So I watched X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE a few days ago and posted my reactions to the rough cut of this upcoming film. Not only was I deluged with pompous, self-righteous comments from angelic beings of pure light, but our site was also targeted by FOX with demands to remove the sneak peek.
As I look over the decimation wrought this week by the internet leak of the WOLVERINE workprint, I find myself slightly nauseous at the posturing I’ve seen by many movie websites and the droning anonymous hordes that troll their message boards.
According to our dear reader “chuck”, who runs a little movie blog (officially the 200th million such site, by the way), I was immoral for watching the workprint. Nevermind that I never ripped the film, uploaded the film, downloaded the film, copied the film, or distributed the film. All I did was merely click a button and watch the film, just as easily as one might watch talking heads videos on YouTube. If what I did was immoral, then it was only in the loosest sense (the best kind of immorality, if you ask me … wink wink).
And that’s really the rub about the internet and stealing. The fact that you can push one little button and take anything you want dilutes the meaning of the idea of theft. The internet has created massive new ways to obtain stuff for free, and people are liberally taking advantage of that new business model. But while the internet may be desensitizing the way people look at stealing, it has yet to correctly change the way businessmen look at the nature of business.
The internet has completely changed the game, and it shocks me that so many of these businesses have yet to change their rules to cope with the difference. The music industry never recovered from the death stroke inflicted by the internet in the form of easily-downloaded music. Why did they not survive it? Because they failed to anticipate the rise of the technology, and then failed to capitalize on it or change their business model. You see, those record company executives liked making millions of dollars a year back in the eighties, when they could charge $20 for an album that cost them a dollar to make. They enjoyed having a stranglehold on the sound and image properties that made their companies obscenely rich with exorbitant pricing. Mixtapes, which have been around for decades, never worried the studio executives because it was a drop in the bucket. Hell, bands like Metallica made their name distributing their music for free early in their career. But once the internet began to take their money away, Metallica and the record studios greedily tried to retain the cash flows they used to enjoy, but by then it was too late. In the process, Metallica and others have actually seen a backlash … all because they failed to properly assess the power of the internet.
The movie business has been, for the most part, shielded from this type of problem because the internet was far too slow to easily distribute movies. Ten years ago, the bigger problem was DVD copying rather than internet distribution. However, for reasons not entirely clear, the movie studios did not address the situation promptly or properly. How could they not see that the same circumstances that befell the music business would eventually happen to them??? It was only a matter of time before technology would allow the distribution of movies just as easily as it had allowed music distribution in the nineties … how foolish for them to miss that fact.
It’s also a bit silly for a movie studio to bitch and complain about their movie being stolen when they’ve been freely distributing the workprint among employees for months. As Devin Faraci’s excellent article mentions, this policy almost DARES people to steal the film. My analogy to this situation goes like this: Imagine you left you house unlocked and unwatched. Someone eventually comes along, notices the door open and the house abandoned, so he steals your stuff. Of course the thief is wrong, but how much fault do you carry for the theft of your merchandise. You left it open for such an act, didn’t you?
Taking it one step further: Imagine that the thief, rather than take your stuff to his house, decides to leave your stuff on a random parking lot beside a dumpster. Eventually people will come along, see the merchandise, and take it home. Did they do anything necessarily wrong? They did not actually steal from you, nor did they really steal from anyone; they merely took stuff that was sitting there, seemingly free. Such is the case with everyone who watched WOLVERINE online – they were merely taking stuff that was sitting there for free. The real culprit in this crime is the fucking moron who left their door wide open in the first place, i.e. the dipshits currently running Twentieth Century Fox. Their stance on this issue this week has been nothing short of ludicrous and laughable.
Which leads me to this posturing over internet piracy. There have been several websites sighing and groaning over this “terrible and grievous act” (insert eye roll), each one attempting to console and coddle up to the bosses at FOX for the theft. They want to make it clear to their readers that they in no way condone the theft of movies over the internet. Fascinating. Of course, each one of these websites makes their bread and butter attempting to scoop one another with pictures taken from closed studio sets, internal studio emails, and, on occasion, the leaked movie itself. The most hypocritical movie site on this issue is Ain’t It Cool News, which has been blasting the pirates who posted the WOLVERINE print. What a fucking joke! Few can forget site owner Harry Knowles posting a breathless early review of ATTACK OF THE CLONES after watching a pirated version back in 2002. And before that, the psychotic lardass built the entire site around posting secret reports and spy photographs. Harry Knowles decrying internet piracy is like a fart complaining about the smell in the room.
