DailyTech - Police Arrest ‘The Dark Knight’ Cammer

Submit News

Blog: Internet Police Arrest ‘The Dark Knight’ Cammer
Tom Corelis (Blog) - July 21, 2008 7:53 AM

58 comment(s) - last by xphile.. on Jul 23 at 11:37 PM

Anti-camcording law throws movie pirates behind bars

A Grandview, Montana man was arrested late last Friday for allegedly videotaping the new box-office smash Batman movie, “The Dark Knight.”

According to reports at the Kansas City Star, police were called around 9:40 p.m. to the Eastglen 16 cinemaplex in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, after theater personnel spotted a customer attempting to videotape the movie. The man, whose name was not released, was arrested shortly afterwards. A police raid at his house found “evidence” of a cache of pirate DVDs.

The report made no indication of whom, if anyone, the man might be working for.

It appears that the MPAA and publisher Warner Bros. are taking piracy extremely seriously this weekend, as “The Dark Knight” grossed more than $66.4 million – a new record – on the day it opened. Complimenting the movie’s blowout opening figures is the fact that almost 50,000 voters say the movie is worth a 9.5 rating on IMDb.com, placing it as “the best movie of all time” and beating out other classic films like The Godfather, Schindler’s List, and Casablanca.

TorrentFreak reports that movie industry representatives handed out night vision goggles to Australian theaters in an effort to prevent “camming,” or the act of videotaping a movie as it plays in theaters. Both the United States and Canada have “anti-camcording” legislation in effect, and this Grandview man’s plight is only the latest case to achieve worldwide publicity. A Montreal, Canada man was arrested last September for attempting to record “Dan in Real Life,” and a Virginia teenager was arrested one month prior for attempting to record 20 seconds from “Transformers” on a Canon Powershot digital camera.

The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association will go so far as to offer theater employees a $500 reward for stopping cammers in their tracks.

In the United States, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, signed into law in 2005, makes camcording movies a federal felony, subjecting those caught to a maximum of five years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

Despite box office numbers sitting at an all-time high, the movie industry still claims $250m in losses due to movie piracy in its various forms.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

proportion

By tastyratz on 7/21/2008 9:35:52 AM , Rating: 5

I have to say my ears perked right up.
FELONY!?!?!?!
Did anyone else catch that?
Third degree identity theft is a misdemeanor and a camcorder in a movie theater regardless of your intentions with the tape is considered a FELONY!?!??

I wonder how many people got a free Mercedes courtesy of the MPAA for that one. If you ask me, that is FAR FAR out of proportion.

RE: proportion

By phattyboombatty on 7/21/2008 9:59:51 AM , Rating: 5

I was about to post the same comment before I saw yours. I agree completely. I about fell out of my chair when I read that it was a felony.

Felonies: murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, unauthorized videotaping of a movie

Parent

RE: proportion

By masher2

(blog) on 7/21/2008 10:19:58 AM , Rating: 2

Err, you forget a few felonies...the list is much, much longer. Simple possession (not use) of a weapon can net a felony charge, as can possession of a controlled substance. Cruelty to animals now has a felony variant, as does a huge host of property crimes such as larceny, forgery, receiving stolen property, and even (in some jurisdictions) resisting arrest.

Parent

RE: proportion

By phattyboombatty on 7/21/2008 10:57:03 AM , Rating: 3

Likewise, I could list many crimes that are commonly misdemeanors, not felonies, that most people would consider much more serious than videotaping a movie such as sexual assault, battery, DUI, etc.

Several of the felonies you listed would also be included (by me) in the category of crimes that should not be felonies. The sentencing disparities between crimes are even worse. My local community was a bit upset when it was discovered that a guy charged with a recent murder had actually been convicted of murder ten years ago and already was out of jail (he got a 15 yr sentence and only had to serve about 7 years, and that was with a long prior history of felony convictions). Had the same dude been convicted in federal court for possessing crack, he'd probably still be in jail.

Parent

RE: proportion

By just4U on 7/21/2008 12:33:26 PM , Rating: 3

I really don't know what to say to this sort of thing. People who download the movie are NOT likely to go see it anyway in my opinion. So 5 years in prison seems rather excessive. What do you get for video taping actors/actresses in compromising situations? 5- 10? No, you get paid huge sums of money for that. Things seem kind of screwed up if you ask me.

