Newsbytes reports that bootleg versions of the wildly successful Spider-Man movie [Damn good in my opinion - Ed.] are already being distributed via the Internet ('Spidey' Already Being Swapped By Online Pirates). While Spider-Man was only available a day before it hit the big screens, the LA Times (reg. req.) reports that Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones has been bootlegged a week before its actual release (Latest Plot Twist for 'Star Wars': Attack of the Cloners). This is not surprising. At a minimum, within a day or two of any movie being released, bootleg videos based on camcorder recordings of showings are available on certain streets in New York City. Within a week, pirated VideoCDs pressed in Asia are available in the US. Even Seinfeld did a show with a plot thread about this bootlegging process, The Little Kicks. Should anyone be surprised that these bootlegs will subsequently be made available via the Internet? Is there any real significance to the fact that these bootlegs are being made available via the Internet?
Yes and no.
For Hollywood, the significance of this piracy is (they claim) that it can be used to justify laws such as the DMCA and CBDTPA. After all, the piracy is taking place via the Internet, thus it must be digital and we all know how dangerous digital piracy is (perfect copies ad infinitum). As the LA Times puts it:
The pirating of "Attack of the Clones" lends fuel to the film industry's efforts in Washington to crack down on piracy. While the studios' trade association steps up its enforcement activities, their lobbyists are pushing for laws that would require computers and consumer electronics to be modified to deter unauthorized copying.
Of course, this is a non-sequitur.
For reasonable people, the significance of this piracy is that it undermines justification for laws such as the DMCA and CBDTPA.
The Analog Fallacy
One of the most prominent and recurrent arguments of the copyright interests is that "digital piracy" is far worse than "analog piracy" and thus justifies the imposition of draconian paracopyright laws, such as the DMCA and CBDTPA. I refer to this argument as the "analog fallacy." The fallacy is that analog piracy is not nearly as threatening as digital piracy because analog copies degrade with every generation while digital copies remain pristine no matter how many copies are made. While true in a strict sense, the fallacy is that most of the assumptions necessary for this argument to be true are not realistic. For example, one prominent proponent of this argument is Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-Disney), who made this statement when introducing the CBDTPA:
The reality is that a lack of security has enabled significant copyright piracy which drains America’s content industries to the tune of billions of dollars every year. For example, the movie studios estimate that they lose over $3 billion annually by way of analog piracy. In order to pirate copyrighted movies via analog formats, an individual makes an illegal copy of the movie (sometimes by taping it in a movie theater with a personal video recorder) and then distributes it, in analog form, at discount. However, because subsequent copies of analog movies degrade over time, there is a limit to the success of this type of piracy.
In a digital age, however, the piracy threat is exponentially magnified. So on the Internet, copyrighted content — be it a movie, a book, music, or software — travels in a digital language of 1s and 0s, and every copy of that content, from the 1st to the 1000th is as pristine as the original. Also, unlike an analog pirated movie, which must be physically packaged and transported, a digital copy can be sent around the world on the Internet with a single click of a mouse. The copyright industries are justifiably worried about distributing their content on the Internet absent strong copyright protection measures. As Internet access becomes increasingly available over high-speed, broadband connections, these worries will only heighten.
In the first paragraph of the above quote, when Sen. Hollings refers to the $3 billion figure as "analog piracy," he is being either ignorant or deliberately misleading. I choose to believe that he is being deliberately misleading. The $3 billion figure from the MPAA is not "analog piracy" — it is all piracy that takes place without the Internet. Now, certainly, all piracy that takes place over the Internet is digital, but that does not mean that piracy that takes place without the Internet is analog. If someone is selling pirated CDs, those CDs are just as digital as the MP3s downloaded off the Internet. The same goes for the bootleg DVDs that were part of the first DVD burner arrests, according to this MPAA press release (First Ever DVD Burner Lab Raided in New York). Note this press release, I will be referring back to it. Slashdot readers noted the raid at the time as well (MPAA Finds First Actual DVD Copiers in U.S.).
As far as I can tell, the MPAA does not publically break out its piracy statistics as either "analog" or "digital." However, they do break out domestic and international piracy. Apparently, domestic (U.S.) piracy costs, according to Hollywood's own figures, $250 million per year (Film Studios Settle Civil Action Against Internet Pirate). Even assuming that the CBDTPA would entirely eliminate this form of piracy (yeah, right), is it likely a cost-benefit analysis would favor the law? $250 million seems a relatively small figure to me.