The internet is never going away, folks. And the ability to obtain information and entertainment is only going to get easier, not more difficult. So the time has already come for these studios to remake themselves in light of this coming technological wave. The fact that they passed around multiple pristine copies of their big summer tentpole movie is proof enough that they have not learned their lesson yet. But if they want to survive, they need to do it fast.
And as for all the movie websites crying over internet piracy, go straight to hell and stay there. Movie websites complaining about internet piracy is like a mob lawyer complaining about mob activities; you’ve made your living doing the same type of shit that the pirates are now doing. Shut the fuck up and enjoy it, hypocrites.
38 Comments
“Harry Knowles decrying internet piracy is like a fart complaining about the smell in the room.” Best Quote from this article, which was very good by the way. I agree 100% with everything you said.
Ray my man…great article. Unfortunately, the studios have more backing than us. Therefore, their tight grip on their money will only allow for the release of several dollars at a time, ya feel me?
Huh! Nuff Said!
I thought the movie looked retarded until i started hearing review from people who had watched the workprint and now im a little hyped for it so i dont see the damage done by this.
The Attack of the Clones Harry viewed was provided by Lucasfilm, not pirated. Good job with your research.
@ MarcDom7 – Harry didn’t say it was from Lucasfilm. He said it was given to him in hotel room by an unnamed source.
Here is the actual description from his review:
“I saw Star Wars Episode Two: Attack of the Clones hours ago. The ‘how’ of that will be a thing of mystery buried in a passed piece of paper from my book signing with a hotel, a room number and a time listed upon it. You don’t want to know about that room or the person(s) in that room, you want to know about Episode Two. ”
In the talkbacks, Moriarty defends Knowles’ review thusly:
“… Lucasfilm can’t sue us. It’s a review. Harry doesn’t have the film. He’s not distributing the film. He’s talking about something he saw. And, yes… he saw it. Knowles has powerful mojo, and when he called me today to share with me something that (A) erased all doubt in my mind and (B) made me hate him with a white-hot intensity, there’s no doubt what he was watching. There are times when I have to take a step back and acknowledge whose kung-fu is stronger, and today, no doubt at all, it’s Harry’s. Fucking bastard.”
Nice research, yourself … you fucking moron.
@ Marcdom7 – Hey dumbshit … here’s a link to an article about the entire fracas with Knowles and the advance review … hmmm … it seems that the leak prompted a Lucasfilm retribution. Kinda strange for a company that, in your words, gave Harry the copy of the film.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,365143,00.html
You do realize that you have the option of thinking before you type something, right? Try that next time before you once again embarass yourself in public, kiddo.
I sometimes wish we could have an I.Q. test as a screener for comments on this site.
@ Ray – You’re an arrogant piece of shite Ray. Just because you have no ethics you feel entitled to rip people who do? Sort it out mate, after all you’re a “so-called” proffesional right?
Writing articles that bitch and whine about people who may be annoyed with you for breaking the law does not constitute journalism, hell it barely constitutes blogging. If you’re going to do something stupid like openly admit to watchin an illeagal copy of a leaked film, then you should at least take the criticism like a man
Yes,!!!! All you ball lickers will pay! now kneel before Zod.
You tell em’ Ray! ( mind you, I personally dont condone any type of piricy whatsoever!……cept those DVD’s that i copy like!)
To quite the only American royalist, King Rodney of L.A.:
Can’t we all just get along?
@ “chuck” – I can take criticism like a man. I can also defend my position like one. I guess in your perfect world, I would admit to watching the film, you would critcize me, and then I would curl up into the fetal position and cry for momma.
Fortunately, I have a brain, and I can articulate my own thoughts and positions quite well. You can have your position and I can have mine … that’s the beauty of both the internet and a democratic society. Just trust me on this one – if you’re going to come to this site and challenge me by calling me a thief and immoral, I will definitely fight back. It’s not arrogance, it’s called self-respect. Mind you, I did not start calling you ugly names first – you did that. I’m just finishing the job you began.
Now … if you have actual articulate opinions to express on this subject, then feel free to share them. But spitting out blustery nonsense about being immoral will get you nowhere.
