Piracy is a huge issue in Hollywood, and I ain't talkin' about the Johnny Depp movies. The Motion Picture Association of America has been cracking down hard in recent years -- but how effective have their efforts been? Andy Baio at Waxy.org has tracked the availability of pirated versions of Oscar-nominated movies every year since 2003, and guess what? By the time the ceremony rolls around, nearly every nominated film can be found illegally online.

Here are his findings for this year, along with some analysis of the results. Baio reports that 28 of the 34 nominated films were online -- in DVD quality -- by the end of January. Some of those films are out on DVD already, and that accounts for some of the uploads. Others were made available to Academy members and some critics' groups by way of DVD screeners. Those screeners are encoded and tracked and watermarked, and we're threatened with our lives if we allow them to be pirated, but obviously some people are doing it anyway.

What's interesting about this year's data is that those Academy screeners are becoming less of a factor. The risk of prosecution has probably made some recipients think twice about uploading them. But also, the window between theatrical release and DVD release is getting smaller, and many films are released in Region 5 format overseas at the same time they hit theaters here. The reason for that is to counteract camcorder piracy -- there's no reason for someone to buy a pirated version on the streets of Hong Kong when a studio-endorsed DVD-quality version is also for sale -- but a lot of those DVDs make their way onto the Internet, too.

In the latest move to cut down on movie piracy, Walgreen Co. is planning to put out kiosks that will burn "popular movies in drugstore photo departments" next year. The idea is to "increase selection while avoiding piracy," according to Reuters/Washington Post. While they're saying it's for popular movies, the plan is that studios won't have to put all that pesky money into manufacturing, shipping, and storing them, and it will allow customers to get "older and more niche content selections." Niche popular movies? Or, popular movies and niche selections?

Whatever the case, this could be cool to grab obscure movies that you can't get on DVD, but obviously Walgreen isn't going to go to all this effort for some rare indie fare. So, that would leave one to think that at least they'll be cheaper, right? You know, no case and special packaging, so maybe it'd be half the price. Oh, not at all. According to the article, Todd Rosenbaum (Chief Executive of Polar Frog, a kiosk company) says that they're probably not going to discount the DVDs.

If they won't be cheaper, who in their right mind is going to pay the same price to get none of the packaging, and wait 15 minutes for the sucker to burn? (That's how long they say it will take to burn one DVD.) And if someone is already using the machine, would you really wait in line, and then wait for it to burn, just to get an inferior copy of a movie you can get in the store for the same price? (Because I assume it won't be as durable as a direct-from-the-studio disc.) And man, imagine how annoying it would be if you went through all that effort and then had a burning error.

Of course, there's also no mention of special features -- just the actual movie. I could understand a service that allows you to shop for movies online, and then pop by a store to pick up a burned copy, but in this current incarnation, it just doesn't make sense to me. What do you think of this latest anti-piracy move?

I think it's safe to say that the fear of movie piracy has officially gone too far. On July 17th, Marymount University sophomore Jhannet Sejas (pictured) was celebrating her 19th birthday with her boyfriend at a screening of Transformers. Sejas, a Bolivian immigrant working two part-time jobs to support her education, was loving the flick. She wanted to show her little brother a clip from the film to get him excited to see it, so she took out her digital camera and recorded 20 seconds of the climax. The assistant manager of the theater saw her use the camera and reported it to the general manager. The general manager decided to bypass such reasonable steps as a) asking her never to record in the theater again, b) asking her to erase the footage or c) asking her to leave the theater, and simply telephoned the police. Within minutes, two police officers entered the theater, confiscated the camera, and charged Sejas with the crime of "illegally recording a motion picture."

Sejas says "I was terrified. I was crying. I've never been in trouble before." Sejas has been banned from the theater (where she frequently paid for and viewed films) for life, and she has to go to trial for the incident this month. She faces up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. The Regal Cinemas Ballston Common 12 Theater decided to prosecute the case, which is a first for Arlington police. Kendrick Macdowell, general counsel for the Washington-based National Association of Theatre Owners, says that there has to be a "zero-tolerance policy at the theater level," adding "We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing."

You know what? They can, actually. It's part of being a manager. This story really infuriates me. Do they really think this girl intended to sell a 20-second clip of a movie that had been out for two weeks? Where's the market for that? If anything, she was trying to give these people more money by getting her little brother psyched to see the film. If they really need to make an example of somebody, why don't they go after the people who actually do pirate entire movies, and leave this poor girl alone. Or better yet, how about we hold off on calling the police until, I don't know, there's a friggin' emergency! See, because that's what the police are for. Disgraceful.

