Photos
Some dude’s about to walk the Green Mile. From the Hollywood Reporter:
Gilberto Sanchez, who said he bought a copy of the 2009 Hugh Jackman superhero movie on a street corner near his home in the Bronx, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow, who described his actions as “extremely serious.”
“The federal prison sentence handed down in this case sends a strong message of deterrence to would-be Internet pirates,” U.S. attorney Andre Birotte Jr. said in a statement. “The Justice Department will pursue and prosecute persons who seek to steal the intellectual property of this nation.”
The Sanchez case received a ton of attention in 2009 because the unfinished print of the entire Wolverine film had appeared online about a month before its theatrical release. The 20th Century Fox movie ended up grossing $373 million worldwide, leading some observers to debate whether the leak impacted (or even added to) its overall performance.
Huh. Well, let’s talk about THIS!
Even if you have a genuine moral opposition towards the illegal downloading of other people’s intellectual property, which you should, at least somewhat, because to a certain extent it is definitely hurting someone whose work you probably appreciate and admire, that probably doesn’t stop you from doing it. Because everyone is doing it. The overwhelming belief that everything should just be FREE now is as pervasive and intractable as it is unrealistic and unsustainable. But the difficult truth of the matter is that for as much as we like to think that we’re robbing artists of their incomes, it’s not the artists we actually need to worry about, insofar as even if the whole thing collapses, someone, somewhere, will still make a thing. The will to create and to express oneself has been going on (oh boy, no duh) for a lot longer than there were iPods and torrent sites. Obviously. At least until we tear the whole system to the ground, the people we actually do need to take into consideration are the corporations that provide the distribution system. Because we do like a lot of the movies and the TV shows and the books and the music that they are financing. But they’re goal has nothing to do with entertaining us or making the world a more interesting place. It’s just about money. And if they stop making money, they will stop investing in these properties. And if they stop investing in these properties, we will no longer have access to them. And that would be a bummer.
I don’t feel pity for businesses. I’m not crying tears for them. But I do think we need to take into account what the actual ramifications are for bankrupting them by refusing to pay for their products. It means no more products. And we love products! (One might then try and point to the Louis C.K. self-distributed stand up special as an example of an alternative, profitable, and artist-friendly distribution model but I think this is unrealistic. For one thing, that works for Radiohead and the world’s most popular stand up comedian of the moment, but a “pay what you will” structure isn’t going to work for a band you’ve never heard of, or a Television show. On that same note, even Louis C.K. said he’d like to make a movie but that in order to do so he’d have to make 8 million dollars off of an additional special in order to make a movie. A) sure, but, you know, OK, and b) 8 million dollars isn’t even that good of a budget for a movie, but it’s so much money to wring out of a 5$ torrent. The idea of individuals creating self-financed and self-distributed stand up specials in order to fund the art of filmmaking is not how that is going to happen. Just as an example.)
So, it’s a problem. IN CASE YOU WEREN’T AWARE.
But then we get to this dude who is going to federal prison for a year and it’s like OH BROTHER. I’m not condoning what he did. He sounds like a real doofus. Not only did he upload the movie to a torrent site, but apparently he went around to other sites and excitedly posted about what he’d done. C’mon son! Even if we all download things illegally (and I am just kidding about that by the way, your honor, I have never done that and I was joking) we also all know that you’re not really supposed to and would probably be a little more careful about patient-zero-uploading a movie to the Internet a month before the movie was even released. (It somehow seems worth pointing out that Gilberto Sanchez is 49 years old. For some reason that makes this story even sadder to me, even if he should have known even better.)
But a year in prison! In full light of the fact that the movie went on to make 373 MILLION dollars. Some sad dude in the Bronx fumbling a misguided attempt to literally be the “cool kid on the block” for a day is going to prison for something that we could confirm prior to sentencing was in no way financially detrimental to the plaintiffs. Gross. It’s gross! Occupy Gross Street. 373 MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS. That is SO MANY. Luckily, though, I’m sure using this case to make an example of this man to show people that illegally downloading is a crime has worked and no one will ever do it again. So never mind, actually. PROBLEM SOLVED.
 |
 |
You Might Also Like
 Sounds Like Joe Francis Is Doing Great |  The Perfect Crime: Tweeting About Digging Up Marilyn… |  Justice Round-Up |  The Internet Is A Sociopath |
Leave a Reply
Sign inSign in with FacebookYou must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.
Snikt!
Steve, I can’t believe you missed the chance to jump on a grammatical error in this post:
“But they’re goal has nothing to do with entertaining us or making the world a more interesting place.”