I’m with you Ray, people can fuck off. Like they’ve never watched something illegal on YouTube.
I understand your point regarding studios and record companies but what should they do? Your argument seems to be that the music industry deserved what they got due to charging $20 for a CD. I don’t accept that. Business is business. Movies are made for profit, if that profit is endangered something must change, but what?
@ MDOC – You know what must change? Profit margins must change.
My point isn’t that record companies SHOULDN’T have charged that amount in the eighties and made those enormous sums of money – the market bore that, and they had every right to charge it if they could get that from consumers. My point is that they aren’t willing to CHANGE along with the changing realities.
The reality is that the old business model does not work anymore. The internet has allowed far too much sharing to continue to do business as usual. The companies have, for decades, operated with impunity. They have corporate bosses making millions and millions of dollars every year, middle management making slightly less, and all of the perks and priveleges that massive wealth and power bring. They reasonably don’t want all of that to go away, so they have been clinging to this old model like a dying man on his respirator.
But the sad truth is that the old model is dead thanks to the internet. The music business failed to realize this, and has mostly expired. The newspaper business is currently being dismantled. Next will be television and movies. That is the reality … it’s called natural selection. These studios are the dinosaurs, and the internet is the asteroid that destroyed them.
Hey, I like that analogy!
Bizarrely, you have former visionaries like Rupert Murdoch telling conventions that newspapers need to start charging for their news in the form of online subscriptions. He still simply does not get it.
At this time, the internet is for the little guy. It’s the Old West in the 1800’s. People can strike out on their own and possibly find gold, or at least a little chunk of real estate they can call their own. It cannot be controlled, at least not for a long time. The days of corporate domination are severely numbered.
I’m not the one quoting ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY as a source. The fallout re: AOTC was hyberbolized, and nothing actually happened and no true ramifications occurred. From such a powerful company to actually do nothing, perhaps you can wrap your mind about this little ditty — Harry has always overdramatized how he received certain films. It seems you are trying to put false information together out of sheer hatred for Harry, and you’ve been had. I can attest to the true fact that there is no story.
Great job with the “research.”
@ MarcDom7 – I have no idea how credible you are, or how close you are to the actual story there. But all I can say is this: AICN has made its living off of doing the exact same thing that is being condemned here. Drew McWeeny calling for the head of Roger Friedman (and getting it today ….) is ridiculous amounts of hypocrisy. You should not even attempt to protect or shield them from criticism.
As for your defense of your position, what you have written in that last comment essentially amounts to “trust me on this one, I know what I’m talking about.” SHOW ME PROOF other than your assertion that Lucasfilm simply did not go after AICN. Where has it been shown that Harry viewed a legal copy of the film given to him from Lucasfilm and with their blessing???? You’re the one claiming that he did, so where’s the proof? I’ve coughed up a couple of sources, including McWeeny’s own words, to testify otherwise.
My own take on it is this: Lucasfilm couldn’t really do anything to them because they did nothing wrong. They did not steal the movie, copy the movie, or distribute the movie. All they did was report what they saw. However, Lucasfilm DID attempt to go after the actual perpetrators, much like Fox is doing right now.
So…I’m not really sure what your point is, then.
Hmmmm … today McWeeny wrote an article talking about the Friedman firing over the piracy issue. And in it, he says that he was the subject of retribution by studios for his involvement with pirated materials during his tenure with AICN … which then, in his mind, justifies the Friedman firing.
Sure sounds like he’s innocent, doesn’t it, MarcDom7??? You certainly must have some truly amazing powers of perception.
Hilarious.
@ Ray – This has become a completely childish slanging match, in which you seem to be quite happy to completely shit all over anyone who may have a different opinion from yours, and you have the gall to talk about democracy?
Film piracy, for all it’s right’s and wrongs, would be the equivalent of me and thousands of other people copying the stories from this site completely word for word and posting them on other websites. Even with a link back that would be tantamount to plagiarism.
You are right in saying that I have my opinion, and you have yours, so, if you do feel like posting articles like this to defend your own actions, phrases like “Shut the fuck up and enjoy it, hypocrites” don’t make for a constructive argument. Also, personally slandering readers – who’ve been loyal for years now – in said articles are also dirty tactics. 200 million? I don’t know where you’re getting your figures from but you either can’t read numbers or you’re talking crap (my opinion).
