, but people don’t hesitate. And Addictions are not an excuse. You choose to be addicted, so dont bitch when you “cant stop”. If an addicted person wanted to stop, they would. Its easier not to. Crutching on “its an addiction” doesn’t justify that a person willingly spends expendable income on that crap, so paying to go to a movie is just as much a choice.
Theaters come in choices too. That $10 ticket is $14 in 3D, or $20 at pre-seated Arclight Theaters. Its also $5 on cheap Tuesdays at some theaters or less at second run halls. There is still choice. Hell, paying $4 to rent it at a failing Blockbuster store is an option and you can have 4 more of your cheap friends over to share the experience and split the cost.
There is always a choice to legitimately acquire these films for the fullest of enjoyment. It is a choice to enjoy them in the first place.
Piracy is stealing. Everything else is just excuses and weak rationale.
I can totally understand what Rodney has said, though it does sound very by the book and just reitterating what the Law says rather than a personal opinion. This situation was awful as it had been released before the movie was released. I never saw it myself but I have heard thins from friends about copys they had where strings etc. could be seen. That would honestly put me off from seeing the copy in the first place.
I feel there has to be some leway though. I know the law is the law but things aren’t always black and white and this is an issue where there are clearly shades of grey which make every case different.
I feel that like DVD’s once released, Cinemas/Movie Theatres should reduce their prices as time goes on. There are a lot of poorly rated films out there, and I don’t see why people should have to pay the same amount a people who saw it on the release date. I feel a reduction is price as time goes on would keep a constant flow of customers going out and actually watching films rather than downloading; eg. Suckerpunch – now the trailer sort of caught my eye but I dont want to go and pay £7 (approx $10) though my friend loved the trailer and wanted to see it on the release day for sure.
It’s never going to stop so I don’t see why companies aren’t just agreeing with cinemas to do this in order to make more profit for everyone. If films were only £3.50 instead of £7 but I had to wait a week or so then I would deffinately go more than what I do now. This would allow the die hard fans to get in the cinema and those just curious a better deal – leading to less complaints, refunds and bad movie experiences.
It might seem a tad off topic, but if you ask 9 out of 10 people who download why they do it, the answer is money. The idea might sound like they would lose money reducing prices, but they would easily make up for it with the quantity of people coming through the door
(Please note – Im not sure if it is actually like this in the USA, if so, sorry for wasting your time – but here in England it’s not like that and it’s something I never got my head around.)
I think what makes this piracy thing so difficult for people to understand is that movies are too easy to download. The simplicity of it makes it hard to see it as stealing. Especially when it can be easier than programing a DVR. Rodney gave examples of stealing from a store.. Digital file sharing is not looked at the same way as stealing physical goods. It’s like the internet is one big network of children lending stuff to each other and the studios are the angry parents spanking them for lending their stuff without permission. Yet they keep the stuff out in plain view with no lock or deterrent other than: “I told you no.” The thing is digital content is becoming increasingly more popular and studios should focus on making that content more readily available and affordable so that piracy will be less of a temptation.
I wonder how Gilberto Sanchez got that movie anyway…
He bought it from a street vendor pirating movies. Paid $5 for it too!
If they had proof which vendor it was, I am sure he would be arrested too.
Classic! They don’t get prosecuted. I’ve seen police buy bootleg movies too. It’s a shame that this guy has to be a scapegoat.
The bootleggers setup shop by the curb with a table and a van, so it’s not like they’re always as discreet as they could. You may not always see this in Manhattan but it’s as common as town car cabs and bodega’s in the outer boroughs. Hell, they’re even sold in some bodegas.
Going aggressively after the people who download these films — you know, the same people who also go to buy the tickets and DVDs — is asinine. The ringleaders? Sure. But it’s not going to stop them from trying, and most of them are going to get away with it.
If studios want to ensure people are seeing these things legally, they need to offer a good product with good mediums to see it, that’s both convenient and affordable. A great example of that is Netflix — but now that Netflix has become this incredibly successful company, the movie studios have actually begun to try to crack down on it! They really are their own worst enemy.
a true fan is a true fan there has been times I download a CD and burn it to my mp3 player and listened to the album as I walk all the way downtown to HMV to buy it on opening day.
