Raiders
of the Lost Box Office
As the MPAA kicks its
anti-piracy
campaign into high gear, exhibitors
undertake
their role in thwarting bootleggers.
by Alma Freeman
It’s clear the bootleg-DVD vendors working downtown
Los Angeles this Saturday afternoon know they’re committing
a crime.
“Get lost!” they bark angrily,
using boxes and bodies to obscure their merchandize as we
try to photograph the
titles laid out on Santee Street.
The inexperienced can find it a little tricky
at first to spot the bootleggers – but once one knows
where to look, one sees them everywhere, always hunkered
down on the
section of the sidewalk closest to the street, behind vehicles,
trash cans, bus benches and fruit stands. The pirated DVDs
they hawk are often hidden beneath more legitimate merchandise
like caged iguanas and turtles, or stuffed inside small canvas
bags and well-worn cardboard boxes. The vendors never carry
more titles than they can flee with, in case a suspicious
cop approaches.
L.A. Fashion District officials told the Los
Angeles Business Journal that police confiscated more than
14,000 pirated
DVDs on Santee Alley (half a block west of Santee Street)
in November. In December, they seized more than 16,000 there.
On a casual hour-long Jan. 24 hike along both
sides of Santee Street, we spot no fewer than a dozen individuals
or teams
hawking the not-yet-in-theatres Elmore Leonard comedy “The
Big Bounce” as well as such still-in-theatres titles
as “The Butterfly Effect,” “Win a Date
with Tad Hamilton!” “Torque,” “Return
of the King,” “The Last Samurai,” “Cold
Mountain,” “Monster” and “21 Grams.” Though
the DVDs themselves uniformly sport no identifying labels,
they are all housed in professional-looking plastic keepcases.
Only close inspection reveals that the colorful cover art
(apparently cribbed from poster-selling Websites like moviegoods.com)
was produced by a color photocopier or perhaps a dot-matrix
printer.
Every one of the dozen vendors we approach
offers the exact same pricing structure: $5 per DVD, or five
DVDs for $20.
Some are willing to haggle on the older titles, others not.
All the bootleggers carry tiny, battery-powered DVD players,
to prove to potential customers that there’s actually
something recorded onto the plain white discs. Some of the
titles, like “The Butterfly Effect” and “Win
a Date with Tad Hamilton!” are dark, tinny-sounding
camcorder jobs, obviously shot inside cinema auditoria. Others,
like “21 Grams” and “Monster,” feature
excellent audio and picture and, under the bright sunshine
of Santee Street, are almost indistinguishable from legitimate
DVDs. The far superior quality of the specialty titles suggests
they were dubbed from “screeners,” stolen from
post-production houses or taken from some other industry
source.
Of course, many who have never heard of Santee
Street know how to get their hands on a new movie like “50 First
Dates” or “Eurotrip” – and it won’t
cost them $5. It isn’t difficult to put a pirated,
street-purchased movie on the Internet – and anyone
with a computer, a broadband Internet connection, some patience
and a little know-how can pull that movie back off the Internet
for free.
Inside Jobs?
Between May 2002 and May 2003, more than 50 major movie titles
were stolen via camcording prior to their theatrical releases,
according to Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
estimates.
The MPAA further estimates that nearly 41
million pirated DVDs were seized in 2002 by law enforcement
officials around
the world.
How many pirated movies come from industryites
and how many from “civilians”? It’s a question
fraught with controversy.
An AT&T report released in October indicates that 77
percent of all movies available on the Internet “appear
to have been leaked by industry insiders.”
Matt Grossman, MPAA director of digital strategy,
insists that the AT&T results don’t project an accurate
snapshot of what’s truly happening on the Internet.
He says the study only tracked the highest quality copies,
while lower-quality camcorder versions that appear online
first were mostly omitted from the study.
Grossman also takes issue with the report’s definition
of “insider.” He says the AT&T report counts
among the “industry insiders” (along with post-production
personnel and those with access to screeners) cinema personnel
and those who camcord movies with the help of assistive listening
devices for the hard-of-hearing.