Parent

RE: proportion

By Souka on 7/21/2008 7:01:45 PM , Rating: 2

" maximum of five years in prison and $250,000 in fines"

MAXIMUM....

so if you're a college kid caught...a bunch of pirated DVDs/CDs in your dorm room found..but no obvious distribution intnent... figure a slap on the wrist...likely reduced so no felony on your record.

However... if you're a repeat copyright offender, large number of pirated material found in your appt/home...and intent to distribute... you'll likely get a larger consequence...

The judges assigning the penalities of this crime know that putting a copyright criminal behind bar for years means that a rapist/murderer (or similar offender) will likely be released sooner than later... so will often have a light sentence.

My $.02

Parent

RE: proportion

By phattyboombatty on 7/22/2008 10:30:53 AM , Rating: 2

You're right that there is some flexibility in the sentencing and that a first-time offender with a clean record will almost certainly not get a setence close to the maximum. However, there's no getting around the fact that the crime is a felony so that college kid you mentioned can kiss his voting rights goodbye along with his right to own a firearm. He would also find that his ability to get a job is severely curtailed.

Parent

RE: proportion

By Cheapshot on 7/23/2008 12:02:29 PM , Rating: 2

Depends on where the judges salary is subsidized from.

Parent

RE: proportion

By masher2

(blog) on 7/22/2008 10:08:15 AM , Rating: 2

> "People who download the movie are NOT likely to go see it anyway in my opinion"

People who steal Porsches are not likely to buy one either.

Parent

RE: proportion

By 4play on 7/22/2008 10:38:46 AM , Rating: 2

yeah, they wouldn't either. The difference is that they're hurting some by stealing the Porsche, the owner doesn't have it anymore. While the people who "steal" movies don't hurt anyone.

Parent

RE: proportion

By AnnihilatorX on 7/22/2008 1:16:11 PM , Rating: 2

What a coincidence a friend of mine was asking me where he can download a movie which is just up on the cinema. I told him well the ones you can download is probably cammed and he'd be better going to the cinema to watch it, or wait for the DVD.
He replied that he'd heard bad reviews so he's not going to pay for it, and the download is to satisfy his curiosity.

Parent

RE: proportion

By 4play on 7/22/2008 1:59:49 PM , Rating: 2

Whats your point? Sounds to me that he didn't want to watch it because it got bad reviews. Maybe Hollywood should make good movies to prevent piracy then, no?

Parent

RE: proportion

By JonnyBlaze on 7/22/2008 11:42:29 AM , Rating: 3

Downloading movies is not stealing.

Parent

RE: proportion

By kake on 7/22/2008 12:47:03 AM , Rating: 3

So by subtly suggesting I don't want the police to handcuff me I could receive a felony? That's impressive. I can see the headlines now: "Man Resists Cuffs Receives Chair"

Parent

RE: proportion

By UNHchabo on 7/22/2008 1:10:20 PM , Rating: 2

I know you were speaking in hyperbole, but this season the Supreme Court made it so that nobody can be executed for any offense which doesn't result in someone's death. In this particular case it involved the rape of a child, but I remember hearing about cases back in the early 20th century where people were executed for bank robberies, and stuff like that, even when nobody was killed.

Parent

RE: proportion

By das mod on 7/22/2008 3:22:48 PM , Rating: 4

"-what are you in here for?
-i raped my mother and decapitated my father, you?
-i tried to video tape The Dark Night"

....

Parent

RE: proportion

By Schrag4 on 7/21/2008 10:05:28 AM , Rating: 2

Yeah, I have to agree with you on this one. There are people in the US that, well, go a long way toward ruining other people's lives that basically get a slap on the wrist compared to this. Of course it depends where you live and what the judges are like there...

Parent

RE: proportion

By Moishe on 7/21/2008 11:01:55 AM , Rating: 2

Yeah... felony is going a bit far.
I think a decent penalty would simply be to permanently confiscate any equipment involved, a small fine < $500, and an entry in the person's record.

Parent

RE: proportion

By 4play on 7/21/2008 3:10:38 PM , Rating: 5

This is what happens when special interest groups write the laws, not the people.

Parent

RE: proportion

By omnicronx on 7/23/2008 3:51:09 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
If you ask me, that is FAR FAR out of proportion.

What do you propose? A simple slap on the wrist?
Like it or not, pirating a movie can and probably will cost a lot more in damages than any first, second or third degree identify theft charge.

The way I see it, anyone who brings a video camera into a theater has it coming. The only part i agree with you here is the use of cell phones and normal cameras, although once again, anyone using these devices in a theater should know better.

