Academy screener bootlegger arrested

[lacywest]

When I had my new car stolen when I was a student, no cop - not mentioning FBI - didnt gave a damn about my loss,

You had your car stolen ???

Shame on you ... !!!!!

[lacywest]

Sounds to me like Caridi supplied this guy with the screeners, and he put them on the net for OBUS. 60 per year..wowzers. If I were Caridi id be on the run, unless he snitched on who uploaded them.

One of them is 69 years old and 51 years old.

Bad time in life to get into trouble with the law and get put into the system.

Carmine Caridi, 69, will most likely be put on probation and be given community service ... door greeter at Wal-Mart or serve food at breakfast at a Salvation Army Soup Kitchen.

Russell William Sprague, 51, ... hmmm ... same age as me. He should worry.

He will most likely see jail time ... maybe on weekends ... pick up trash on freeways ... something that will humiliate him. And some serious probation. Financially ... oh man ... don't want to go there

[lacywest]

USA Reports Posted 1/23/2004 3:17 AM

FBI make arrest in Internet movie piracy case
By Linda Massarella, Associated Press
LOS ANGELES — An Illinois man who allegedly received so-called "screener" movies from an Academy Award member, then bootlegged and illegally distributed them over the Internet, is to appear in federal court Friday in Chicago.
FBI agents arrested Russell William Sprague, 51, on Thursday after an early morning search of his Homewood, Ill., home turned up hundreds of copies of screener films such as The Last Samurai.

Agents said the films have been traced back to longtime Academy member, actor Carmine Caridi.

In addition to the movies found in Sprague's home, agents said they found an array of duplicating equipment in addition to illegal satellite television interception equipment.

Sprague is charged with criminal copyright infringement. It is the first arrest in the bootlegging of screeners in the United States, they added.

A woman who answered the telephone at Sprague's home Thursday evening hung up without comment.

Caridi told investigators he sent VHS copies of about 60 movies he received each year to Sprague through packages sent to him. Sprague used a software program to copy the VHS tape onto DVD format and once copies were finished, sent the original back to Caridi, the FBI said.

Two screeners that circulated on the Internet, Something's Gotta Give and Big Fish have been positively identified by Sony Pictures as having been shipped to Caridi.

Warner Brothers studio recently alerted the FBI that copies of its The Last Samurai and Mystic River were being made freely available for download on the Internet. It was unknown if those copies have yet to be traced.

Caridi, a veteran film and TV actor, has been a member of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences for more than 20 years. He appeared on TV's NYPD Blue and such films as The Godfather: Part II and The Godfather: Part III.

Caridi said he received no money for the films. He allegedly told investigators he believed Sprague was a film buff and merely wished to watch them.

Caridi has not been charged and additional arrests have not been ruled out, FBI spokeswoman Laura Bosley said.

Investigators said a search of Caridi's Hollywood apartment turned up 36 original Academy Award VHS screener tapes, including The Last Samurai, In America, Shattered Glass and Mona Lisa Smile. Also found in his apartment were large quantities of FedEx shipping labels bearing Sprague's address, authorities said.

An Academy spokeswoman declined to comment about the case.

The Motion Picture Association of America, which represents studios, last year banned the distribution of screener DVDs and videotapes over concerns about bootlegging, but partly lifted the ban after complaints from filmmakers, producers and independent production companies.

The studios changed the policy in October to allow the shipment of encoded videocassettes that would allow tracing to Academy Award voters only. A federal judge in December, however, granted a temporary injunction lifting the screener ban in a lawsuit brought by independent production companies, which argued the policy put them at a disadvantage for awards. The studios then sent screeners to thousands of other awards voters.

The academy required its 5,803 eligible Oscar voters to sign forms promising to protect their screener tapes before they were received. About 80% of voters signed and returned the forms — including Caridi — which include a stipulation that a violation is grounds for expulsion from the academy and other penalties.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[GizmoTheGremlin]

to illegally take away from you your God given Freedom.

I love that Zoran. I think God gave you that freedom in the bible. If I'm correct, the first amendment to the ten commandments. "Thou art free to do whatever the hell pleaseth thou." That of course makes the other ten commandments null and void.

If punishment of up to $150,000 per offense (that's a number quoted here earlier; I don't have the time to look it up) doesn't deter piracy, then you are advocating that it be lower? You are saying that there will be less piracy if we lower the punishment if caught?