Of course, it almost goes without mentioning that the $3 billion and $250 million figures are almost assuredly inflated, unverifiable and the methodology used to create the estimates highly questionable. If you are interested in how difficult it is to estimate piracy, please see this article (On Software "Piracy", Lies, BSA, Microsoft, Rocks, and Hard Penguins). Aside: the domestic losses are estimated at only $250 million.
After getting the piracy figures wrong, Sen. Hollings proceeds to argue the analog fallacy. For an added bonus, he also gets his facts wrong.
The first problem with the analog fallacy is the assumption that, even when distributing content in analog form, the original bootleg "master" is also analog and will ultimately suffer from degradation, as a VCR tape would after a number of viewings. However, this assumption doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's use Hollings' own example of someone recording a movie in a theater with a camcorder. Chances are, and the liklihood of this increases every day, the camcorder is digital. This means that the original bootleg "master", from which all further bootlegs will be made, is digital. If the camcorder recording is a second generation copy, then the analog copies made from the camcorder recording will be third generation copies. There will be no fourth generation, no fifth generation, no n-generation copies marching into a dessicated future of analog degradation.
Referring back to the MPAA's press release on the DVD burner raid, I note the MPAA's claim that, "all of the 'masters' for the pirate copies were pirate DVDs." Obviously, when burning bootleg DVDs, the master is almost certainly going to be digital. However, there is no reason why the pirates in this case could not have been recording VHS tapes using the digital master. Indeed, if I were making pirate videos after a movie had been released on DVD, my "master" copy would be a DVD. All I would have to do in order to make infinite numbers of second-generation copies from a high-quality studio-issued DVD would be to disable Macrovision. Oh, wait a minute, video pirates are already doing this according to the MPAA (Police Arrest Two LA Residents in Largest Local Video Piracy Bust in 2000). Gosh, I wonder how difficult it would be to take Macrovision-free output from a DVD and re-capture it as a digital signal, assuming DeCSS wasn't available?
In one aspect, digital copies are often subject to more purposeful degradation than analog copies. With analog copies, pirates will attempt to mimimize degradation in order to be as successful as possible. In the case of digital bootlegs, however, the original copy is frequently purposefully degraded through use of compression technology. A "CAM" recording has lousy quality to begin with, but the original file size is still going to be very large, several Gigabytes at a minimum. In order to reduce the file size, in order to make downloading easier, the file will be compressed, almost certainly with a "lossy compression" scheme. Lossy compression means that some of the data in the original is thrown out; the scheme "loses" some of the data. While this makes for a smaller file, it also means that the file has been degraded in quality as well.
This points out another false assumption of the analog fallacy — that the initial bootleg "master" copy is pristine. Digital copies may be flawless, generation after generation, but that does not really matter if the master copy is flawed to begin with. In such cases, the flaws themselves are reproduced generation of copy after generation. To use Sen. Hollings' example of a movie recorded by a camcorder, chances are that the picture and audio quality of the recording (although digital) are pretty crummy (see "CAM" in the glossary below). Thus, every bootleg made from this "master" will be a "pristine" copy of a low-quality original.
This leads to schizophenria on the part of Hollywood, which has never been conducive to mental stability in the first place. For example, while Jack Valenti attacks the danger of digital copying for being pristine (A Clear Present and Future Danger), he simultaneously claims (in the press release regarding the DVD burner raid) that digital copies "dupe consumers into purchasing a wholly inferior product." Even when making videocassetes from a DVD, the result "rob[s] consumers of a quality viewing experience by offering an inferior product," according to Ken Jacobsen, Senior Vice President and Director, Worldwide Anti-Piracy, MPA. But wait, in another press release (MPAA Identifies Malaysia as Hotbed of Intellectual Property Theft), Valenti states that, "Unlike traditional analog video piracy, a pirate digital disc is as pristine and pure as the original, further blurring the lines of legitimate and pirate product in the eyes of the consumer." Wholly inferior product or pristine and pure as the original? Hollywood can't seem to make up its mind.
Of course, the analog fallacy also assumes that the quality of bootleg copies makes a significant difference to the level of piracy. However, the significance of the quality of the bootleg as a factor in piracy is undetermined. All other things being equal, of course, the quality of the bootleg will make a difference, but not all factors are equal. At present, and for the forseeable future, most people face significant barriers in obtaining pirated goods. Like other illicit goods, there are significant costs associated with obtaining pirated materials. In the realm of physical copies, bootlegs are only available in shady areas from less than reputable dealers who are seldom easy-to-find and are not typically around very long. Certainly, there is no recourse if the goods are shoddy (they almost always are) or misrepresented (attempt to buy a copy of Attack of the Clones and get a copy of Look Whose Talking Now instead [Shudder - Ed.]).