It's coming a little late today, but on the west coast it's technically still morning. Over the past week, I've been reading tons of articles on movie piracy -- but more specifically, how copies of both Hostel: Part II and Sicko have already leaked online. With regards to the Hostel sequel, director Eli Roth has already gone on record saying that those early leaks greatly contributed to his film failing at the box office. Since it's a smaller film, a few thousand downloads could very well hurt the pic's overall gross ... or so he says. We'll have to wait a couple weeks to see if Michael Moore's latest documentary suffers the same fate; Sicko isn't scheduled to hit theaters until June 29. But if both films wind up doing poorly when it's all said and done, is piracy really to blame?

For example, take a film like Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. Here's a movie that's primarily geared toward a generation that's very knowledgeable when it comes to finding movies online for free. A very quick search lead me to a crystal clear version of the film online (and, trust me, I'm an idiot when it comes to this kind of stuff), yet it still opened this week at number one with roughly $57 million. Is it just a question of certain films being piracy proof? Or did Hostel: Part II fail for different reasons? And what if Sicko opens to great numbers -- will that mean Hostel II failed because of piracy and because it didn't feature a big fat guy talking about health care? Is it just me, or is movie piracy now becoming the go-to reason for a film's failure? If that were the case, then wouldn't more films this summer be suffering from piracy? Although I haven't downloaded any (because I absolutely refuse to do so), I've noticed almost all of the big films available for free online. And yet none of them seem to be playing the piracy card as much as Eli Roth has. Why? Because they're all making lots of money.

So, I ask you: Is piracy really to blame for the failure of a film like Hostel: Part II? And, in your opinion, is it really having that much of an impact to warrant us constantly talking about it?

Earlier this month, Erik Davis alerted us to the anger over at Warner Bros. concerning movie piracy in Canada. According to the anti-piracy division of the company, "Canada is the No. 1 priority in terms of anti-camcording legislation." To try and curb this supposedly rampant recording in movie theaters, the company is stopping pre-screenings north of the border, starting with Ocean's Thirteen and continuing with Harry Potter. But go figure -- both are being released or screened internationally before they hit stateside. To me, that seems like a flaw in the rationale, but that's right, there's that 70% number that Warners is throwing around.

Now this past Wednesday, as part of his visit to Canada, the Terminator politician Arnold Schwarzenegger met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Although Arnie is traveling around to discuss climate change, the PM brought up the movie issue and announced that he was going to crack down on Canadian movie piracy by strengthening the laws dealing with using camcorders in cinemas -- making it illegal to tape in theaters. One American official is quoted as saying: "We think it's a good first step." Only the first though, because you have to leave room for the movie criminals to be shipped to big companies and clean the dirty floors with their tongues.

And what about China? I guess "Blame China" doesn't have the same ring that "Blame Canada" does. If this country is to blame for so much of the Hollywood's struggles with fiendish movie pirates, I want to know why they're letting Chinese bootlegs and pirated copies float around. Doesn't big business (in this case, the rampant pirate state of Canada) always tromp the little guy (this case, Chinese pirate imports)? It's just silly. I think Erik had it right when he said: "While Canada certainly needs to step up and join the fight against piracy, I also think we need to evaluate these ridiculous trickling release schedules." Shouldn't you tighten and strengthen your ship before attacking the pirates?

Ah, where are the boys from South Park when you really need them? Upset over the fact that an increasing amount of movie piracy is originating in Canada, Warner Bros. has decided to take immediate action. No, they haven't sent Trey Parker and Matt Stone to wreak havoc on our friends from the north; instead, they've decided to place a ban on all future "promotional and word-of-mouth screenings." This tactic, they hope, will put pressure on Canada to introduce some sort of legislation that makes "camcording of films for trafficking around the world" an illegal offense. Apparently, as it stands right now, any moron can walk into a Canadian theater, record a movie, sell it, and suffer no consequence.

This new ban will begin with the upcoming release of Ocean's Thirteen and continue with Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. The good news for all those who enjoy reading your local Canadian critic is that it doesn't appear that this ban will affect press screenings. The Hollywood Reporter story clearly points out that only promotional and word-of-mouth screenings are being cut off for now. Here's what I don't get about this whole thing -- if the studios are so worried about international movie piracy being born out of these early screenings, then why are they releasing, say, Spider-Man 3 in a number of countries around the world weeks before it was set to arrive here in the states? How is it that a film like Danny Boyle's Sunshine gets a worldwide release this spring, yet will not hit here until winter? Although I refuse to download anything off the internet and watch it, I know for a fact that Sunshine is already available online. While Canada certainly needs to step up and join the fight against piracy, I also think we need to evaluate these ridiculous trickling release schedules. What do you think?

The words "China" and "piracy" seem to always go hand-in-hand these days, no matter what efforts are made to stop those sneaky buggers from releasing super-cheap pirated copies of high-profile movies. Just the other day, a student from South China won a short film contest entitled "Respect Copyrights, Stay Away From Piracy" with his one-minute short depicting students describing what the word "steal" means. Even though the 20-year-old will head to Hollywood to visit the MPA, Christopher Campbell's comment last month about $1 Spider-Man 3 DVDs seems to have come true...or so we thought?