The MPAA’s own data indicate that, for nine out of
10 titles, a camcorded moviehouse version manifests the first
appearance on the Internet. “This is not to say nine
out of 10 copies of all movies on the Internet are camcorder,” adds
Grossman. The percentage of camcorder copies inevitably decreases,
of course, once the more watchable, non-camcorder copies
begin drifting into cyberspace.
“The important fact is that piracy occurs at every step in the process,” says
NATO president John Fithian, “from production, to post-production, to screeners
and advanced screenings, to camcording in theatres. We must combat piracy at
each stage of the process.”
The MPAA is determined to put an end to the
better-quality copies that emerge from screeners or post-production
houses, says Grossman, and together the
MPAA and NATO are determined to put an end to camcorder piracy.
As if to illustrate the MPAA’s resolve, association members Warner Bros.
and Sony filed in late January a suit against 70-year-old character actor and
longtime Oscar voter Carmine Caridi, who supplied a friend named Russell Sprague
a number of recently issued studio screeners. The suit followed the FBI’s
Jan. 22 arrest of Sprague in connection with bootlegged Internet copies of “The
Last Samurai,” “Something’s Gotta Give” and a
litany of other titles. Like other recipients of the screeners, Caridi
had signed
an agreement promising not to share them.
Grossman says that camcorder piracy has become
an equally important issue to the MPAA’s member studios and requires an equal amount of assiduity.
“If we can stop the camcorder copies
which are getting up online within a week of the film’s (theatrical) release, that’s a very big deal for
us,” he says.
Though movie piracy has assumed a higher profile
recently due to the rise in Internet downloading (industry
experts estimate that
400,000
to 600,000
illegal
downloads of films are made every day), the MPAA has been tracking
pirates like the 51-year-old Sprague for well over 20 years. In
1981, agents
from the FBI found nearly 1,100 unauthorized videocassettes and
seven VCRs in
Sprague’s
apartment. In 1988, 700 illegal copies were seized again, though
Sprague was never prosecuted prior to his arrest early this year.
Until about eight months ago, studios had
no way of tracing a camcorder copy back to its source. This
is no longer the case, says Bill
Shannon, MPAA vice
president and director of U.S. anti-piracy operations. All major
studios are marking their prints with watermarks and codes enabling
authorities
to trace
an illegal print back to the cinema, and even the screen, from
which it was recorded.
But since it only takes one leak from one
dark auditorium somewhere in the world, some observers are
skeptical that any movie can
be kept safe
from
camcorder piracy once it goes into wide release.
“Warner Bros. has traced thousands of
online ‘Samurai’ copies and
25 bootlegs from 12 copies to one screener and two camcorder copies,” wrote
correspondent Amanda Ripley in a January Time magazine story on movie piracy. “That
is not a lot of leaks. But it only takes one.”
Exhibitors On
The Frontlines
Given that, in terms of U.S. movie admissions, 2002 and 2003
were monstrously successful (the biggest admission years,
in fact, since 1957), some U.S. exhibitors we spoke to questioned
how much piracy tangibly affects their business, and if the
potential losses are worth the risks enforcement would entail.
Some operators also wonder if the people who
are content to watch a camcorded movie would ever care, much
less pay,
to go to a cinema in any event. “The quality of the
camcorded stuff is so poor, I can’t see it cutting
into the box office,” says one exhibitor.
| The MPAA’s newly-created
nationwide hotline number is designed to provide exhibitors
with 24-hour
support in case of a camcorder incident. After notifying
local authorities, MPAA representatives ask that cinema
operators call the hotline number where they will be
asked a series of questions such as:
• “Where are you
located?”
•
“What is your phone number?” (make sure to
not give the recorded message number)
•
“Which movie is being recorded?”
•
“Can you describe the person camcording?”
•
“Is the camcorder still in the auditorium?”