In cyberspace, similar barriers exist. Attempting to find pirated materials through a search engine will likely lead the average consumer down an endless path of mousetrapping "warez" sites without any actual pirated materials available. Those looking for bootleg movies must also contend with the possibility that they will be downloading malware, such as viruses or Trojan horse programs, instead. It goes without saying that downloading a compressed movie can take hours and, as noted above, the compressed movie is likely to be of lousy quality. Finally, even if the user finds what appears to be the right file, they can be duped just as in the physical world. The FuzzyBlog! attempted to download Attack of the Clones but ended up with what sounds like Showtime instead (Star Wars Update: How Very Strange).
What this means is that the desirability of bootleg movies seems to have little to do with the quality of the bootleg. When movies are readily available at the local Blockbuster to rent at $2.50 for a few days (with guaranteed availability) or are available for purchase for less than $24 (or even cheaper "pre-viewed") quality would not seem to be a significant consideration with regard to whether a bootlegged movie is desired. Thus, Hollywood's obsession with the "pristine" nature of digital copies is misplaced. Some bootlegged movies may or may not be "pristine" copies, but the consumer of such pirated works is never going to be able to guarantee that they will be able to get one of the "pristine" copies.
We are living in a digital world and, despite Hollywood's desires, that is not going to change. As long as content exists in analog form (which it must if we are to perceive it), it is only one-generation away from being digitized. The only way to prevent this sort of digitization is through totalitarian controls on all digital devices. Thankfully, that is highly unlikely to happen. Moreover, even if such controls were partially successful and digital bootlegs were thereby somewhat degraded in quality due to this digital-analog-digital conversion process, that would not appear to be a significant barrier to piracy. Once digitized, the only controls available are those controls that are available for digital content generally. This means controlling distribution, not copying. Reasonable laws would focus on limiting illicit distribution, not control of consumer devices. But to continue...
With regard to piracy via a single click of a mouse (Mickey?), Sen. Hollings and Hollywood have little to worry about; I believe Amazon has patented the process.
Eliminating the General Purpose Personal Computer is the Answer to What Problem?
Hollywood's proposed solution for piracy, and the solution that the existence of Spider-Man and Star Wars bootlegs supposedly lends support to, is that the government mandate copyright holder control over all consumer media devices, including the personal computer, so that consumers cannot make copies of legitimate digital media. The obvious problem with this as a solution to the existence of Spider-Man bootlegs is that Spider-Man is not available on legitimate digital media. Spider-Man and Attack of the Clones bootlegs have apparently been made as "Telesyncs" (see Glossary below). Telesyncs are created, not by consumers, but by bootleggers usually working in conjunction with theater employees or management. However, this does not rule out complicity by employees within Hollywood (what theater has a copy of Attack of the Clones?).
Even were the CBDTPA effective (a highly dubious assumption), it would not make any difference to this form of piracy. The only thing that might prevent this form of piracy is a totalitarian complete ban of all devices that play non-certified content. If, as Hollywood claims, such piracy is "a complete disaster [for] the home video business" (LA Times article above), of what use are "laws that would require computers and consumer electronics to be modified to deter unauthorized copying"? The copying is taking place in theaters, not consumer electronics.
Such laws only make sense if you have no idea what you are talking about, as in this ZDNet News commentary piece (Pirated movies: Now playing on a server near you) — "IT SEEMS hackers originally get hold of the latest movies by making copies of DVDs with a standard DVD burner." [emphasis in original] It may SEEM that way to the author, but in reality, how in the world can one get a copy of the latest movies on DVD when they haven't been released in DVD format? Moreover, what do DVD burners have to do with it? You don't need a DVD burner to make a copy of a DVD, you only need a DVD player.
Finding Bootleg Movies
Where can bootlegs be found? That in itself raises some interesting legal questions. The one method mentioned in the Newsbytes article is through the website ShareReactor.com [WARNING: Many Annoying Popups]. ShareReactor is a web-based interface for the filesharing system known as eDonkey2000. Basically, ShareReactor is a catalog that keeps visitors informed of new releases available through the eDonkey network. More importantly, ShareReactor provides hyperlinks that initiate searches via eDonkey software. In other words, ShareReactor does not host copyright infringing files, nor do they link to infringing files, but they automate the search process for infringing files. For the most part, courts have been reluctant to find linking illegal. It is an interesting question as to whether automating a search process, which is a special case of linking, would have more or less protection.
