General question about screeners

Shybride2016

So screener season is upon us yet again and I'm curious if anyone in the know can explain what the story is behind the leaks please.

How are they leaked? Do the voters for awards each get a copy to watch? Are they numbered? Is there a way of finding out who leaked what online and are there any repercussions for those who leak if they are found out?

I'm genuinely curious and would love to know how the studios feel about them or are they part of the whole "leak" process to garner buzz around them before they're released in the cinema?

B.A._Baracus

Shybride2016 wrote: »

So screener season is upon us yet again and I'm curious if anyone in the know can explain what the story is behind the leaks please.

How are they leaked? Do the voters for awards each get a copy to watch? Are they numbered? Is there a way of finding out who leaked what online and are there any repercussions for those who leak if they are found out?

I'm genuinely curious and would love to know how the studios feel about them or are they part of the whole "leak" process to garner buzz around them before they're released in the cinema?

Dvd screeners are a weird thing.
Can't tell you if every voter gets a copy but there are also said to be various movie reviewers who get them too.

As of a couple of years ago the movie studios would put a watermark indicating whose copy it was in a bid to stop it from leaking online. Then they later made the screen go black and white at certain parts to indicate who it was sent too. Now accordingly they use hidden audio in the movies soundtrack to identify.

Doesn't seem to stop much tho which is the weird thing.

Shybride2016

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Dvd screeners are a weird thing.
Can't tell you if every voter gets a copy but there are also said to be various movie reviewers who get them too.

As of a couple of years ago the movie studios would put a watermark indicating whose copy it was in a bid to stop it from leaking online. Then they later made the screen go black and white at certain parts to indicate who it was sent too. Now accordingly they use hidden audio in the movies soundtrack to identify.

Doesn't seem to stop much tho which is the weird thing.

That's interesting, thanks. Does seem strange that it doesn't stop the leaks though. I don't really understand why they're not invited to screenings and then maybe their phones or other technological devices taken away until afterwards. Especially if it's true that a lot of the voters for the academy awards haven't even seen a lot of the films that are nominated. Now that I definitely can't get my head around!

Sad Professor

They are invited to screenings. They don't go. Even getting them to watch the screeners is a challenge. Many members give the screeners to their wife, kids, assistant to watch instead which is how they end up online. A lot of people in the film industry are too busy working to watch films, or they're too old and think everything is crap and only watch the ones their friends were involved with.

Most of the time the films in question are good, relatively low budget independent films not sh*tty blockbusters that cost 300 million, so preventing them from leaking is not necessarily a huge priority for the studios. Winning awards is more important and will bring in more money in the long run.

ps3lover

I don't get why anyone would do this. You don't get anything for it and it's so not worth going to jail over. Remember that one poor fool who did jail time for leaking The Love Guru.

johnny_ultimate

I think the risk of going to jail is negligible (not non-existent, but uploading is a very different situation than downloading in the studios' eyes), but when a cinema or proper HD release is just around the corner I couldn't bring myself to watch a DVD-quality screener. Morally I'm opposed to it too - I'm part of the increasingly rare, deluded breed who believes in paying for quality art/media :pac: - but given I have easy access to good cinemas and high quality broadband, it's rare a superior, legal option isn't available with some patience (yes, I know a one-two month wait is excessive for some). And given the sheer volume of good **** out there, there's never a period when no instant access to the latest releases will leave me without an impossibly large selection of films to watch.

FloatingVoter

Shybride2016 wrote: »

So screener season is upon us yet again and I'm curious if anyone in the know can explain what the story is behind the leaks please.

How are they leaked? Do the voters for awards each get a copy to watch? Are they numbered? Is there a way of finding out who leaked what online and are there any repercussions for those who leak if they are found out?

I'm genuinely curious and would love to know how the studios feel about them or are they part of the whole "leak" process to garner buzz around them before they're released in the cinema?

There is certainly a level of collusion about certain leaks. Last year, The Interview was deliberately leaked and seen by millions who wouldn't have touched the thing with a bargepole otherwise.
Others I would imagine genuinely piss off the makers - I can't see Quentin Tarantino being too pleased with the Hateful Eight leaking given how annoyed he was about the script going online before a camera rolled.
For big budget special effects monsters the leak propably serves as a taster. If Force Awakens leaks I'd see it as nothing more than an extended trailer to squeeze more bums onto seats. Star Wars / Transformers / Avatar sequels are always best seen in a cinema (or not at all).