•
“Have you already called local law enforcement?”
•
“Have you asked that they willingly surrender the
tape in the camcorder?” (if not, ask politely) |
NATO’s president cautions exhibitors about these attitudes. “Piracy
was not a major concern for domestic exhibitors a few years
ago. But, with the advance of technology and the penetration
of broadband access, piracy presents a growing problem even
to domestic theatre operators.”
Moreover, there is little doubt that piracy
drains a staggering sum from the movie industry as a whole:
the MPAA estimates
that over $3.5 billion in potential worldwide revenue is
lost to piracy annually.
Through a partnership with the MPAA and its
members, NATO is working to translate the effects of piracy
into germane
concerns for U.S. exhibitors, who have the best chance to
nip camcorder bootlegging in the bud.
“Piracy is no friend to U.S. cinema owners,
and it’s
nothing less than a blight to our members who operate overseas,
the exhibitors who get most of their Hollywood product weeks
or months after it opens here in the states,” notes
Fithian. “Any monies we can take away from the bootleggers
in any territory could obviously be used to bring more movies
and moviehouses to underserved millions around the world.
“I also think few would be shocked if
the additional revenue recovered from pirates resulted in
the production of bigger,
better and potentially more lucrative motion pictures. This,
of course, would be of enormous benefit to exhibitors everywhere.”
Despite concerns, most exhibitors appear to
appreciate the MPAA’s assistance, especially the organization’s
aggressive push for state anti-camcorder legislation. Loews
Cineplex president Mike Norris describes getting such laws
passed as “the most important thing that we can do.”
Enforcement
Confusion
Thanks largely to the efforts of the MPAA, anti-camcorder
laws have recently been passed in California, New York, Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin, Washington, D.C., and Ohio. By banning the unauthorized
use of camcorders within cinemas, all of the statutes are
designed to help state and local authorities prosecute pirates.
The association is now working aggressively to have similar
laws passed in 10 or more additional states by year’s
end.
In November, U.S. senators Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced the Artists
Rights and Theft
Prevention Act, a bill that, if passed, would give more federal
power to local authorities, allowing them to crack down on
those caught camcording in cinemas or distributing bootlegged
movies.
In states where anti-camcorder laws do not yet exist, some
exhibitors are hesitant to even notify law enforcement officials
when someone is caught camcording.
Some exhibitors relate tales of summoning
authorities, only to be told that there’s no law that
gives local police the right to arrest someone for recording
a film.
Randy Smith, senior vice president and human
resources counsel for Regal Entertainment Group, remembers
a particularly vexing
incident in Florida. An employee caught a man taping a movie
inside a Regal auditorium and alerted the circuit’s
corporate security team, which in turn alerted local authorities.
The police acted fast enough to catch the pirate in the act,
but told the venue’s manager that there was nothing
to be done.
“I was frustrated that our theatre guys
had done such a good job, and then the police let him walk.
And not only let him
walk, but [let him] take the product,” says Smith.
Even before the 2004 enactment of California’s
anti-camcording law, police in the Golden State have been
markedly less timid
about arresting individuals believed to be camcording movies.
In September 2002, for example, police were
summoned to deal with Johnny Ray Gasca, a man allegedly spotted
camcording
a test screening of “The Core” inside one of
AMC Theatres’ Burbank, Calif., auditoria. Gasca was
placed under arrest and charged with misdemeanor burglary.
The arrest, however, apparently did little
to slow Gasca’s
bootlegging activities. Released on bond, he was arrested
again seven months later, this time for allegedly camcording
a January 2003 test screening of “Anger Management” at
a Mann Theatres facility in Thousand Oaks. A studio-commissioned
video camera (trained on the audience to gauge its reaction
to the film) caught Gasca in the act of recording the film
from the front row, according to the court file.
With this second arrest, Gasca made headlines
as the first person to face federal prosecution for camcording
an unreleased
film.