Helping Steve Winwood helps everyone, right? Or am I doing this “commentator” thing wrong?
you’re the best there is at what you do, “megabee”… and what you do… isn’t very nice… SNIKT!!!!
gesundheit
For what it’s worth, I don’t think it should matter that the movie made a lot of money anyway. The penalties for IP theft are there to keep people from doing it whether or not they know what the eventual financial impact of the theft will be, and that’s a good thing.
I know that this is a Big Hollywood production, and it’s hard to feel particularly bad for them when something like this happens, but if I made a small movie on a $100k budget that I hoped to submit to a festival and get picked up for distribution, I’d want the same protection from the Justice Department. The difference between the big movie and the small movie is quantitative, not qualitative.
Although, if you made a small movie, you might WANT your work pirated. I had a friend who was overjoyed when he first discovered his music being downloaded illegally, because that meant that somebody was searching him out, and likely sharing his work. Even though it didn’t make any money for him, it spread word about his work, which is ultimately more valuable.
Whether or not the pirating turned out to be a good thing, I’d still want to be the one to decide how and when it gets out there.
Fair enough. Also, this isn’t even the first time this guy has been arrested for this same crime, so while that kind of undermines their plan to use it as a deterrent (it didn’t even deter skillz), it DOES imply that he probably deserves more than a year.
A move I’ve been looking forward to, Friends with Kids (starring Adam Scott and Jon Hamm, ladies), recently leaked online about four months before its scheduled release. It’s an independent film with ‘less than a $10 million budget’, which is probably still kind of a lot but also much less than the Wolverine movie. I’m not sure how much of an impact this leak will have on the movie’s overall numbers, especially since it seems like the kind of movie that will appeal specifically to Adam Scott-lovers, but who knows. Maybe early viewers will love it and tell everyone else to see it rather than download it when it comes out in theaters.
You’re right that the worst thing about movies, music, etc. leaking is that the producers of the content don’t have any control over the leak. Some musicians will purposefully leak fake copies of their records that then circulate over the internet; maybe the same should happen with films now.
I see your point and it’s definitely a valid one. Artists should be paid for their work regardless of how ridiculous the amount of money they make is. There’s a lot of people not paying for content they just expect for free or at a severely discounted price.
That said, I do, however, put some of the blame on the movie companies for not handling this better. If movies were cheaper and easier to obtain they’d still make a killer profit. What’s going on with pirated movies is not unlike the days of napster and what Steve Jobs did to turn the music industry around. Also, turning piraters into criminals also does little to deter and if anything makes people more upset with the companies and puts more people in prison in an already over-crowded prison community.
I think the journalism industry could learn from this too. The NY Times subscription service is ridiculous and incredibly byzantine. I have a subscription but can’t access all the news on my iPhone without paying a lot more. They’d get way more subscribers and happy customers (and almost certainly more money) if they did this differently, more straightforward and cheaper.
The question is, if the case involved a pirated indy art film instead of a big hollywood film, would it be receiving the same publicity or sentence? While it would be nice to think the same protection would apply to everyone, that is probably not the case.
From Deadline Hollywood:
“Gilberto Sanchez, 49, who resides in The Bronx and who used screen names that were variations on “skillz,” was sentenced by United States District Judge Margaret M. Morrow, who described the offense as’“extremely serious.’ ”
So this is a 49-year old man who gives himself names using variations of “skillz?” Oh yeah, he should do really well in prison.
This reminds me, I have a movie project that I’m funding through Kickstarter. The working title is Spider-Man 4 and the target amount is $450m. If you donate more than $10 you get a free download of the movie and any donation over $1m will also get you a date with one of the crewmembers.
You almost had me when I thought it said “Lethal Weapon 5″
I have mentioned before that I work at an intellectual property firm, so I somehow feel obligated to try to dissuade everyone from ever illegally download anything (don’t! Corporations likely have more money than you! They can afford roving packs of lawyers). That was my LBT PSA for the day, now back to your regularly-scheduled Swinton jokes.
Good thing for Goldman Sachs they were too busy fraudulently sucking tens of billions of dollars out of the economy to get into the selling pirated movies business or they might have gotten in trouble.
Srsly. I feel safer knowing this guy is off the streets. Now I can go back to roasting a squirrel over a burning ashcan for my children to eat when they get back from selling matches on the corner.
I thought Hugh Jackman was the one who leaked it.
This is the correct pee-sponse.
If I could double thumbs-up this, I would.
Urine luck, because I used my upvote on your behalf!
I wonder if Jerry’s still in business?
I watched Moneyball and Contagion last weekend. Can’t beat the early releases with illegal downloading. I’m a pirate and I’m going to be doing it for as long as I can get away with it.
You goddamn fucking bastard…. Take it back!
So, what should happen to this guy?