Alright DaBarrister, I'm half convinced that you're a lawyer for the MPAA. I'm sure that the same argument is used when the MPAA is justifying such high fines for small crimes, "we want to use it to deter theft." Unfortunately, the way they choose to advertise it is by suing everyone that they can get ahold of.

But the real reason that the fines are so high is because the MPAA knows that they can't catch everyone. So, if they catch 1 in a thousand, they will charge that single person for all the money they lost from the 999 others. It just seems to me that a person shouldn't be responsible for everyone else who is committing the same crime.

You may be wondering why I claim to be against theft but still make an arguement against the MPAA. My main concern is kids. Most kids will push the boundaries of what they are allowed to do. Many kids have even stolen things from stores - not a big deal, slap on the wrist, pay some small fines, and call it a Learning Experience. The way the MPAA has set up our laws, we can't afford for our children to have any learning experiences.

Simply teach your kids to always obey, right? how many teenagers out there actually do everything your parents tell you?

[DaBarrister]

When I had my new car stolen when I was a student, no cop - not mentioning FBI - didnt gave a damn about my loss, which constituted of about 50% of my net worth at that time.

Oops. I guess your right to ownership of a motor vehicle was subservient to the thief's right to take your vehicle.

So if fines and jail sentences aren't cost-effective in preventing car thefts, I guess we have no choice but to legalize the unauthorized taking of motor vehicles.

Alright DaBarrister, I'm half convinced that you're a lawyer for the MPAA. I'm sure that the same argument is used when the MPAA is justifying such high fines for small crimes, "we want to use it to deter theft." Unfortunately, the way they choose to advertise it is by suing everyone that they can get ahold of.

Busted!

[GizmoTheGremlin]

When I had my new car stolen when I was a student, no cop - not mentioning FBI - didnt gave a damn about my loss, which constituted of about 50% of my net worth at that time.

Better yet, catch the crook and sue him for 15,000 times the value of your car because so many other crooks get away with it. Then go public and say you only did this to send a message to all the other would be crooks. Then go to your private island in Hawaii and guzzle your drinks with the little umbrellas.

I will gladly concede to your arguements DaBarrister, but I want the same rights for my stuff that the MPAA has for theirs.

I am growing weary of this. It is interesting to read all the different opinions on this topic, but I am done giving mine.

[DaBarrister]

I will gladly concede to your arguements DaBarrister, but I want the same rights for my stuff that the MPAA has for theirs.

Create something worth copyrighting and you will have the same protection, same as everyone else who produces a copyrightable work. The MPAA isn't the only organization that benefits from copyright.

[DereX888]

I admit I love discussions and learning how others perception of same facts differs from mine. However I hate to talk to / listen to to morons who'll twist your words in any possible way just to make their point.
Too bad there is no filters on this forum where one could just add some posters to filter and have their useless posts filtered out out of all threads...

I think I've said what I had to say already, and so did most of valuable adversaries, there's no reason to prolong this discussion to the point where we start using "stronger" arguments

DaBarrister:

DereX888 wrote:
When I had my new car stolen when I was a student, no cop - not mentioning FBI - didnt gave a damn about my loss, which constituted of about 50% of my net worth at that time.


Oops. I guess your right to ownership of a motor vehicle was subservient to the thief's right to take your vehicle.

You really think the law is right that (assuming had the car thief was caught) he would'nt even get half of the penalty as he would get for stealing some stinkin studio's dvd?
It is pointless to continue any further discussion with you if you do. Go clap your hands and bow to anyone whom you can.

haloblack:

Quote:
Video market is dominated by few studios, who wont let anyone new in to share the pie.


Won't let anyone in? Not true it all. The problem is that it costs so much to enter the market.

Totally true, and you dont know what youre talking about.
First hand example: friends of mine produced an indepedent movie (and not bad I must add, better than lot of hollywood's recent releases) and they tried to sell it (at first). Without going into details: none of the distribution companies (nor any big retail companies like Walmart in example) was able to take it and distibute - even for free! (my friends were able to print it out on DVDs on small scale for a first batch). They all are bound by contracts with big fat studios prohibiting them to acquire or distribute any outsider's shite.
So don't tell us about any "costs to enter the market". Even if you produce, make, copy and want to give out ready-made DVDs for free to distribution of i.e. best movie the world has ever seen etc ( ) - you won't be able to do it, not on the domestic market, without first getting 'approval' from major players dominating US entertainment market.
IMO it is monopoly (however shared by few major companies) and it is illegal in US of A, isn't it? But ofcourse FBI is willfully blind for such practices, being too busy protecting this monopoly.