But if California’s anti-camcorder law wasn’t
enacted until Jan. 1, 2004*, why was Gasca arrested and the
alleged Florida pirate not?
“What really cinched it for us with [Gasca’s 2003 arrest],
unfortunately, was that he was already on investigation for
attempted murder, and during that process of investigation
he threatened a U.S. postal worker and that’s what
got him arrested,” explains MPAA staff supervisor of
U.S. anti-piracy operations Mikhail Reider-Gordon. “The
theft charges were added after the fact.”
In the Florida incident, says Reider-Gordon,
it’s likely
local officers or prosecutors were unable to press charges
simply because they were unfamiliar with the proper theft
statute.
“It’s really just ignorance, and this is not a slam
against the officers, because we even have hundreds of officers
here in Los Angeles who are unfamiliar with the statutes
to use for counterfeit discs. … They call us up and
say, ‘I know this is wrong … but I don’t
know what to charge them with,’” she says.
She recommends that exhibitors notify local
authorities as soon as they spot someone recording in an
auditorium.
“For the safety of theatre personnel
and patrons, and for the opportunity to stop camcording,
we need to get local
authorities involved in the very outset,” says the
MPAA’s Shannon. “It never hurts to get the authorities
involved.”
The MPAA has a list of all related statutes
for every U.S. state, the bulk of which, says Reider-Gordon,
fall under
the general theft category – even though each state
has slightly different language and qualifications. To facilitate
communication with law enforcement and to educate exhibitors
on their rights, the MPAA is preparing for cinema owners
a state-specific fact-sheet to accompany a general policy
letter. It’s expected to be available by the March
22 start of exhibition’s largest convention, ShoWest.
In an effort to increase nationwide movie
piracy awareness among law enforcement professionals, MPAA
representatives
routinely attend national police and sheriffs conventions,
and plan to do much more this year.
While Shannon regards the education of police
to be a crucial component of the MPAA’s anti-piracy efforts, he says
it may be more important to get local prosecutors up to speed. “It
does no good, really, to have police respond, trying to take
really positive enforcement action, if, when they get to
the prosecution stage, they bring [the case] to a deputy
district attorney who then throws it out,” he says.
In an effort to support cinema employees and
moviegoers who wish to report criminal activity, the MPAA
launched a nationwide
24-hour hotline number – (800) 371-9884 – designed
to offer support during a camcorder incident.
The operator who answers will have the state
statutes and local jurisdictional details and can assist
managers if local
authorities are unfamiliar with camcorder or theft statutes
when they arrive.
The Perils Of Intervention
Anti-camcorder legislation may give exhibitors the right
to detain (at least until local authorities arrive) a pirate
caught camcording, but longtime NATO counsel Steven John
Fellman warns that if an exhibitor attempts to detain a
suspect, or even attempts a citizen’s arrest, that
exhibitor exposes himself to potential liability.
Exhibitors, legal experts, MPAA officers and law enforcement
officials all agree that, for a myriad of reasons, cinema
employees should not attempt to detain a suspect forcibly.
Aside from the potential for lawsuits,
it is not inconceivable that the suspect could be armed
and/or violent. Gasca, likely
the world’s most famous alleged camcorder pirate,
was convicted of attempted murder in 1992 after he used
a .38
special to shoot a friend in the face during an argument
over money.
A more common-sense approach, and one
that has obviously yielded arrests in the past, might be
to surreptitiously
identify a pirate as early as possible, then quietly
summon local law enforcement officials. Because the pirate’s
objective is to capture an entire movie on tape, police
often stand a reasonable chance of catching him in the
act.
Bill McMannis, vice president and general
manager of Michigan-based Goodrich Quality Theatres, admits
that
until anti-camcorder
legislation is passed in the four states in which Goodrich
operates (Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Montana),
it’s
unlikely that he will instruct his managers to summon
the law to stop a pirate.