It’s hard to say. Hell, it’s even hard to argue that piracy is actually impacting revenues. I was never going to pay to see the stupid Wolverine movie, so me downloading it isn’t exactly a lost sale. A year in prison is a bit intense though.
Piracy will eventually impact revenues. Look at what’s happened to the music industry. I think it’s a lot easier to pirate music right now, sure, but movie pirates will catch up. Me and my friends work in the movies, so it’s worrying because the film industry is already downsizing and the future doesn’t look good.
It’s questionable if what has happened to the music industry is a result of piracy, or with their very slow response to adapting to the internet. iTunes has replaced Napster. While there are still some that pirate, the ease and speed that you can get music through iTunes means that a lot of people don’t feel the need. Pirating isn’t entirely about people getting stuff for free … there are other elements of convenience, etc. TV has sort of figured things out, and with PVRs, on demand, and online streaming sites like Hulu, etc, they have tried to make it possible to allow people to watch what they want, when they want.
The music industry, reacted the same way that all the industries reacted in the past. TV actors in the early years of the BBC didn’t allow repeat broadcasts because they didn’t want to be screwed out of money, demanding full pay for each repeat, so they would keep getting hired for new work. Cassette tapes and VHS were fought against vehenemently because people would be able to pirate that way, etc.
Fear of change is understandable, and it’s possible that the film industry is downsizing because it is too big. With more and more TV channels, web content being generated, and just tons of content out there, the idea of mainstream entertainment is stretching thin. With so much niche entertainment available, the plurality that makes up the mainstream is getting smaller, and most would rather something targetted to their specific interests compared to something with broader appeal. So the wide release, marketing blitz, huge investment and huge return blockbuster may start to fade. While Avatar can still make billions, there does seem to be less big blockbuster hits. And piracy can hardly be the blame, since most films are judged on their opening weekend box office pull. The Wolverine case was a rare exception where the film was leaked early, but more often than not, there are crappy bootlegs that show up, but nothing of quality until someone gets their hands on a screener copy or there is some sort of official home release that can be copied.
It’s possible that, in the future, the ammount of money spent on film, and television, will go down. That the people investing will see a smaller return on investment, or may just have to be happy with investing less. The millions put into advertising films may be cut back, as most films double their budgets when you factor in costs of advertising. The internet has democratized a lot of things, and entertainment is one of them. With entertainment being spread around, from little youtube videos, to blogs, to nearly every TV show or film of the past or present available through some means, the competition that anything new is up against is much bigger than it ever was before. The days of watching what is on because there are only a few channels and one screen at the local cinema are a thing of the past. The movie industry adapted to VHS, DVD, BluRay and onDemand … it needs to figure out how to deal with this as well.
Of course, the answer seems to be to give Congress a lot of money and get them to pass a bill to censor the internet like China does.
It’s complicated, sure. But still, don’t steal my movie.
I promise not to steal your movie. But I can’t say the same for the studios or the RIAA, because apparently they aren’t just torrenting, but doing it on the company IPs. http://gizmodo.com/5869321/dear-recording-industry-pay-9-million-for-pirating-tv-shows-or-shut-up http://gizmodo.com/5867679/movie-studios-caught-pirating-movies
iTunes didn’t replace Napster or Limewire or whatever came after Napster, Torrentz did. Free wasn’t replaced by pay, it was replaced by free, of course.
And pirating is 100% about getting things for free. A convenience argument is invalid now because of sites like iTunes. It is now just as easy to obtain things on the internet legally, but most people steal. It was, in fact, invalid before, because people were taking hours to download things on dial-up before iTunes. People will do what is less convenient if it means getting something for free.
As for the last point, SOPA may not be the solution we need, but clearly something is needed. The slippery slope argument that our government will somehow use this bill to censor the internet like China does is absolutely absurd.
Theft isn’t karma for the music industry not anticipating how we would steal things next, and it’s not a referendum on how much money is being spent to make films. It’s simply theft. However, if people are used to getting things for free, you can put ads on music and movies and offer them for free. This is really the only change that can take place that can compete with piracy, because a pay alternative will not be chosen over piracy by a majority of the population. We have seen this already.
Will ads bring in enough money? Are there enough advertisers out there? Will people be willing to accept commercials mixed in with their albums and movies? If piracy is still not regulated, will people choose to pirate ad free copies instead? These will the questions that need answering.
As for addressing pirating outside of something like SOPA, entertainment companies need to start suing Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple, and other internet service providers for not blocking access to piracy sites. Force them to regulate themselves, since they seem to not have a desire to do it on their own. And please don’t confuse free speech with being allowed to steal. These things are completely unrelated. The word “censorship” cannot be twisted enough to be applied here no matter how much our own selfishness blinds and biases us.
@vglog – but you’re arguing that making a digital copy is theft, which it isn’t.