Shybride2016

Sad Professor wrote: »

They are invited to screenings. They don't go. Even getting them to watch the screeners is a challenge. Many members give the screeners to their wife, kids, assistant to watch instead which is how they end up online. A lot of people in the film industry are too busy working to watch films, or they're too old and think everything is crap and only watch the ones their friends were involved with.

Most of the time the films in question are good, relatively low budget independent films not sh*tty blockbusters that cost 300 million, so preventing them from leaking is not necessarily a huge priority for the studios. Winning awards is more important and will bring in more money in the long run.

I'm obviously taking these things far too seriously but I find it incredible that someone whose job or part of their job is to vote for award winners are actively not doing their job and passing it to family or friends who then leak it!! Some friends they are haha!! In trying to relate the Hollywood movie awards industry to "normal" jobs, anyone would be fired on the spot for this sort of practice surely.

I've come to realise over the years that the Oscars are very political anyway but this just cements it really. I take your point that those who are involved in films outside of the blockbuster superhero genre aren't really fussed about box office numbers and would agree that's the case.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I think the risk of going to jail is negligible (not non-existent, but uploading is a very different situation than downloading in the studios' eyes), but when a cinema or proper HD release is just around the corner I couldn't bring myself to watch a DVD-quality screener. Morally I'm opposed to it too - I'm part of the increasingly rare, deluded breed who believes in paying for quality art/media :pac: - but given I have easy access to good cinemas and high quality broadband, it's rare a superior, legal option isn't available with some patience (yes, I know a one-two month wait is excessive for some). And given the sheer volume of good **** out there, there's never a period when no instant access to the latest releases will leave me without an impossibly large selection of films to watch.

I totally agree and yes, for most films due out I'll be patient and wait to see it on the big screen first of all but a new LDC film can't be waited for when it's accessible 6 weeks in advance! Plus knowing I won't get to see it til February probably due to lack of babysitters just makes me more impatient!

I think there are people out there who would watch a leaked film but also go to see it on the big screen when it is released but I would love to know the stats around the drop in cinema attendance once the screeners became more widely available.

Duggy747

Last year wasn't Walter Mitty's screener associated with Ellen DeGeneres? Did any update come of that as to what happened there?

FloatingVoter

Shybride2016 wrote: »

I think there are people out there who would watch a leaked film but also go to see it on the big screen when it is released but I would love to know the stats around the drop in cinema attendance once the screeners became more widely available.

Screener season has been with us for years. Every year with better broadband made more widely available it grows. A lot of people who watch a screener wouldn't have paid to see the film in the first place, so while the industry counts them as lost customers they were never potential customers to start with.
Undoubtedly there is a loss of revenue, but it would hit smaller independent movies far more than the behemoths. I hate the theft analogy, but that's like shoplifting from the local cornershop vs. shoplifting from Tesco. I'm betting revenues from The Guard would have been doubled or even trebled if there was no internet. I'm also betting JJ Abrams and Disney will pocket more from flogging lunchboxes to schoolkids that they ever will from cinema receipts.

Sad Professor

Shybride2016 wrote: »

I'm obviously taking these things far too seriously but I find it incredible that someone whose job or part of their job is to vote for award winners are actively not doing their job and passing it to family or friends who then leak it!! Some friends they are haha!! In trying to relate the Hollywood movie awards industry to "normal" jobs, anyone would be fired on the spot for this sort of practice surely.

Voting on films isn't their job, though. They don't get paid for it. Most of them are filmmakers or producers. They are invited to become members of these award bodies which are compromised of industry professionals unlike say critics awards which are decided by a committee.

Shybride2016

Sad Professor wrote: »

Voting on films isn't their job, though. They don't get paid for it. Most of them are filmmakers or producers. They are invited to become members of these award bodies which are compromised of industry professionals unlike say critics awards which are decided by a committee.

Fair enough it's not their day job and its unpaid but if you're invited to be a part of an awarding body you need to play by the rules no? Otherwise it's all just a farce and a pointless exercise of which film did the most promotion, lunching with the right people and saying the right things to the right people, which brings me back around to the point that it's all a load of rubbish!