Hopefully the legislation the
MPAA is sponsoring, which of course we are behind,
will go
through, and then we would certainly call the authorities,” he
says. “But for right now … it would be
a huge waste of our time.” *
Some exhibitors find calling the cops
excessive under any circumstances. One large-circuit official
says
that he
would not seek the detention of anyone caught recording.
After
a manager approaches someone recording, he says, “they
are happy to get up and leave at that point because they
don’t want the hassle.”
Capt. Jerry Szymanski, a veteran of
the Los Angeles Police Department commercial crimes division,
notes
that standing
in front of a camcorder could do the trick as
well.
Stopping the pirate is a higher priority
for the industry than punishing him, says Shannon. “The most important
thing is that our member companies don’t lose the film,
that Monday morning they are not seeing this worldwide on
the Internet. If there’s no arrest made, no identification – it’s
not as important as having stopped that camcorder,” he
says.
Fellman suggests that theatre owners
check with local enforcement officers before a real
incident
occurs,
and ask hypothetical
questions about how authorities would respond
if they were to receive a camcorder complaint
from
a cinema.
He adds that often small town exhibitors
might have better luck getting police assistance,
since they
probably know
the local authorities, and possibly even
the
particular officer on duty who responds
to a call.
“Our Customers Are Not
Our Enemies”
No one wants anti-piracy measures to interfere with a
moviegoer’s
enjoyment, and the MPAA’s Grossman says it’s
necessary for exhibitors and studios
to work together to strike the right
balance.
Preventative measures like anti-camcorder
signage, informational programs and
anti-piracy trailers
can help educate the
public and hopefully, says Shannon,
discourage potential pirates
from camcording.
Some cinema operators eye anti-piracy
measures more warily. One Midwest
exhibitor, who
asked not to be
identified,
expressed a fear of alienating his
audiences. “They are met at
the door with an anti-piracy message; they are met at the
box office with a vigilance to the R-rating policy – it
seems to be that every door they walk through there’s
a poster or a one-sheet that’s trying to explain to
them ‘don’t do this, don’t do that,’ instead
of just ‘come and enjoy the movie,’” he
says.
Still, most exhibitors express a
willingness to increase their anti-piracy
efforts
and keep a closer
eye on
what’s
happening in their auditoria. “Protecting the environment
and making people feel safer has become a bigger issue anyway,
and a little more security around is just not hurting anything,” says
Loews’ Norris. “It’s a partnership [with
the studios]. We take charge of that print, and it’s
our job to protect it to the best of our ability – I
think we all believe and feel this way. There’s a lot
more at stake here than whether we like doing it or not.”
Norris finds that with the right
amount of training it’s
possible to take a quick look around
the auditorium without disturbing
anyone, since moviegoers are typically
too focused
on the screen to notice.
Anti-camcording efforts must be “as discreet as possible,” says
senior MPAA exec Vans Stevenson. “We don’t want
to scare people, don’t want to disrupt people who have
come to have an enjoyable afternoon.”
“We fundamentally believe that
people want to go see their movies and enjoy themselves,” says Grossman. “That’s
an important [truth] that we can’t lose sight of in
this thing.
“Our customers are not our enemies.” 
*California first amended its penal
code in 1994 to find patrons who refuse to stop recording
a movie, upon the request
of a cinema owner, guilty of a misdemeanor for intentionally
interfering with and obstructing the operation of a lawful
business. In concert with this law, then-governor Gray Davis
signed a new piracy law that went into effect Jan. 1, 2004,
providing an additional statute (California Penal Code Section
653z) that finds those found recording without written authority
from the exhibitor to be automatically guilty of a public
offense, with the violator punishable by imprisonment not
exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or by
both such fine and imprisonment. To help California exhibitors
formulate company policy on how personnel should behave under
this new law, NATO of California/Nevada recently distributed
to its California members a white paper covering public education,
enforcement and tips on piracy prevention. The document was
shipped with anti-camcorder one-sheets and box office signage,
as well as a letter to each theatre manager advising that
they should first consult with their respective home offices
on policy before taking any action against suspected pirates.