Funny thing is that my friends finally sold the movie for nice $$$ to some Portugese company who released it and distributed in Europe, and because it was probably somewhat popular there - their movie appeared in US for ~$50 on Region1 DVD by one of the big fat studios (lol). But thats not the point ofcoz.



TO ALL OF YOU who say "the law is the law" thus we have to obey it:

Long time ago, in a country far far away... there was a Law enforcing extermination of people of certain nationality. You all know the story, Im sure, theres no need for more details.
All I want to say is I guess that all of you would be those who are first to point out and yell "Jude! Take him away!" upon spotting one, right?

I exaggerate?
Not at all!


Theft is a theft, no doubt about it. But there have to be adequate punishment for stealing a DVD and adequate punishment for stealing a car.
If you get (i.e.) lifetime sentence for killing one person, and just a slap over hands for killing someone else - all of you would say its an injustice. Why then some of you try to prove here that stealing a DVD is correctly punishable by law in the amount of $150K fine (or up to actually) just because it is Big Fat Studio's property, and stealing a car from someone else make you laugh and post funny comments? Its a best example of your f***g hypocrisy, and shows best whose interests you represent on this board. Go on, laugh some more. Everybody knows anyway.

[DaBarrister]

I admit I love discussions and learning how others perception of same facts differs from mine. However I hate to talk to / listen to to morons who'll twist your words in any possible way just to make their point....

1) No, actually, you don't. You wanted to prove a point, and you missed. Badly. 2) No twisting, I used your actual words only, and gave them the intent I thought you intended to convey.

You really think the law is right that (assuming had the car thief was caught) he would'nt even get half of the penalty as he would get for stealing some stinkin studio's dvd?

I'm not the one who made the stupid argument about getting his car stolen and somehow equating that to the oppression of movies thieves by The Man.

First hand example: friends of mine produced an indepedent movie (and not bad I must add, better than lot of hollywood's recent releases) and they tried to sell it (at first). Without going into details: none of the distribution companies (nor any big retail companies like Walmart in example) was able to take it and distibute - even for free! (my friends were able to print it out on DVDs on small scale for a first batch).

Right....

They all are bound by contracts with big fat studios prohibiting them to acquire or distribute any outsider's shite.

Wrong. I see independent works sitting right next to big studio works. The problem is that WalMart and other large retailers deal in Volume. How is an indie film, with no stars, no advertising, no theater release and limited appeal, going to stand out from Gladiator? If I'm a buyer for WalMart I'm not going to waste my time with your friends, either.

So don't tell us about any "costs to enter the market". Even if you produce, make, copy and want to give out ready-made DVDs for free to distribution of i.e. best movie the world has ever seen etc ( ) - you won't be able to do it, not on the domestic market, without first getting 'approval' from major players dominating US entertainment market.

It's a conspiracy! A c...o...n... um... spiracy.

IMO it is monopoly (however shared by few major companies) and it is illegal in US of A, isn't it? But ofcourse FBI is willfully blind for such practices, being too busy protecting this monopoly.

Wonderfully done, my fine fellow. 1) If what you say is even remotely true, it would be an oligopoly, not a monopoly. 2) FBI does not police monopolistic practices. That duty belongs to the Federal Trade Commission. Good job!

Funny thing is that my friends finally sold the movie for nice $$$ to some Portugese company who released it and distributed in Europe, and because it was probably somewhat popular there - their movie appeared in US for ~$50 on Region1 DVD by one of the big fat studios (lol). But thats not the point ofcoz.

Wow. I wanted to buy the DVD so I looked up "Friends of Derex888" but didn't get any hits. Can you send me a copy, for free?

TO ALL OF YOU who say "the law is the law" thus we have to obey it:
Long time ago, in a country far far away... there was a Law enforcing extermination of people of certain nationality. You all know the story, Im sure, theres no need for more details. All I want to say is I guess that all of you would be those who are first to point out and yell "Jude! Take him away!" upon spotting one, right? I exaggerate? Not at all!