Shybride2016

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Screener season has been with us for years. Every year with better broadband made more widely available it grows. A lot of people who watch a screener wouldn't have paid to see the film in the first place, so while the industry counts them as lost customers they were never potential customers to start with.
Undoubtedly there is a loss of revenue, but it would hit smaller independent movies far more than the behemoths. I hate the theft analogy, but that's like shoplifting from the local cornershop vs. shoplifting from Tesco. I'm betting revenues from The Guard would have been doubled or even trebled if there was no internet. I'm also betting JJ Abrams and Disney will pocket more from flogging lunchboxes to schoolkids that they ever will from cinema receipts.

It's a good analogy though I think. Yes, you'd have to imagine the merchandising around certain films would be the majority of the film's profits so they wouldn't be as affected by leaks.

I'd agree that most screener viewers wouldn't have paid to see the film anyway so they're not lost as such.

Shybride2016

FloatingVoter wrote: »

There is certainly a level of collusion about certain leaks. Last year, The Interview was deliberately leaked and seen by millions who wouldn't have touched the thing with a bargepole otherwise.
Others I would imagine genuinely piss off the makers - I can't see Quentin Tarantino being too pleased with the Hateful Eight leaking given how annoyed he was about the script going online before a camera rolled.
For big budget special effects monsters the leak propably serves as a taster. If Force Awakens leaks I'd see it as nothing more than an extended trailer to squeeze more bums onto seats. Star Wars / Transformers / Avatar sequels are always best seen in a cinema (or not at all).

Taking Tarantino as an example there, would he have a case against whoever it was that leaked the script or would they just not be bothered?

FloatingVoter

Shybride2016 wrote: »

Taking Tarantino as an example there, would he have a case against whoever it was that leaked the script or would they just not be bothered?

Damage already done. What would be the point other than bad publicity of chasing some idiot through the courts only to find it was your own daughter who gave the game away for a kiss. [and that is my script not the reality of the piece...QT]

BTW see Hateful 8....fantastic three hour stage play. If you like TV Fargo, he has made you your perfect movie. Donate the spare fiver or tenner to charity of choice. Although the scenic views do deserve an IFI viewing.

titan18

As mush as I'd like to not watch them and wait for the cinema, they do make it awfully tempting. Amazed considering we all know it happens every year, that not more is done to stop it happening. Something like The Hateful Eight or Creed would probably make a good bit of money

johnny_ultimate

Hateful Eight is a great example of why it's insane to settle for a screener copy. A 70mm-shot film with a 2.75:1 aspect ratio? That's something explicitly, unmistakably designed for a big screen, and it baffles me why anybody would settle for that over waiting another week or two to see it as intended. Even a super high quality home system would struggle with Tarantino's widescreen canvas there.

If you're so eager to watch it right now that you'd settle for a truly inferior viewing, I guess there's nothing I can say to change you're mind. But hey you only get the opportunity to see a film for the first time once, and if a DVD quality screener is what you choose then that's your own call. You're doing the film a disservice though - and I say that as someone who could happily take or leave pre-Jackie Brown Tarantino

Shybride2016

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Damage already done. What would be the point other than bad publicity of chasing some idiot through the courts only to find it was your own daughter who gave the game away for a kiss. [and that is my script not the reality of the piece...QT]

BTW see Hateful 8....fantastic three hour stage play. If you like TV Fargo, he has made you your perfect movie. Donate the spare fiver or tenner to charity of choice. Although the scenic views do deserve an IFI viewing.

Ooh I'm intrigued now. Absolutely loved Fargo tv so will defo put H8 on my watchlist, thanks for the recommendation.

I take your point about not bothering suing re leaks. I think I'm applying common sense logic to something that it just can't be applied to. That's showbiz eh?

Edited to add: I love your suggestion of donating to charity for every download. That's a fantastic idea! Wonder if it'll catch on though ☺️

johnny_ultimate

Donating to charity for every film you download is no better than walking out of a restaurant without paying and donating the money to the charity instead. One 'right' act doesn't cancel out the 'wrong' act. In an ideal world art would be free. It isn't. We have to make do, and well you have no right to just take a film for free and distribute the money wherever else you want. It might make you feel better, but it comes at other people's expense (especially the smaller the film is).