Everyone knows its wrong, and anyone who does not, should just give up on life now, as common sense seems to have skipped a generation.

Parent

RE: proportion

By Adonlude on 7/23/2008 9:07:37 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Third degree identity theft is a misdemeanor and a camcorder in a movie theater regardless of your intentions with the tape is considered a FELONY!?!??

Yep, this makes perfect sense and I'll tell you why:

Identity theft has created an entire market for credit/identity protection services that make financial companies lots of money so they don't have their lobbyists out there fighting for tough laws. "Camming" costs the big film companies with lobbyists lots of money...

Parent

RE: proportion

By xphile on 7/23/2008 11:33:41 PM , Rating: 2

Yes that's right you've committed a felony sir - B A L O N E Y... felony.

Parent

Still Cammed.

By Master Kenobi

(blog) on 7/21/2008 8:39:45 AM , Rating: 3

Well, regardless of their efforts I noticed that it is already up on the major torrent trackers and the number of seeders numbers in the thousands.

RE: Still Cammed.

By mdogs444 on 7/21/2008 9:01:30 AM , Rating: 3

I haven't seen the movie yet. But I really can't see myself wasting my time downloading a 1400MB movie, and spending 2hrs watching it when its so dark that you can't hardly make out half the movie anyway. To save $7?

My time is worth about 6x that per hour. I think I'll spend the money at the theater.

Parent

RE: Still Cammed.

By Polynikes on 7/21/2008 9:10:40 AM , Rating: 2

Seriously, I'd rather spend $10 to see it on the big screen than watch a crap quality cam job. Especially for a really great movie. I'm gonna go see The Dark Knight again at IMAX soon.

Parent

RE: Still Cammed.

By Moishe on 7/21/2008 10:59:54 AM , Rating: 2

I'm going to see it at the IMax this weekend... After all the buzz, I'm expecting it to be amazing. First IMax feature as well.

On topic, I'm rather surprised that the kid recording 20 seconds for in big trouble. My Canon will record as much as the CDs will hold, but I'm pretty sure there isn't an SD big enough to record the whole thing at top quality.

Parent

RE: Still Cammed.

By jonmcc33 on 7/22/2008 8:36:10 AM , Rating: 2

I'd rather spend $7 on gas or food for my family than give it to some already filthy rich celebrity. That 1400MB movie was quite watchable but just didn't have surround sound and HD quality to it. Big deal, you get the concept of the movie and the story and that is what is important. Maybe your $42 per hour has you a bit spoiled to the point you aren't even paying attention to why you watch the movie to begin with?

Parent

RE: Still Cammed.

By bodar on 7/22/2008 11:34:34 PM , Rating: 2

I don't make nearly $42/hr and that movie was definitely worth the $9.50 price of admission. Some movies are just better in the big theater, which is why I didn't wait for it to come to the local $1 theater.

Parent

RE: Still Cammed.

By mdogs444 on 7/23/2008 9:30:43 AM , Rating: 2

If you're that concerned with spending $7 for recreation - then perhaps you shouldnt be worrying about movies at all.

Parent

RE: Still Cammed.

By xphile on 7/23/2008 11:37:38 PM , Rating: 2

... or even life itself ...

Parent

RE: Still Cammed.

By omnicronx on 7/23/2008 4:35:18 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I'd rather spend $7 on gas or food for my family than give it to some already filthy rich celebrity.

Hah, if you are so hard pressed that you need to save that 7$ for gas and food, then maybe you should not be paying that 40-60 bucks a month for that speedy broadband internet, and who knows what on your shiny new cell phone.. Blaming celebrities for not wanting to pay for movies is just an excuse so that you can safely tell yourself that you are not doing anything wrong... I really hope you sleep better at night.

Parent

RE: Still Cammed.

By nosfe on 7/21/2008 9:11:17 AM , Rating: 2

last i checked there were over 1.5 million downloads of fake dark knight downloads on one site alone

Parent

RE: Still Cammed.

By Master Kenobi

(blog) on 7/21/2008 2:12:23 PM , Rating: 2

The one I'm speaking of was infact a real cam of the movie. Likely mounted on a tripod and the theatre was likely empty. This sort of thing is only possible because the guy doing it is an employee of the threatre.......

Parent

RE: Still Cammed.

By Aikouka on 7/21/2008 9:18:07 AM , Rating: 2

I'd say that's possibly thousands of people that may be ruining their first viewing of a good movie with a cam recording of a movie.