After reports that copies of Spider-Man 3 had been sold on the streets of China for $1, Sony says that their investigation has found that it was actually the second installment sold in the third installment's boxes. Hmm. Are they fooling with the people anxious to see the third film, or did they totally pull the wool over Sony's eyes? Whatever the case, the MPA and companies are ticked and considering taking action. CEO Dan Glickman says that studios are backing the complaint made to the World Trade Organization and could choose to boycott the country. The complaints accuse Beijing of violating trade commitments and failing to stop piracy of U.S. media. (The possibility of blocking China from films is also inspired by the country's recent lock-down on U.S. influence.) Sure, blocking China would make it harder for pirates to nab illegal copies, but to me, it seems akin to the flawed thinking that releasing a film earlier in China will curb the problem. If this mess was handed over to you to solve, what would you do?

Piracy is nothing new, especially since the explosion of Napster back when it was a pirated mp3 heaven. Now, half the time we hit the theaters or buy/rent a DVD, we have to sit through a whole spiel on movie piracy. Beyond questioning the actual validity of MPAA and movie company claims, there is a consumer backlash of people fed up with being treated like a pirate with no cause. The current rant on The Movie Blog might be a bit exaggerated, but it's true. The steps taken to curb piracy haven't stopped the myriad of illegal downloads available, but have made it difficult for consumers to back up their purchase or view it on other devices.

A new study performed by ABI research has ripped another hole in the already-weak rampant claims of unstoppable movie piracy and the struggling film business. According to the study, which polled 1,725 North American online consumers 18+, only 5% watched legal digital movie downloads, and even less watch illegal downloads, making it "the least watched genre of online video on the Internet." The majority of respondents say they watch short-form content like news, sports and viral media. Why are they ignoring digitally-acquired films and illegal downloads? Because "they were satisfied with their current providers and the rental market."

Obviously this is more of the same. But maybe, just maybe, if we get enough of these studies together that prove most of us are not movie swashbucklers, they'll create an invisible shield from the incessant claims.

[via The Movie Blog]

"It's coming from ... inside the factory!"

That would be the tagline for my proposed third installment of what is now the Anti-Piracy trilogy (still haven't heard from Hollywood on this, which means they're simply stealing the brilliant idea and aren't planning to give me credit). After the action-packed original, and the tense court-room drama sequel, get ready for Anti-Piracy III: The Inside Job, a paranoid thriller, in which Dan Glickman and the MPAA discover that most of the world's pirated movies are the result of people within the film industry. We've read about the guys distributing Academy screeners and about the theatre projectionists videotaping from their booths. There have also been reports of pirates working for studios, developing labs, editing houses, etc. Now the MPAA has released a report that factories in Malaysia are producing bootleg discs alongside the legitimate DVDs and VCDs that they are licensed to make.

Representatives from the MPA (the non-States branch of the MPAA) and officers from the Malaysian Ministry of Domestic Trade & Consumer Affairs (I absolutely love ministry names, don't you?) raided eight such factories in Kuala Lumpur and ended up seizing a whole bunch of stuff, including replicating equipment and more than 10,000 pirated discs. They also arrested seven men and plan to charge them and their company with violating the nation's Optical Disc Act, which makes it illegal to erase the Source Identification Codes on optical discs, or manufacture discs without them.

Once again, Vin Diesel will be playing heroic MPAA president Dan Glickman. Joining the cast will be Charles Durning, Tim Robbins and Ronny Cox. I haven't decided which one plays the villain. Maybe it should be ambiguous. Just like the real war on piracy.

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) has announced that it is making great headway in its anti-piracy campaigns in Asia and the Pacific. Since May, the MPA has been going gangbusters with their Operation Red Card, a cool-sounding offensive measure involving raids, seizures and arrests in China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. The Operation is now over, but in the three months of its activity, law enforcement agents conducted 1,919 raids, seized 6,750,350 discs and 1,483 burners and arrested 915 suspects (for a breakdown by country, see the MPA's press release).

Don't think that the world is that close to being saved from illegal copies of movies, however. China, which has it really bad as far as piracy goes, did not see any arrests nor any seizures of DVD burners, so chances are the country's pirates will simply replace their confiscated discs with new copies. As for the other countries, it is likely that new pirates and new burners will pop up to keep the contraband coming.

Still, this is a big, big win for the MPA, and the news has me thinking of a good idea for an action movie about Operation Red Card. The real story probably isn't all that exciting, but if I were head of the MPA, I would try to make it seem so. Of course there would be one central action hero (Vin Diesel ... is ... Dan Glickman) who leads all the raids, each of which would include cool shoot-outs and explosions, an eventual take-down of one central villain who secretly runs every single piracy ring, and, of course, a final montage showing huge lines at cinemas all over the world (kinda like the end of the special edition version of Return of the Jedi). The irony is that the movie would probably be bootlegged throughout Asia and the Pacific, but whatever.