Here's a better idea: pay for the films you watch, and donate to charity as well. MSF is a good one if you're looking.

Shybride2016

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Donating to charity for every film you download is no better than walking out of a restaurant without paying and donating the money to the charity instead. One 'right' act doesn't cancel out the 'wrong' act. In an ideal world art would be free. It isn't. We have to make do, and well you have no right to just take a film for free and distribute the money wherever else you want. It might make you feel better, but it comes at other people's expense (especially the smaller the film is).

Here's a better idea: pay for the films you watch, and donate to charity as well

Haha! Yeah that's a fair point alright. I'm not an advocate of downloading everything in sight but the principle is still the same whether I download one every couple of years or one a week. Shouldn't do it, know it's wrong, but I have no willpower to wait 6 weeks after US release so I just do it anyway.

Surely in this day and age there are ways and means of actively discouraging illegal downloading but it seems the film companies don't care enough to do anything concrete to combat it.

I should say, I'd have zero problem paying for a download if it's available in a timely manner!

titan18

I'd probably prefer if they weren't available tbf. It's tempting to download The Hateful Eight and The Revenant to watch them but then I do really want to see them in the cinema and afraid I might spoil them for myself.

On the other hand, I'd probably never have watched Whiplash if I hadn't seen it first on screener, and then ended up seeing it in cinema twice and buying it on blu-ray.

No sympathy for others though (e.g. Creed), two months gap between US and here is annoying.

FloatingVoter

To qualify, I have watched the Hateful Eight. It works equally well as stage play onscreen and as stated above would work wonderfully seen as the director intended. That is one film that works in both formats. The story would work down the local parish hall with a few talented amatuer actors and QT does the magic on the big screen visuals.
I'd lose the restaurant analogy....cook for yourself - always better. I prefer my younger days of paying into one movie and hiding in the loos to catch all the shows on one ticket.
Creed is Rocky 8 or 9, whatever...can't remember. The young Irish lad McGregor did the trick of boiling it down to 13 seconds flat the other night.
I am not watching LDC doing Deliverance for love nor money nor bandwidth.

McLoughlin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Hateful Eight is a great example of why it's insane to settle for a screener copy. A 70mm-shot film with a 2.75:1 aspect ratio? That's something explicitly, unmistakably designed for a big screen, and it baffles me why anybody would settle for that over waiting another week or two to see it as intended. Even a super high quality home system would struggle with Tarantino's widescreen canvas there.

If you're so eager to watch it right now that you'd settle for a truly inferior viewing, I guess there's nothing I can say to change you're mind. But hey you only get the opportunity to see a film for the first time once, and if a DVD quality screener is what you choose then that's your own call. You're doing the film a disservice though - and I say that as someone who could happily take or leave pre-Jackie Brown Tarantino

There is a casual audience that doesn't care about quality they just want to see it whatever state it is in and most likely watch it on a laptop.

Maybe I'm a cynic but I do think studios do ie ie leak films as a form of promotion

Agent Coulson

I always though myself that Harvey leaked Weinstein movies to get the hype going especially around this time of year and then other studios followed suit.

vidor

As an aside, it's funny how the Netflix thread is full of recommendations for films under different regions. Surely if someone was that morally opposed to some screeners, they should be equally bothered by certain workarounds.

FloatingVoter

vidor wrote: »

As an aside, it's funny how the Netflix thread is full of recommendations for films under different regions. Surely if someone was that morally opposed to some screeners, they should be equally bothered by certain workarounds.

People pay for Netflix..they feel the service they get for their payment should be just as good whether they're in Inch, Idaho or Ipswich. At the end of the day, Netflix trousers the money and looks the other way. And gives a lot back in terms of new content - TV wise.
The argument against screener season and piracy in general is that the movie business suffers as tickets sales slump leading to poorer resources for new yet to be made movies. Nobody feels sorry if Brad Pitt is one Ferrari light this Christmas but the key grips and the lighting techs might be out of a job. And they might live next door to you.
I'm up to my neck in piracy but I think that sums it up. As for it being a quesion of morals - we live in a world where young kids are induced by old men to blow themselves up in the middle of crowded cities and dead babies wash up on beaches. These are just movies.

