Slashdot Mirror

Oh, you can already do that!
http://www.dtecnetusa.com/intro.html

Linked from: http://www.respectcopyrights.org/faqs.html

Well, obviously, such a huge display MUST be used for illegal public presentations of these movies. The good folks at the MPAA certainly can't allow THAT. Have we learned NOTHING from the noble efforts of these fine people?

Clicking through to the aurora review, I was surprised to see that the text in the 'scan your computer' dialog box (image) looked strikingly like the text at respectcopyrights.org; a site run by our favourite Media Cartel in the whole wide world.

I bet they'll just inspect packets and flag filesnames that contain *xvid*, *divx*, *screener*, *.avi, *.bin, *.iso, *vcd*, etc.

"digital fingerprints" my butt.

I would have posted the verbatim part of their license that says that, but the lameness filter ate it.

Go here to read it instead. It basically says that they are not liable for any damages, loss of data or business caused by this program. They also throw in this bit for good measure:

"OR (B) ANY AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF THE ACTUAL, AGGREGATE AMOUNT PAID BY YOU TO ACCESS THIS WEBSITE."

And since you pay no money to access their website, if the court was to uphold this ToC, even if you did have an otherwise legitimate claim, you'd get $0 unless you could prove that you paid the MPAA to access the site - with the language "actual, aggregate amount", I doubt it would apply to Internet access fees, since the actual amount paid for that particular access is likely minimal, probably less than $0.01.

Looks to me like the MPAA just ran across this POS software and linked to it - they seem to do their best to disassociate themselves from anything the software might do - hell, they have a "Terms and Conditions" page when you try and follow the link to the dtecnet website.

You are actually encouraged to download flash player on the alternate page and return once you have it done.

I really appreciate that advise, but all I can get here seems to be: "We are unable to locate a single Web player that best matches your platform and operating system."

Just in case reading the article is too much of a burden... here's a direct link to the Parent File Scan program.

It appears to be developed by a company called "DtecNet Software ApS".

Meh...

They are not worried about legality of files here. The software is simply a catch-all because in their view it is better to error on the side of caution.

I don't know of an open format that allows for marking of files as copyrighted and non-copyrighted, were the file cannot be easily modified to show the opposite. (Does one exist?)

You can check out the software here

Read the rest of TFA?

It's kind of intriguing, isn't it, when the MPAA and RIAA is to scaring us into believing that the world of unauthorized copying is filled of dodgy-dealers stuffing the files with all kinds of polluted malware and pop-ups, that they're also paying the people who do the stuffing?

I think that's where the "evil" part comes from.

The MPAA press release is here. [PDF]

Looking at the anti-piracy campaign ad poster (PDF file), I just wonder if the P2P program nicknames depicted are fake or a real sample of fileswappers the MPAA has observed on the net... :)

(begin sarcasm)

"Illegal downloading is rated I: Inappropriate for all ages"

Illegal downloading hurts Jane Phillis, the animal food-tray cleaning team supervisor!

(end sarcasm)

I wonder what would happen if everyone on /. tried to download the 30MB movie they have on that site... (not saying that it should be attempted. or anything. *cough*)

These apparent errors lead me to wonder about the status of this LA Times article. Did the MPAA gain permission? If the MPAA did obtain permission, why didn't they provide the full citation details? Why didn't they modify their own copyright for the page?

I'm considering asking the MPAA about this article, but I thought I'd let Slashdotters know about the incident first. It's possible that the MPAA has the right permissions, but you would think they'd try to set a good example in how they provide the reprint. MPAA's anti-piracy for US consumers is 1-800-NO-COPYS and hotline@mpaa.org. I live in Canada, so I'll try emailing.

These apparent errors lead me to wonder about the status of this LA Times article. Did the MPAA gain permission? If the MPAA did obtain permission, why didn't they provide the full citation details? Why didn't they modify their own copyright for the page?

I'm considering asking the MPAA about this article, but I thought I'd let Slashdotters know about the incident first. It's possible that the MPAA has the right permissions, but you would think they'd try to set a good example in how they provide the reprint. MPAA's anti-piracy for US consumers is 1-800-NO-COPYS and hotline@mpaa.org. I live in Canada, so I'll try emailing.

In case you're fuzzy on U.S. copyright law, all created works automatically receive copyright, regardless of whether the work is officially registered with the U.S. copyright office. Many artists choose to give away their work.

Taking at face value the statements the MPAA is "educating" public schoool students with, downloading anything from ifilm.com would be illegal. ifilm.com, which is ranked by alexa.com in the top 2000 websites (out of more than 5 million ranked), distributes videos (such as movie shorts) that their creators have given permission to be distributed for free.

Surely the MPAA is not promulgating the outrageous statements portrayed in the Globe article? Well, an Oct. 17, 2003 press release by Junior Achievement, the organization entrusted by the MPAA to carry out its propaganda in the public schools, links to the MPAA's respectcopyrights.org site, which contains a page which states:

At the end of the day, when you get right down to it, downloading copyrighted movies off the Internet is illegal. It's against the law.

A more correct statement would have been "downloading copyrighted movies off the Internet against the wishes of the copyright holder is illegal."