Another service that ShareReactor provides is verification. According to their FAQ, ShareReactor verifies both the availability (which is why they only link to popular files) and the characteristics of the file. In order to reduce the problem of downloading one thing only to find that it is something else, ShareReactor provides the "hash" of verified files. Although such a system can be spoofed, spoofing a hash is not nearly as easy as changing the file name from showtime.avi to AotC.avi. These services are legally dubious, but the questions involved here have not yet been litigated.
The filesharing progam itself, eDonkey, is one of the new breed of file sharing software projects. It is a relatively sophisticated variation on the client-server file-sharing architecture pioneered by Napster and, now, FastTrack (the technology behind KaZaA and Grokster). Like many peer-to-peer projects, eDonkey does not actually control or run any of the servers that host eDonkey software. Instead, they merely provide the software (though apparently derive some ad revenue by sending ads to those who use it). Rather than having one centralized server that tracks and indexes all the files available, ala Napster, numerous volunteer servers provide this function for the eDonkey network. You can read detailed reviews and descriptions of how eDonkey works at InfoAnarchy (eDonkey2000 v0.56 Review) and MP3 Newswire.net (Review: eDonkey2000). Although the MPAA and RIAA have not yet targeted eDonkey with litigation, it is probably only a question of popularity (when eDonkey gets too popular, it will be sued).
Guide to Some Bootleg Movie Terminology
CAM - Recorded in a cinema with a consumer-quality camcorder and/or where the audience can be seen or heard. Picture quality is generally poor to reasonable but sound quality is frequently poor or marred by other noises. Can be accomplished by anyone willing to try to sneak a camcorder into the theater.
LD/DVD Rip - Accomplished simply by copying a LaserDisc or DVD. Picture and audio quality are generally very good.
Telesync (TS) - Recorded in a cinema, but usually with professional-level equipment and a separate audio source (so the audience cannot be heard). Picture and audio quality is usually very good. Generally requires inside assistance by theater personnel. Digital Digest, a resource site for digital video enthusiasts, provides detailed instructions on the creation of "telesyncs" or "screeners" (Encopo's Film ==> DivX Telesync guide).
Telecine (TC) - Accomplished in a number of ways, but always taken directly from the film reel. The most common method is to use a device, called a telecine machine, that runs the film reel through a specialized projector that generates a VHS tape. Alternately, the projector can output other formats, such as HDTV or digital audio and video. Quality generally ranges from good to excellent. However, poorly maintained telecine machines are subject to various problems such as "telecine wobble," in which the video image seems to jitter back and forth. This equipment is expensive and requires access to a film reel. Popular with professional pirating operations.
Subbed - The movie has subtitles. This is frequently the case with bootleg films originating in Asia. Usually there is only a single language subtitled, but occasionally two or three languages are subtitled simultaneously, significantly degrading the picture quality.
Screener - Generally recorded from promotional videotapes or DVDs which have been sent to film critics, marketing firms, etc. These are especially popular during Oscar season, when large quantities of tapes are sent to various members of the film industry. The quality is usually very high or excellent, though often the picture is marred by source and copyright notices.
Watermarks - Similar to the network identifier logos frequently seen in the lower corners of broadcast television, a watermark is small letter or logo visible in the picture. These letter codes or logos are used to identify the group or individual who originated the bootleg. Occasionally, THX or AC3 symbols will be used to convince purchasers that the sound quality is superior. Less frequently, these watermarks will draw attention to themselves by moving about annoyingly.
Work-Print - Accomplished in a number of ways, but usually taken from a film reel. These are usually pre-finished versions of movies. Scenes may be missing, alternate endings might be part of the package, sound may not yet have been added or special effects may not be complete. Quality varies, but audio is frequently excellent (although not what will be in the finished version) and the picture is usually good. Access generally requires inside assistance by members of the production chain.
Additional Resources:
Thanks to the Shifted Librarian, who is similarly baffled as to why Hollywood is so concerned with controlling consumer devices and provided some additional links for this article.
Salon — (Copies of "Star Wars" sequel online)
Slashdot — (Bootleg Star Wars AotC Debuts on Internet).