Ryaller

Shybride2016 wrote: »

Fair enough it's not their day job and its unpaid but if you're invited to be a part of an awarding body you need to play by the rules no? Otherwise it's all just a farce and a pointless exercise of which film did the most promotion, lunching with the right people and saying the right things to the right people, which brings me back around to the point that it's all a load of rubbish!

A quick look at The Hollywood Reporter's "Brutally Honest Oscar Ballot" feature shows just how much of a farce the whole thing is. My favourite was the guy who voted on the basis of which movie had the best poster.

OU812

Apparently someone in the office signed for it & it made its way online. Major break for the studios & law enforcement.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hateful-eight-pirated-screener-traced-850899?mobile_redirect=false

I can see them stopping screeners & going back to arranged screenings (Disney do this)

Dodge

OU812 wrote: »

I can see them stopping screeners & going back to arranged screenings (Disney do this)

The won't. They send out literally 1000s of screeners. Some like Tarantino have a bit of pull and care about it. Others don't.

It isn't just award voters who get them. Reviewers, TV people, radio jocks, basically anyone who has an opinion and might help their movie gets a copy

FloatingVoter

The release group have 40 movies. In other words, any voter is expected to watch 40 different movies. Not a hope. With 12 or so on the loose at the moment I already haven't bothered with half of them. Just no interest in starting. So your average voter is going to divvy them out to pals and say "Look, if there's something in there tell me but I don't do London gangster rubbish".
or "1950s Irish crap"
or "spy rubbish"
or "Tarantino"

Delete where applicable (above are the ones I did bother with).

Our average voter will be on set next Monday at 6.00 AM and working until 8 PM at least that night and will be doing similar for 25 out of the following 30 days. Movies are a curse, bed is a bliss.

Steve King

As well as this, leaked so far include: [FONT=Arial Unicode MS, sans-serif]Brooklyn, Carol, Creed, The Revenant, Room, Steve Jobs, Concussion and Straight Outta Compton. Anything else?
[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

FloatingVoter

Steve King wrote: »

As well as this, leaked so far include: [FONT=Arial Unicode MS, sans-serif]Brooklyn, Carol, Creed, The Revenant, Room, Steve Jobs, Concussion and Straight Outta Compton. Anything else?
[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Any and all of the following will probably land. Disney didn't send out DVDs for the Jedi film. Based on events of the last 15 years or so they thought it better not to send out DVDs to a 1000 randomers. Paranoid that.

http://kenru.net/movies/2015-16_academy_screeners.html

...and the source of Quentin Tarantino's problems has been found (allegedly)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hateful-eight-pirated-screener-traced-850899

OU812

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Any and all of the following will probably land. Disney didn't send out DVDs for the Jedi film. Based on events of the last 15 years or so they thought it better not to send out DVDs to a 1000 randomers. Paranoid that.

http://kenru.net/movies/2015-16_academy_screeners.html

[/URL]

There's 83 on that list. Hive have said they've got 40.

Spectre is down as December 8 shipment, so I'm really surprised the hasn't leaked yet.

FloatingVoter

^ Some of those like Testament of Youth and Straight Outta Compton have been loose and already released on DVD / Bluray for months. I doubt Hive are counting those. Spectre is the one everybody seems to want.
Personally, I'll be made up if I can watch Lady In The Van while pissed on port on Christmas Day. Read the book, saw the movie, but could do with a Maggie Smith double bill on the big day.

Bongalongherb

Well, it will be ten years in jail and probably a million dollar fine, but we don't use dollars here and their extradition to the USA can suck my balls.

Dvd screeners are near dvd quality but with the odd anomaly of which is called cropping, and when a video has to be cropped you have to transcode the bastard and it takes ages again and it loses quality. I'd rather do 1 week in jail that transcode to dvd again after that film called...'The Hated Eight'.

Convertx-to-dvd does the job though. A legitimate retail software package.

FloatingVoter

^ It's probably why Spectre is taking some time to pass through the bowels of Hive. If it's a lower end quality DVD (and it probably is) they'll be upscaling the thing. And nobody is ever happy with overcooked turkey. I'm with our ethical film fans on that one, either see the bloody thing in a cinema or wait for the bluray (rip or not). Nobody sees Bond for the quality of Daniel Craig's grumpiness.
He used to be a decent actor once.

warpdrive

Why are screeners still DVDs and not Blurays as well? If I was one of the voters I wouldn't bother watching such sh!t quality copies either. It's 2015 and UHD is incoming yet HD is too much for these? Why the Hateful Eight screener wasn't as high quality as possible is beyond me because of all the effort Tarrantino put into making the film

Bongalongherb

Echelon is listening. Ohh, sh"t the computer models of its electrical brain is fuddled with anomalies, they're out there in the wild,what do we do.