I agree it sucks for smaller movies wthout an already huge fanbase but common a real fan will PAYYYY to see it ten times even if it sucks.
Ive seen star wars 100 times lots of those times for free on TV but im still going to go see it at the theater when it comes out again cause I am a real fan its the experience.
common what real fan would rather watch a crappy non finished version on a computer or a dubbed version with peoples shadows over the real deal??
its non fans that download those crappy versions and if anything it could turn them into a fan and make them want to see the better version even more.
but still I agree its not cool to steal peoples movies and post them online but im just saying the people downloading them aint real fans..
I agree with you Chit_LaMarde. I remember when SW: Attack of the Clones was available on the net a few weeks before the movie was released. I remember everyone in the office passing it around. I am a HUUUUGE fan of SW and I decided I did not want to see ANY part of it on a small screen with crappy theature sound taken with a handycam. Screw that. That will ruin my experience. So, as a fan I passed.
However, nearly EVERY one of those coworkers lined up on opening night to watch the film. I know because I was holding their place for hours. So no, it didn’t affect sales one bit for Fans or Non-Fans.
There is a huge disconnect from studios and recording labels that somehow attribute questionable loss to pirating. Some people are cheap and won’t pay with or without a downloadable copy. Some will pay even if they have a downloaded copy.
For most movie fans that download stuff, they also have a wall of literally thousands of DVDs and blu-rays. So it’s not an economic thing for most, it’s a hobby/passion/etc…
I am not justifying piracy. I just think the perspective by the studios is a little outdated.
The studios have a duty to protect their product. It is not “outdated” to pursue someone who steals something you created to be purchased.
If you ran a store and put your hard earned money to stock the shelves with products, would you tolerate people stealing them? Would you hope that person who stole goes out and tells his friends about this cool thing he got so they in turn come to buy one?
No. If you catch him you will have him arrested for violating your business.
This is not “outdated”. It is theft and they have a responsibility to press charges or they might as well not claim copyright to begin with and offer everything they do for free and ask for donations.
Maybe as a Glass Installer he was repairing a glass window in the editing suite and quickly downloaded the file using Tom Cruise skills and a hefty USB.
But seriously, I feel that people believe theft of films is not a crime because it is not a physical product so people have a hard time evaluating the actual theft. Also, since it is a product that generates a possible millions of dollars in revenue it is hard to assess the actual damages in worth.
What people have to start understanding is that just because you didn’t break into the building and steal the movie it is still stealing. Especially when a early release of an unfinished film could mean the difference between breaking even or even generating a loss. Which could then result into people losing jobs. You don’t just steal from one person you steal from hundreds of people who worked to put out that film for you.
In the end I think the debate of piracy is coming to an end because I feel that sooner than later it won’t be possible.
It’s one thing to rip a movie from dvd and share it on the internet, it’s another thing to rip a movie that hasn’t even been released to theatres yet. Not really different as far as illegal goes but different as far as that guy made himself the sole target of a huge company. A DVD rip could come from an unknown amount of sources. That rip came from one place.
That guy’s sooooo dumb.
I didn’t download that, nor do I download any movies. Netflix is 8 bucks a month pretty affordable.
I agree with you. We live in a new era, and this new era needs some new rules to make sense. Releasing a film on the net before it’s actually released in theaters is much more damaging than releasing it after, particularly when it’s a screen copy and doesn’t have all the effects. And just watching the things shouldn’t be anything but a fine.
Prison should be for the true dangers to society — we have an overpopulation problem as it is.
That “Print” killed that movies chances of creating excitment and good buzz.
Sucks really…
Then again, so did Will I am
just sayin’
I do not pirate stuff (just getting that out there) but that movie being terrible killed it. I keep my ear to the rail on this kind of stuff and the pub from this workprint was unprecidented. Had the movie been quality there would have been a box office boom in my opinion based on all the pub surrounding that workprint (how much I don’t know but it would have been some).
Its scary when you think of internet piracy because of how easy it is to do. I worry about my kids because if my son does something and it comes back on my IP I am screwed, now i monitor what he does but if I miss something I am cooked. It is just too damn easy that it makes me hope that they go after distributors and the initial thiefs and not the unfortunate person who clicks on a bad link on some website.