I’m happy to debate this issue with you until I’m blue in the face, but if you’re going to defend yourself please try and do it with a little more decoram and a few less tantrums.
Chuck, tantrums is what Ray does best. Somebody get him some Pampers and a pacifier!
Ray, your huge mouth and tiny brain will wind up getting this site closed for good one of these days. You’ve always suffered from Diarrhea of the Mouth and this Wolverine flap is only the latest example.
There’s a lot to be said for a pathetic douche so starved for attention that he will gladly risk sinking an entire site just to get five minutes of attention by saying “I saw a workprint of ‘Wolverine!’”
All right you got your cookie. You got to play the part of industry “insider” for five minutes. Now what?
Put aside whether people think it was “right” or “wrong” for you to view the film illegally. The greater issue is why would you put the site at risk by publicizing that you had? The site had to put up with trash talk from the studios that could –and should!– have been avoided, but wasn’t because of you.
Yes, I’m sure you’ll blame Matt, it’s his site and God forbid if YOU ever take responsibility for the foolishness that gushes from that orifice in your face. But IESB got a Cease and Desist letter for posting some phone-cam pics from the set of Iron Man. The MovieBlog got in hot water for Transformers pics they posted and their host even took them offline because of it.
And you’ve got the nerve to curse at people and name call because they don’t support what you did?
Why don’t you take some Ex-Lax, then try to understand that:
1.) You’re not Harry Knowles, he’s got “contacts” all over the biz and hence can get away with stuff bloviating peons like you can’t!
2.) Hollywood is a place where relationships matter. Do you think what you’ve done helps this site or hurts it? It’s one or the other. You don’t get to say, “Doesn’t matter, they’ll forget about it in a few months anyway.” Forget the fact you wouldn’t even have needed to dodge this particular bullet if you had kept your big yap shut.
My hometown pissed off a LOT of people with the whole bullshit arrest of Jeffery Wright and Josh Brolin. The city let it drag on and on and even denigrated the actors in the media.
Now our “leaders” in City Hall can’t figure out why productions aren’t announcing any new shooting to begin in our area and those that were here are rushing back to New Orleans even though Orleans has barely started recovering from the hurricanes.
They refuse to understand that they went out of their way to piss everyone off. And they did it because they’ve got more brass than brains.
Say Ray, can I interest you in running for a seat on our City Council? You’d fit right in.
Do we really have to start this conversation over and over? I haven’t seen one conversation about piracy that wasn’t completely pointless and convinced no one so let’s keep talking about movies not who is pissed at who in the industry.
I’m backing you Ray. You made a good point and all these guys blasting you have done is talk crap. No constructive points. Even JaySmack who usually at least makes a good argument – if always negative – has nothing on you. Chuck can’t back up his points so he rages about how pathetic you are.
This film was in the public domain for anyone to see. Fox fucked up by letting this out of the bag. It happens on very few movies so why did they let it happen on this one? These companies are fully aware of modern technology – why take the risk?
And I completely share your viewpoint on how the business model needs to change – it’s broken. Current copyright laws are just like prohibition. The general public does not regard these laws as being in line with their view point and so they will not be followed. Just because the government says A) is moral and correct, and B) is immoral and wrong doesn’t always make it so – the general public have to agree – not just the money & power.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t get paid for their creative work, but the way things are at the moment there isn’t a middle ground. The entertainment industry needs to come up with a solution – find out in exactly what way the people are prepared to compromise with them. They are currently fighting a losing battle. They are trying to shut down all the bit torrent sites through court cases – even if they win people will create new underground sites. Or of that doesn’t work a new technology to distribute media.
@Jaysmack – I’m not even going to deal with your ridiculously over the top insults. The only insults I’ve hurled in this discussion came about in response to posturing assholes who do not back up their assertions.
While the site did receive a letter from Fox regarding my story, I wouldn’t characterize it as attacks as you have here. I have not put this site at risk to my knowledge because matt has not told me anything negative about it. As you have said, it’s his site. He could have pulled the story right away if he was concerned about issues of copyright or studio blackballing. He chose not to. I wonder why…
You make an interesting point about your city council. If I was actually concerned with kissing the dimpled ass of Fox, then I would have taken the route of your hero Knowles. Of course let’s not forget that he amassed those studio contacts you crow about by doing the exact same thing i’ve done here … So your “point” is effectively neutered.