Although, it makes you wonder... if the cams, telesyncs, telecines, R5s and what-not weren't available... do you think they'd see the movie anyway?

Parent

RE: Still Cammed.

By Master Kenobi

(blog) on 7/22/2008 3:36:45 PM , Rating: 2

We would return to the days of sneaking in :P.

Parent

Yeah the theater is great, but it's not my living room..

By Cerin218 on 7/21/2008 2:50:56 PM , Rating: 5

People seem fixated on the concept that people download movies to avoid the 7 dollar cost at the theater. When I was a kid, all movie theaters were the size of an Imax. Now they are little more then glorified TV's, 15 or 20 "megaplex" theaters in one building. I sit at home in my living room and watch my HD projector with a screen the size of my wall hooked up to my 7.1 surround sound. My movies look brilliant, the sound shakes the room and I sit in my lazy boy recliner stretched out in my underwear drinkin' a captain coke. I might even get lucky enough to get a hummer from the girlfriend during the film without fear of going to jail. Why would I possibly want to go to the theater where I have sit in a seat that doesn't have any comfortable way to fit my 6'4" 225lb body without serious cramps, I have to listen to the tweeners in front of me talking about the stupid crap they talk about all movie long when they manage to take a break from texting on their phone (the lcd of their phone is awesome in the dark half way through a good movie, really distracts your attention), having to get up when someone has to go to the bathroom or get my chair constantly kicked by the idiot behind me, all while having to sneak in my booze so I can pour it in a 7 dollar drink from the snack counter?
I would pay 7 dollars, heck, I'd pay 20 dollars a movie if the theater would stream that new release to my house. I don't have any problem paying to see a movie. What I do have an issue with is paying to be completely uncomfortable during that movie. So people will read this and say don't go to the movie then. Why should I be denied the enjoyment of a new movie because I don't want to be uncomfortable and the movie industry can't figure out how to use available technology to provide me with that service? The person sitting there with the camcorder did. You can do Netflix on the Xbox 360 so now I don't even have to go to the movie store, or even wait for a DVD in the mail, all on a device I already own! I can get it instantly on my current audio/video setup! Bravo Netflix!! Amazon MP3's allow me to preview and instantly download an entire CD. Bravo! I used to pirate music. I stopped because there is a vendor that will sell me what I want, in the format I want it, for a price I am happy to pay.

This is what I am saying, not all people pirate because they are cheap, some pirate because the main reason for technology is to make are lives more convenient by automating mundane tasks. A downloaded album saves me time in the comfort of my own home. Time and comfort is what is truly valuable to me. Seeing a movie at home is what I would rather do. Until the movie industry can figure out how to use technology to provide that I don't feel sorry for them. Selling is providing a customer with a service or product they will invest in. The movie industry doesn't do that in my case. And losing money? They recouped production costs in three days. Everything else from this day forward is pure profit. I am going to guess the Dark Knight will profit that studio in excess of HALF A BILLION dollars by the time the hype is over. I would tend to guess the population that is savvy enough to download the movie is small. I work with a hundred other people in my company and about 3 are savvy enough to figure out how to download it much less how to get it on a TV. even if you made the case that if they stopped ALL pirating, it would be like back in the days before people could rip. Many would still see it, a great many would wait for it to hit the movie store, the rest would wait for the movie channels and the rest television. It wouldn't force every piraters to pay to see the movie. The studios make it sound like they are losing some vast reserve of untapped profit.

So in the end I will pay to see it in the theater, and be saddened the whole time that my 7 dollars will go to the RIAA so that the movie industry can continue to effectively proceed into the future without having to explore ways of offering content in a more suitable format to those who have learned to enjoy the fruits of technology.

RE: Yeah the theater is great, but it's not my living room..

By FreeTard on 7/21/2008 3:28:39 PM , Rating: 2

I agree with some of what you say. Out of everyone I work with, in a relatively high tech job, only one guy can figure out how to download movies by torrent. The rest of the people either go see it, or buy it.

Your first paragraph came off as "Those young punks better stay off my lawn or I'll turn my hose on them! Now where's my ovaltine, my stories are on!". No offense though, I just realized the other day that I'm getting old because all I listen to is the 80's channel on both Sat radio networks.

Parent

RE: Yeah the theater is great, but it's not my living room..