So the thief is the victim? Akin to Der Juden of Hitler's Nazi regime? You poor oppressed fellow! I only wish that some of those persecuted under that regime could be here to hear you compare your plight to theirs. I'm sure they would understand. Not.

You probably don't even realize what a slap in the face your comment is to any survivor of the Holocaust! Do you think that's a good example? You think that's funny? I don't. You ought to be embarassed for even suggesting it.

Theft is a theft, no doubt about it. But there have to be adequate punishment for stealing a DVD and adequate punishment for stealing a car. If you get (i.e.) lifetime sentence for killing one person, and just a slap over hands for killing someone else - all of you would say its an injustice.

You would have us believe that if the penalty were lower that you would not advocate that it's okay to steal someone else's property? We aren't foolish enough to believe that. Penalties act as deterrents. Lower the penalty, lower the deterrence.

Why then some of you try to prove here that stealing a DVD is correctly punishable by law in the amount of $150K fine (or up to actually) just because it is Big Fat Studio's property, and stealing a car from someone else make you laugh and post funny comments? Its a best example of your f***g hypocrisy, and shows best whose interests you represent on this board. Go on, laugh some more. Everybody knows anyway.

I know it stings a little to have your own examples turned around on you. And we're the hypocrits? Funny, but we're not the ones trying to lamely justify stealing someone else's property. You want hypocracy? Look in the mirror.

[haloblack]

Video market is dominated by few studios, who wont let anyone new in to share the pie.

Won't let anyone in? Not true it all. The problem is that it costs so much to enter the market.

friends of mine produced an indepedent movie... and they tried to sell it (at first). Without going into details: none of the distribution companies (nor any big retail companies like Walmart in example) was able to take it and distibute - even for free! (my friends were able to print it out on DVDs on small scale for a first batch)

Then we're talking about different things. When you said "enter the market" I took that to mean "become a video distributor/production house." From what you've just said, it seems that "enter the market" meant "get people interested in what I/my friends have to sell." If the second case is what you mean then I have to amend my previous statement. In your case, the problem is not the actual dollar costs to enter the market (by which I mean the initial outlay required to cover the physical creation of production/duplication/distribution) but the difficulty encountered when it comes to getting into the "mainstream" and making your product available to the general public. I don't doubt that your friends had trouble getting Wal-Mart to carry their movie. Your friends are movie producers with no name, no track record, and no reputation to speak of - why in the world would Wal-Mart want their products?

(and I don't say that at all as a slight to your friends. Imagine you're a buyer for Wal-Mart. You're responsible for stocking thousands of stores with movie product. Your schedule for Monday is this:

8:30 - Meet with Fox Rep re: "Master and Commander"
9:15 - Meet with CarolCo Rep re: "Terminator 3"
10:30 - Meet with Fox Rep re: "X-Men 2"
11:15 - Meet with Derex888's friends re: "My Excellent Indie Movie"

Where are you going to spend your money?

Think about it.

Wal-Mart, all the major distributors, they're responsible for moving tons of product to satisfy skillions of completely boring, average, normal Joe and Jane Six-Packs. They are not there to take risks, which is exactly what your friends' movie is. Regardless of how excellent it is, nobody's heard of it! Don't assume that your friends couldn't get distributed because of some evil compact between the distributors and the studios. Trust me - if the studios thought they could make a nickel off your friends, they'd be on them like white on rice. But if your job depended on sheer volume of sold dvd's and your choices were "Master and Commander" or "My Excellent Indie Movie," where would you spend your budget? If you're an artist, you'll pick "My Excellent Indie Movie." If you're someone who wants to stay empoyed, you'll pick Russell Crowe. It sucks, but that's the nature of the business.

you won't be able to do it, not on the domestic market, without first getting 'approval' from major players dominating US entertainment market.

As I said earlier - Vivid Video, Barney, Girls Gone Wild.

Not a major player involved, but millions of tapes sold.

If you have what the public wants, there is a way to sell it.

Funny thing is that my friends finally sold the movie for nice $$$ to some Portugese company who released it and distributed in Europe, and because it was probably somewhat popular there - their movie appeared in US for ~$50 on Region1 DVD by one of the big fat studios (lol).

Then a) you've proven my point that it is possible.

b) Congratu#*$&inglations to your friends. I'm fighting to get into film school myself, and I'll be thrilled if I ever get that sort of attention. Bravo to them.