I never saw/downloaded the movie, but I always thought the studio was behind it somehow. At the time there were a lot of questions marks surrounding Wolverine. I think the studio let it out as a marketing ploy of sorts. The thought process (at least in my theory) is that if people hated it, blame it on an unfinished product. If they loved it, imagine how much more you will love it if you paid to see the finished product.
I dont see any situation where releasing this workprint would have benefited the studio.
Seeing the movie ahead of time would only hurt boxoffice. There are very few isolated events where this workprint (even if you thought it was great) would have encouraged MORE people to see the movie.
Rodney, that’s not true. Seeing things in advance let’s you have a better sense over whether or not you want to go see it in a full cinema setting. There’s actually been studies on this and, in general, sales haven’t been hurt by the presence of online bootlegs. I’m sure there are exceptions (perhaps Wolverine being one of them), but in those cases, it probably has more to do with the fact that the movies are crap than it does the release itself.
I downloaded that movie but dident even watch 20 minutes of it when I realized it wasent finished and sucked pretty badly.
I still went to see it in theaters cause hey its wolverine you have to see that on a real big screen.
its a stupid law cause how in hell will a glass instaler pay 1/4 million bucks now its the studio robbing food from his childrens plates.
they should find the guy who gave him the copy and charge that guy not the poor glass instaler.
they should realize that true fans want to see it in theaters and a movie like wolverine will be a box office success no mater what.
people who download videos are just people who aint fans and probbly wouldent see the movie unless they got too for free.
Its not a “stupid law” it’s a stupid criminal. The fine is too high? Maybe they should make it more reasonable so that its easier for this criminal to pay it back? Fines and jail time are meant to encourage people into NOT committing the crime. There is no reason to go easy on them just because they got caught. He is getting everything he deserves and was warned about. He willingly committed this act of copyright infringement admitting he knew it was wrong. The law dictates it was wrong, he knew it, did it anyways. The law also dictates the fine, which he knew he would face.
Nothing stupid about that law.
And they should charge the guy who gave it to him and the thief who smuggled it out of the effects studio. They should ALL be charged.. even this guy.
And people who download videos ARE fans. They want to see it, but they are too spineless to pay for it. They do it BECAUSE its “free”, but it doesn’t change that it is stealing. They wouldn’t download something they didn’t want to see, just to say they did.
People’s lives shouldn’t be ruined because of one mistake, Rodney. Don’t be silly. Things like prison should be reserved for truly violent and otherwise dangerous people, and the huge-mega fines should be for the Wall Street types who… by and large… haven’t payed a nickel for almost destroying the entire world’s economy (seriously, not a single damn person has been prosecuted from one of the many big banks that committed illegal acts trying to get people to sign up for mortgages they couldn’t afford).
Let’s get our priorities straight, alright?
No one is a fan of that movie. Furthermore, no one can’t prove that a single ticket stub was lost due to the leaked footage. The bad reviews however, likely did.
A person who downloaded the movie wasn’t guaranteed to watch the movie until the moment of the download. The huge fine is just stupid. Make him pay $250 and send him on his way.
Jail time is for people who need to be removed from society. Is this guy really such a danger to the common man?
Its not an issue of priorities. The law states that infringing copyright is serious and many people are affected by it. There is a fine set in place and warnings on EVERY movie. He willingly entered into an act that he knew could potentially lead to those fines.
So we should ignore him and allow him to do this because there are WORSE criminals out there? No. There are plenty of law enforcement officers and lawyers and judges to deal with these crimes as well as rapists and murderers.
Just because the law says that something is wrong doesn’t always make it so. Should one understand the risks involved when breaking the law? Certainly. Does that mean that criminals are morally bankrupt simply by virtue of the fact that they broke the law? Not necessarily.
The issues around copyright and the protection of intellectual property in the twenty first century are complicated because we’re living in an age when society and law has not caught up with technology. The same difficult questions arose when printing was first introduced to Western society on a mass scale.
It’s one thing to counsel people to obey the law, but it’s another entirely to dismiss or beg the question of the law’s severity and morality.