By Master Kenobi

(blog) on 7/22/2008 8:23:18 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
No offense though, I just realized the other day that I'm getting old because all I listen to is the 80's channel on both Sat radio networks.

As do I, but I'm not old.

Parent

RE: Yeah the theater is great, but it's not my living room..

By Spivonious on 7/21/2008 4:02:37 PM , Rating: 2

So to summarize your post, you're lazy.

Parent

RE: Yeah the theater is great, but it's not my living room..

By Cerin218 on 7/21/2008 5:06:22 PM , Rating: 2

H-ll yeah I am lazy. I don't pretend I am something I am not. I work hard 40 hours a week in a corporate help desk working with people that barely understand how to turn on a computer much less use it. So when I want to see a movie I have no desired to be in movie theater surrounded by people. I have a job that pays all my bills and am a productive member of society. So whats wrong with not wanting to waste time driving to a theater or driving to a store rent a movie that I am going to then have to take back. When I movie theater was a spectacle to behold and was really better then your 19 inch mono television at home it was worth going to.
I feel sad for you for the simple fact that you logged in and went through the process do submit a post that has a complete lack of any useful purpose at all. I feel saddened for whatever company has employed you in an attempt to harness some of the awesome thoughts and ideas of the type you presented in response to my original post. Here's your sign.

Parent

RE: Yeah the theater is great, but it's not my living room..

By bigboxes on 7/23/2008 6:01:19 PM , Rating: 3

Lazy and verbose.

Parent

RE: Yeah the theater is great, but it's not my living room..

By spwrozek on 7/21/2008 4:08:09 PM , Rating: 2

There are many movie theaters in these "megaplexes" that have big screens and nice big seats. The arms usually flip up so you can be close to your loved one too. They typically have stadium seating with nice views for everyone. The sound systems are very good. A lot of them serve alcohol nowadays too. It was a full theater for Batmen this weekend and only 2 people got up during it and neither was in front of me.

It is not as bad as you think. I agree with your last two paragraphs though.

Parent

RE: Yeah the theater is great, but it's not my living room..

By ElBrujo on 7/23/2008 4:34:53 AM , Rating: 2

Funny, but I doubt you'd go through the trouble of paying the theater (or the studios) for a ticket to a movie you've downloaded and watched at home--even if you'd enjoyed it--for the principle of paying people for their effort.

No, people that are "savvy" like you will make every excuse to cheat: the movies are a rip-off/uncomfortable/behind the times, etc. And while big-name actors make millions, it's also an industry that employs thousands of others. While this movie is destined to made a lot of money, it's also being cheated out of profit that the producers staked their careers (and often, pocket-books) on.

Perhaps a simple mind-exercise to help clarify the ethics of your actions: imagine you've bet a few bucks in the stock market, and suddenly you've invested in a company that, after ten years of investing, has finally made you rich. If another company sneaks a copy of the formula and releases it to the world, causing your profit to go down, I doubt very much that you'd say, "that's OK, I got my hundred thou'...". Put simply, taking something that isn't yours is theft. Not liking someone, or an entity, doesn't mean that you then are entitled to breaking the law. If you want that action to be legal, get a bunch of your friends to vote for a change in the law, and then I'm sure someone would be right over to take your HD projector...

Oh, and I'm sure Dark Knight will make over a billion world-wide. And how much has GTA IV made so far?

Parent

yes.. but did he camm all those commercials?

By kattanna on 7/21/2008 10:48:12 AM , Rating: 2

i went to see the movie sunday and was blown away at how the movie was supposed to start at 12:35, but didnt until 1pm because of them playing flat out commercials for suvs, sports drinks, tv shows..etc.. and then some trailers.

i honestly felt there at the beginning like i was home watching daytime TV, WTH?

PS. movie was very good.

RE: yes.. but did he camm all those commercials?

By Bremen7000 on 7/21/2008 11:46:58 AM , Rating: 2

I went to see it at an AMC on Saturday, and they actually had the projector turned off while everyone was being seated until the previews started (so no pre-movie commercials). It was fantastic.

Parent

RE: yes.. but did he camm all those commercials?

By FITCamaro on 7/21/2008 11:50:15 AM , Rating: 2

Yeah our movie "started" at 10:20. We saw about 10 minutes of previews before the start time. And about 15 minutes of previews afterward. No SUV commercials or anything though. Blame your local theater for that. The MPAA has nothing to do with it.

Parent

RE: yes.. but did he camm all those commercials?