I felt the story had journalistic perspective because I wanted to tackle the issue of piracy as well as the movie. And I’m not particularly sorry about the issue, primarily for the reasons I’ve outlined here about how the industry is at least partially to blame for their resistance to change.
On a side note, I really don’t understand why someone as intelligent as yourself, someone who obviously has little regard for me or my abilities, would ever bother reading or addressing one if my articles. I know that I do not patronize sites that I strongly disagree with or do not respect… So why do you? Please feel free to troll other articles here and other sites elsewhere.
Just wanted to point this out to you…
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/2009-4-4-fox-fires-friedman-over-wolverine-review
“There are definitely other sites online who have written about viewing the workprint. iO9, for example, or Obsessed With Film, and they don’t seem remotely worried about having downloaded or reviewed the film. The difference is that neither of those sites is owned by News Corp, the parent company whose work was stolen. And while I would expect Fox to pursue some form of action against those sites, they’re in no position to fire anyone there. The most they’ll do, I’m guessing, is make sure those sites aren’t invited to any press events in the future. Been there. Done that.”
Public Domain [definition]: the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone
X-Men Origins: Wolverine = private domain that was stolen.
@ Lencho – Yeah, I saw it … in fact, I quote from that article in one of my comments above. And McWeeny’s right about that. The site could get blackballed from the studios, at least while it’s in their financial ability to leverage that power. I think I’ll save the rest of that idea for tomorrow’s column. But it’s nice to see McWeeny own up to the fact that he was once the very thing he is decrying now … he just wants to keep his buddies in the industry now that he has a substantial monetary reason for doing so. You can call that mindset any profane name you can think of.
@ Larry Wilmore – Thanks for that helpful definition. And I wholeheartedly agree. While we’re defining things, let’s define the word “theft” : the willful taking of someone else’s lawful property, without any material compensation in return.
Of course, I didn’t watch WOLVERINE because I didn’t intend to pay for it. In fact, I very much have plans to go to the theater to view it at full price when it comes out. Additionally, my coverage of this workprint – as well as the now deposed Roger Friedman – provides Fox with very valuable positive coverage of their film. Isn’t it odd how Fox came after us and Friedman DAYS after the reviews came out? Friedman’s review came out Thursday, and it only just was removed today. I posted last Wednesday morning, and it only just now was removed as well. I have no doubt that they liked the coverage … they simply cannot play both sides of the aisle in public forums.
But that’s beside the point. I did not STEAL the film, because Fox has already been compensated in the form of positive coverage of their maligned tentpole feature, and they will be compensated again by me when I purchase tickets to see the film in theaters. Hell, I’ll even buy a beer at the concession stand so the theater owner gets his cut as well.
But one thing you need to keep in mind about the idea that WOLVERINE was stolen: As Devin Faraci points out (and I’ve reiterated), Fox made and distributed free DVD copies of this film months before its release, which makes them partially liable for “leaving the front door open.”
And they know it.
@ Ray – Yeah, depending on how connected you are, it seems you end up kissing some studio’s ass no matter what you’ve done in the past or normally would do now. Does Fox even screen films to you guys?
I’m not sure where this idea is coming from that I’m not providing a constructive arguments – perhaps from the fact that most of my points were on the article that Fox has had you delete?
The point is that viewing an illeagally downloaded movie is being privvy to the disputed activity itself. And regardless of whether or not Ray has given a positive review off of the back of this is irrelevant. The point is that he’s done exactly what Roger Friedman did for Fox News, and even he got given the push.
My POINT, just to make it perfectly clear. Is that I believe what you did was wrong, many other people believe what you did was wrong, and I also believe your actions are damaging to the reputation of Obsessed with Film.
My second point is that, rather than provide us with a contstructive debate, Ray seems to be happy to settle for insults such as “And as for all the movie websites crying over internet piracy, go straight to hell and stay there” and “Nice research, yourself … you fucking moron” which not only betrays Ray’s true nature but serves to back up the level of proffessionalism the man has, and also his “appreciation” for the readership he has off of the back of this site.
Whether or not you can download movies easily at the point of a button is irrelevent, the point is that pressing that button is still illegal, no matter how easy or convenient it is to do. It’s a choice, should you choose to download pirate films, or view pirate movies, you are breaking the law. So please don’t try to cover it up with a smokescreen of words and shit.