The digital age has been here for soo long and the big movie industries never even tried to create a new formula of technology to stop piracy, and yet in the USA they put you away for years with a million or so cap on you, ffs, in the world of technology you need to be one step ahead, not one step behind like the old movie companies. Chartbusters Gone/ Xtra-vision Gone, If they keep this up the whole industry will be gone or just free or even better... A decent realistic price for cinema goers without ripping them off.

Happy christmas.

McLoughlin

warpdrive wrote: »

Why are screeners still DVDs and not Blurays as well? If I was one of the voters I wouldn't bother watching such sh!t quality copies either. It's 2015 and UHD is incoming yet HD is too much for these? Why the Hateful Eight screener wasn't as high quality as possible is beyond me because of all the effort Tarrantino put into making the film

DVD is still popular and blu ray never caught on with the casual market in the way dvd did over video. Allot of people are content with just DVD

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Hateful Eight is a great example of why it's insane to settle for a screener copy. A 70mm-shot film with a 2.75:1 aspect ratio? That's something explicitly, unmistakably designed for a big screen, and it baffles me why anybody would settle for that over waiting another week or two to see it as intended.

Most people who go to the cinema wouldn't know what an aspect ratio was, never mind the actual ratios, or why a ratio of a 2.75:1 is particularly import to a cinematic experience.

As for downloading screeners...live and let live I say. If someone is happy with a cam or a screener, well then that's their deal. Quentin will make plenty of money from 'The Hateful 8' no matter. I won't be shedding any tears for him.

Right Turn Clyde

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm part of the increasingly rare, deluded breed who believes in paying for quality art/media

I'm like that to a certain extent, but like most people I create my own exceptions.

A typical example would be my interest in Robert Altman over the past two years. I watched all of his major works through legal means, be it Bluray, TV, MUBI, etc. However, Altman also made a number of less popular (or worse) films, but which I'd still like to see.

Now, right or wrong, I'm simply not gonna pay for those. They're on poor quality DVDs, they're (mostly) only available second-hand and I'd end up paying more for Amazon delivery charges than I would for the actual film. In some cases they're only available as imports so I'd have to get a multi-region player to view them.

You can see where I'm going with this...

At this stage I've bought 4 Blurays in 2015 and two DVDs in 2014. I also bought the Altman on Altman book and I rented the Altman documentary through Curzon Home Cinema. So that's a good few quid and I assume a percentage of everything will make its way back to the Altman estate.

So what I'm saying is that I'll download the rest care-free. I wouldn't even use the word 'justify'. I'll just do it and I won't care about it. It's the logical next step.

Do you ever do things like that? And that's an honest question, I'm not trying to catch you out or anything. I just know that you're a serious film fan so I'm wondering if you often have to resort to piracy, if only because there's no other practical way of viewing the films in question?

I'm also thinking of a recent feature in Sight & Sound magazine where the author recommended viewing three classic Japanese films via crappy YouTube videos because there's simply no other way to see them. Now I assume somebody owns the copyright, but what's more important in that context? In this instance the author was suggesting that the director in question could be a serious rival to Ozu. Surely that's worth investigating, despite what the director's estate (or lack thereof) has to say on the matter?

By the way, I'm not comparing any of this to watching DVD screeners. I just think there's an interesting conversation to be had about piracy and its contribution to film appreciation.

I'm thinking of my interest in silent film, Ozu, Bergman, etc. I simply would not have paid money to see any of those at first. It would have been too much of a risk for someone still finding his feet in film. So I downloaded everything and anything, and bit by bit I found my shelves filling up with books and Blurays, and subscribing to MUBI and renting from Curzon and BFI. I'm even back up in the Big Smoke these days for the odd screening in the BFI or The Lighthouse. In short, I'm spending more money than ever on film and it's largely down to the exposure to classic cinema that piracy has afforded me.