By bodar on 7/21/2008 5:28:29 PM , Rating: 2

All I really ask for is decent commercials. This applies to all commercials not just the ones in the theater -- which are inexplicably 5x as long as a normal spot sometimes. Most commercials aren't even trying to be clever or well done anymore. Some seem to think that I'll buy a product if they annoy the crap out of me. Is it any wonder people want to skip commercials with DVR/Tivo or download shows? At least with Hulu.com, you only get one or two commercials.

Also, F*** Coca-cola and their Refreshing Filmmaker Award! These filmmakers need to be beaten with bats, their shorts suck that hard.

Parent

RE: yes.. but did he camm all those commercials?

By Darkskypoet on 7/22/2008 11:12:19 AM , Rating: 3

I just stopped going as soon as I had to pay for the privilege of watching commercials. I mean theaters had gone up to 10 or 11 dollars a show... then finally dropped back to $8, but concessions were jacked up ridiculously, and then they add commercials. WTF?

If I have to pay $8-10 for a single show, $5 for a fountain drink, and another $4 for a medium popcorn... I better not have to see a goddamn commercial or 4. Previews are different. But commercials? No, you don't get to rape me on everything else, and then subsidize your sodomy by making me watch commercials on top of it.

Parent

RE: yes.. but did he camm all those commercials?

By BBeltrami on 7/22/2008 11:26:37 AM , Rating: 2

Yes, our theater had 7 commercials and 6 previews. Ouch. Made for a long sit with TDK being 2 1/2 hours long.

That said, the preview of Watchmen was absolutely stunning.

Parent

Not quite

By FITCamaro on 7/21/2008 11:51:12 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
placing it as “the best movie of all time” and beating out other classic films like The Godfather, Schindler’s List, and Casablanca.

The movie was definitely great but "the best movie of all time"? No.

RE: Not quite

By Spyvie on 7/21/08, Rating: -1

RE: Not quite

By just4U on 7/21/2008 12:29:34 PM , Rating: 2

I got back from seeing it last night. In general it was a good solid movie that almost everyone would enjoy. I think the main reason it's getting such high rankings is because people are giving the nod to Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker which was absolutely amazing.

If he hadn't been in the movie Im sure it would have gotten a solid 7.5-8 but you factor in his performance and it really clouds everything as you just can't resist giving it higher marks.

Parent

RE: Not quite

By FreeTard on 7/21/2008 3:18:41 PM , Rating: 4

1. Muppets Take Manhattan

2. Weekend at Bernies 2

3. Home Alone 4

Parent

RE: Not quite

By brenatevi on 7/22/2008 3:40:03 AM , Rating: 2

... My head exploded just thinking about those movies.

Parent

RE: Not quite

By bodar on 7/22/2008 11:25:45 PM , Rating: 2

Definitely the best movie I have seen (first viewing) in quite a long time. That's good enough for me.

Parent

Record sales?

By 4play on 7/21/2008 11:15:44 AM , Rating: 2

I guess piracy is really killing the movie industry. Record opening weekend? puh-leez, clearly they won't be making any more movies if rampant piracy of movies continues!

The movie is awesome btw.

RE: Record sales?

By johnbuk on 7/22/2008 10:21:47 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Despite box office numbers sitting at an all-time high, the movie industry still claims $250m in losses due to movie piracy in its various forms.

$250m- Wow- that's kind of a drop in the bucket- seems like most reports I've seen give a much higher number- not that any of those numbers really mean anything because they're all guesstimates.

Personally, anything I've ever downloaded was all stuff that I either wasn't ever going to spend money on to begin with or it's been something that I already owned and downloading for whatever reason seemed more convenient than copying.

Parent

Best movie of all time?

By Yawgm0th on 7/23/2008 4:46:34 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
placing it as “the best movie of all time” and beating out other classic films like The Godfather, Schindler’s List, and Casablanca.

Don't get me wrong, I loved The Dark Night. Hands down, it's the best Batman movie of all time. Batman Begins was great, too. But the best movie of all time? I think not. The Dark Night is not on the same level as the IMDBs previous top-ranked movies.

Hopefully it will level out to a more reasonable ranking over time as it leaves theaters. Top 250? For sure. Top ten? Maybe. Better than Schindler's List, The Godfather 1 & 2, and The Shawshank Redemption? No. No, no, no. I understand the IMDB ranking is just a popularity contest, but I'd still hope that those who actually vote on IMDB will come to their senses and get it moved down a few slots.