There is a difference between walking into a store and stealing – taking a physical copy of a cd and leaving the store…an object that takes up space and has wrapping and a price tag on it, and required a truck to deliver it, and a shelf to hold it – and torrenting. It may not be ethical, but it is not “simply theft” and the simplifying of this thing IS in fact part of the problem. Because money does in fact exchange hands.
The answer that nobody wants to talk about is to follow the flow of money, and tax whoever is capitalizing on it. ISPs make money from charging consumers a fee to download music. It’s right there.
Forced to watch X-Men Origins: Wolverine at least twice, Clockwork Orange-style.
Make him Hugh Jackman’s peesonal assistant.
Urine the right tract.
I usually see everything I want to see when it’s released in the theatre and I have Netflix , BUT I live in Canada so because of laws requiring broadcasters to play a certain amount of (terrible, low-budget, poorly written for the most part) Canadian content as well as byzantine licensing regulations AND collusion between our government and our 3 media companies a lot of the TV shows I love (Top Chef, Louie) and some older or obscure movies aren’t available here. Hell, I can’t even view a lot of videos online because they, “Aren’t available in (my) location.” So I know people (I never said it was me) who download TV shows or movies simply because there is no legal way to easily view them.
That said, I understand prosecuting someone who pirates videos for profit or even someone that leaks something before its release date as in this case. Although, I think a low fine (around the amount for a speeding ticket) would be reasonable in most cases while in others, where actual damages can be proven, a civil suit could be brought. Criminalizing piracy isn’t the answer.
I really agree with the assessment of this Swiss study:
http://boingboing.net/2011/12/03/swiss-govt-study-downloadin.html
The people I know who download media (again, I didn’t say I do it) are the same ones that go to the theatre, go to concerts, buy records, own DVRs and subscribe to services like Netflix.
As a final point, my wife and I played in a band for a number of years and we made almost no money from record sales; in fact, the attention we received from people ‘illegally’ sharing our music resulted in licensing deals and radio play which actually paid for the recording of our second album.
I agree with quite a few of these points – to the last one especially: if you’re making records to make money solely off those records, then I think you are living in a very different time.
But then again this depends if you funded the record yourself or if you’re recoupable to a label. And it depends on if your recoup includes publicity, advertisements.
Illegal sharing is exposure. The reason you never hear the little guy complaining about file-sharing is because it’s awesome that people are listening to something you made if you aren’t building a fan base through other channels, like CCC radio or the Blorgosphore. I think clearly the big guy has a reasonable complaint. But when the big guy is Universal or Sony, it’s really quite hard to feel sympathetic.
Exactly! Another reason I don’t feel very much sympathy for the major labels, or the big studios for that matter is that rather than trying to innovate and find different ways to monetize their product they have chosen instead to jack up prices and lobby legislators to criminalize file sharing all in an effort to cling to a dying business model.
Oops, that was supposed to be a reply.
In my mind, this is karma for a half-century of forcing consumers to buy new, inferior technology and selling garbage to listen to with that technology. Nobody used their goddamn brains, and they still don’t. Fuck em I say. My job depends on the success of the music industry, but honestly, fuck em all. Crooks.
I’m sure music and film piracy has indirectly (directly?) led to a lot of people losing their jobs at many of the corporations that we’re not supposed to have any sympathy for.
This is an argument that is provided often, and unsurprisingly, this is an argument that is propagated by the industries who are supposedly doing the firing. My company answers to a board of directors, and that board of directors came into our office one day to talk to us about “Music Theft’ and how it affects our company, and that we should be telling all our friends and family not to steal. Seriously.
1) it is not the public or the consumers’ responsibilities to save a corporation’s employees. It is the corporation’s responsibility to save it’s employees, not to mention it is the employees’ responsibilities to ensure they are protected and valued and have a variety of skills. Especially in entertainment…if you’re only good at one thing and are lazy, you’re fucked anyways. 2) “piracy” is not the same thing as theft. That doesn’t make it ethical, but it is important to differentiate between actually being a pirate, and file-sharing, which are not the same thing. 3) I absolutely have sympathy for the employees losing their jobs. Losing your job sucks.
Remember when CD’s were $17.99, $18.99? This industry is next and the internet will be a much better place when they finally realize and accept it. While I don’t download movies, I think a serious ‘fuck off’ is in order. They’re so large and comfortable demanding exponentially increasing profits year after year that instead of adjusting to 1997 technology, they’ve got a fucking bill being passed around Congress that would wipe access or mention of sharing avenues on search engines and via ISPs that they don’t approve of with the full backing of federal policing agencies. How about we put this on the list of things to worry about 32,692 spots behind corporate tax loopholes and, oh I don’t know, child sex slavery? Fuck you both, Congress and MPAA.