[pacmania_2001]

I actually did a documentary on film piracy and talked to some of the local cinema owners.

To get the Hollywood releases they must sign contracts stating that they will dedicate X amount of screens to the release, X amounts of showing and then also agree to only deal with MPA members.

Look at the history of the Australian film industry. It was one of the world's leading and pioneering producers of films in the early 20th century however the cinema owners were forced to sign deals similar to above locking the cinemas into American movies.

If you want another example of the anti-competitive nature of the MPAA look at the intense lobbying it is undertaking at the moment to try and sway the American free trade contingent into negotiating unfettered access to the Australian industry under the free trade agreement whilst stopping Australian producers from that same access to their markets.

It's not an oligopoly when the competitors collude together under a central body, it's a monopoly.

As I said earlier - Vivid Video, Barney, Girls Gone Wild.

Millions of plastic bags are sold a year too without a major studio involved. You know why? Because major studios don't have an interest in plastic bags nor do they have an interest in the adult film industry.

You also don't see anyone in the adult film industry trying to get their movies shown in cinemas or getting sold through normal retail outlets.

Comparing apples to oranges.

You would have us believe that if the penalty were lower that you would not advocate that it's okay to steal someone else's property? We aren't foolish enough to believe that. Penalties act as deterrents. Lower the penalty, lower the deterrence.

No, the main use of penalties is as a control, a reactive control or a punishment. A side effect is the deterrent factor that arises from it. It's wrong when a penalty is used as a proactive instead of a reactive control and shows that the thing it is trying to control has a low level of enforcement.

As I said before, the punishment should fit the crime. A person can embezzle millions from a publicly traded company and escape with a fine less than that of an individual would face from downloading a single movie.

Create something worth copyrighting and you will have the same protection, same as everyone else who produces a copyrightable work. The MPAA isn't the only organization that benefits from copyright.

You're correct, the MPAA isn't the only benefactor of copyright laws but if I create a piece of intellectual property and it gets pirated what do you think is going to happen if I walk into the local FBI office and ask them to do something about it?

[bugster]

Lets face it, it is all to do with money.

Sure, anyone can claim copyright on their original work but only those with serious money can afford to actually enforce it.

A question for the legal experts out there, is Copyright infringement a criminal or a civil offence?

[DereX888]

@haloblack:

Then we're talking about different things. When you said "enter the market" I took that to mean "become a video distributor/production house."

In your case, the problem is not the actual dollar costs to enter the market [...] but the difficulty encountered when it comes to getting into the "mainstream"

...why in the world would Wal-Mart want their products?

All very much related and come out from the fact that few major studios have actual monopoly in the USA, and Walmart having such 'deal' (free product as in my friend's example) AFAIK was very interested in it, yet - regardless of the fact how 'big' market player Wally is - they still couldn't 'disobey' monopolistic contract(s) they were forced upon by few big fat studios.
How can you split hair here in thinking that production and distribution are different things? Yes, they still are in the rest of the world, but in USA they all are part of the 'hollywood monopoly' - where basically same studios (often under various company names just created for a one movie deal) are producing and distributing only their own products.
When we have such examplary Walmart interested in - but not able to take the product without "stamp of approval" from one of the big fat studios then it is nothing else but monopoly (or oligopoly someone else named it more correctly).
From very same practices comes MPAA/RIAA with their desire to subject any movie thief to life sentence or death penalty if they could.
It is all very much related, there is no "conspiracy" or such - just plain market monopoly controlled by few companies. Call it cartel, oligopoly, whatever - the problem lies and starts within faulty legal description of copyright laws and intellectual property. Only based on this MPAA could push laws to set penalty for stealing a movie higher than penalty for stealing a car, or i.e. Microsoft's claims that you have no right to use windows on a second computer!

Few years ago same claims were pushed by RIAA when cd burners became so cheap and everybody were churning their own discs - if anyone remember: according to them we had no right to make a copy of CD when we were going to use it i.e. in a car (while using original disc at home). Somehow this claim is gone now and I dont see anyone being punished for it. How different it is from copying your legally bought movie (or windows) and using it in another room of your home? Its allright to copy one digitally distributed intellectual property, but it is not allright to do so with another one?

Anyway, its another offtopic.
With some sleazebags squealing on this board I find no pleasure in discussing it any longer here, but you are welcome to msg me privately if you want.