A minor difference? Hardly. The MPAA is inculcating the concept in students that movies and videos should exist only in a commercial context. Instead, with the advent of cheap video technology, students should be encouraged to make their own amateur videos and share them over the Internet. Script writing, staging, lighting -- that would be real education.

Public schools are a place where students learn to consume rather than create.

"Atleast they didn't do like the RIAA and say that piracy is reducing their profits"

They do do this, do they not (how's that for a good ration of "do" to non-"do" words in one sentence!) I've seen their ads with all the people from stunt coordinators down to gophers extolling how piracy is cutting into their livelihoods.

They also have a website: RespectCopyrights.org

Who the hell chose the biohazard symbol for "Your computer is vulnerable"? Do these people know that a computer virus is not the same thing as the AIDS virus?

Ok, I know this might be anal, but out of habbit, I just peeked the code behind thier main page here. And besides the BLATANT lack of standards compliant code, there isn't even a DOCTYPE specified! Then I ran the sites' pages through the various validators at w3.org, and, well... needless to say... it's bad. For shame RIAA.

We should all go here and download all the high quality movies.

Or, if you want, try this link.

Click here for more.

In an unprecedented campaign urging people not to copy movies, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is launching a series of TV ads and movie trailers as well as a Web site warning of the dangers of violating copyright laws.

MPAA also has a new site respectcopyrights.org

I pulled some quotes from the commercial, little text fade ins. here Movies. They're worth it
These people have obviously never seen a Hollywood movie

This is completely ridiculous, this guy is talking about how piracy affects him, but not big "multi-million dollar employees" like producers. But he seems to have left out that these producers make an insane amount of money, as is, and then these companies are making "anti-piracy" ads that cost $$$ to make and to air.

So, while we watched another stupid commercial, some guy like him gets fired, cause they can't pay the producer $xxx million, make commercials for $xx million, pamper stars for another $xxx million, and pay him his damn $12-20 an hour.

What kind of world do they want to create? Just take a look at the Terms Of Use they think their website needs - that ALL websites presumably require.

NINE PAGES of terms and conditions that you MUST somehow agree to and that you are somehow BOUND by. Just to veiw their website.

I really love the last paragraph:
Respectcopyrights.org may at any time revise these Terms and Conditions by updating this posting. You are bound by any such revisions and should therefore periodically visit this page to review the then current Terms and Conditions to which you are bound.

Yep, just by looking at their site we are bound by everything they wrote, and everything they add to it. Even if we never look at their site again after they change it. We better check daily - wouldn't want to miss the fact that we are suddenly bound to shave our eyebrows because we once looked at their site.

-

"Movies aren't the only form of Entertainment widely available on the Internet. Did you know that you can download the latest songs, play games online with a worldwide community, purchase books, the latest software and much, much more?"

...that someone would have taken the opportunity to take a jab at the MPAA and point out the error in the big splash graphic: "You're threatening the livlihood (sic) of thousands", but then I realized that it would imply that the typical Slashdot reader would

a. have read the article, and

b. know how to spell

When we went to see matrix 2 we were told by the cashier to wait till after the film had finished and wed be rewarded with a trailer for part 3. After the film, the credits must have lasted 15 minutes while every person connected with the film got a mention.
I thought to myself 'whats the fkin POINT of displaying every name?'
now I know- theres a reference in respect copyrightsthat explains there are '1,943 people rewarded in the credits in reloaded'
So its obviously a more subtle approach to show how many people actually do contribute to a film and are affected by digital copying..

-Tho a cynical person might say it lengthens the film by 15 minutes so makes it difficult to fit a decent rip onto a 700MB disk ;)

You're threatening the LIVLIHOOD of thousands

Hahahaha livlihood wtf is livihood

its spellt "LIVELIHOOD" u turds

hahaha

For those interested, you can view the commercials online. This was linked from a BBC article earlier this morning.

Also, if you want the MPAA's message stright from the source, it's at http://www.respectcopyrights.org.

The commericals can be viewed here. Only one up for now, but the rest will be up later I suppose.

1 From the Article: Stressing the importance of copyright protection, the campaign begins with an unprecedented television "roadblock" on more than 35 network and cable outlets on the evening of July 24, with each network donating 30 seconds in the first prime time break.
Beginning Friday, July 25, every major exhibitor in the country will donate time to play daily trailers on all screens in more than 5,000 theaters across the United States.
Sounds like a pretty huge campaign, gonna dwarf the EFF's efforts by a big margin.

2 Here is the website of the campaign. There's even some FUD: Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc.

3 The article first said (in the badly edited future) it was the RIAA doing it, when it's the MPAA...I think it was a case of RIAA on the brain. :)

1 From the Article: Stressing the importance of copyright protection, the campaign begins with an unprecedented television "roadblock" on more than 35 network and cable outlets on the evening of July 24, with each network donating 30 seconds in the first prime time break.
Beginning Friday, July 25, every major exhibitor in the country will donate time to play daily trailers on all screens in more than 5,000 theaters across the United States.
Sounds like a pretty huge campaign, gonna dwarf the EFF's efforts by a big margin.

2 Here is the website of the campaign. There's even some FUD: Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc.

3 The article first said (in the badly edited future) it was the RIAA doing it, when it's the MPAA...I think it was a case of RIAA on the brain. :)