To lighten up the comment section…
Ray, I guess you are a pirate now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AzpByR3MvI
If there’s a question that cant be answered by a Lazy Town song, I havent heard it yet- and I damn well dont want to!
@ Chuck/craig – Again, I will stress this: I DID NOT DOWNLOAD THE FILM ONTO MY COMPUTER. I watched a streaming version online, much the same way you might watch a clip from a television show or movie on YouTube – which is also “illegal” by the definition of the studios. Have you ever watched a clip like that on YouTube, buddy? I bet you have.
As for Friedman, he worked for Fox. There was simply no way for the guy to remain employed at the company and allow Fox a way to prosecute any wrongdoers. He HAD to be fired. One thing about his article was the tone of it – he was bragging about how great it was that he could watch the film while at home, avoiding the rain outside. It was truly a bizarre tone to the article. There was simply no way Fox could retain the guy and save face on this issue.
I’m not sure I agree with you about positive coverage being irrelevant. Over at AICN – the grandfather of pirate movie coverage – studios lavishly buy Harry’s positive coverage constantly. It’s especially important in cases like WOLVERINE, where the coverage thus far has been poisonous. These studios WANT as much positive coverage as possible. What they do NOT want to face is the INEVITABLE reality of internet piracy becoming a widespread or widely publicized phenomenon. They don’t like it when one of their own critics takes to his blog and tells thousands of readers that pirated movies are convenient and easy … it gives people the wrong idea. The studios are faced with inevitable restructuring, they’re scared by it (and rightfully so), and they are refusing to see the light of day. But I assure you, they will evenutally be forced to see it.
@ Lencho – Yes we get screeners from Fox … or had … I’m not sure what the status is on that situation. I haven’t heard from them one way or another on that subject.
Really great article so dead on fuck AICN they suck fucking balls and by far one of your best articles and best opinions.
My comment, Ray, was dedicated to Gavin, who mentioned that the film was in the “public domain.”
Get off the defensive, buddy.
@ Dan – Thanks for your support!
@ Larry – Sorry … I didn’t get that. It’s easy to get on the defensive when everyone’s comin’ down on you! LOL
Yea that was my bad. Too much Night of the Living Dead research. Public Domain was the first phrase that jumped into my head. It was the wrong phrase to use.
A better phrase probably have been public eye?
I’m sure you understand what I’m getting at.
I totally agree with Ray and Gavin. Even though I love AICN and Harry, it is hypocritical in this day and age for these movie site webmasters and reviewers to blast the very thing they built their reputations on. I have not seen Wolverine. In fact, I plan on seeing it on the big screen. But, am I a terrible person if I sneak into another movie after Wolverine? I have been condemned for that! In fact, I snuck into Phantom Menace after South Park: The Movie and one of my friends waited outside because he thought I was ripping off the artists. Funny, considering paid the first three times and snuck in at the end. I guess this situation should be taken “from a certain point of view…”
I like reading the article and hearing the different viewpoints….Just wanted to mention something from Ray’s post above…
@ Chuck/craig – Again, I will stress this: I DID NOT DOWNLOAD THE FILM ONTO MY COMPUTER. I watched a streaming version online, much the same way you might watch a clip from a television show or movie on YouTube – which is also “illegal” by the definition of the studios. Have you ever watched a clip like that on YouTube, buddy? I bet you have.
What you may not realize is that there is no such thing as watching a streaming version online and not downloading. Every time you watch a video or look at a photo on your PC, I have tools that will show you that a copy of it is definitely stored on your computer for later viewing. So, technically, viewing a video does download it……Small point, but I wanted to weigh in….Thanks.
@ Movie Fan – That’s a very interesting point, and nice to know in case I ever need to retrieve porn I’ve previously watched for another go-round LOL.
I wonder if the studios want to take it to that extreme, though. I think they really just want to prevent the distribution of their materials, and that requires downloading and distribution methods.
I think they would want to take it to that extreme. Their problem with this is that people (such as yourself) can review it negatively and reduce their takings.
I dont think your particular review would make much difference to it because the people who come to this site are “Obsessed With Film” and so would have already made their mind up if they wanted to see it or not. But if a critic for a daily paper released a review trashing the film, a lot of their box office money would go down the pan.
Word of mouth is still the best form of advertising, and the buzz this leak created was pretty big. Personally I think this will just increase it’s takings because of the way they handled the press (”It’s unfinished, it’s unfair to critique it before the final cut”).