Slashdot Mirror
The Two Towers Hits the Net
tfreport writes "The Drudge Report is reporting that The Two Towers has already began to be file swapped online. This is four months before the movie is set to debut! An executive in New York promised if this is indeed part of the film that they would be punishing anyone and everyone that downloads the film or distributes it to the full extent of the law."
If this is indeed the real film, this isn't good. Piracy online is at least understandable if not excuseable when the movie has been out for 4 months in theatres.
Now this is crap...
We already know such declarations are not to be taken seriously. What will they do ? Sue 4,500,500 gnutella nodes ?
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
Why don't they focus their efforts on finding who leaked it rather than going after the people too anxious to wait till the release (who are likely to go see it when it comes out anyways)?
And we wonder why the RIAA and MPAA are screaming at their senators to kill P2P systems? Movies have always partially made it into the Internet before they were released, but only now with the relative ease of file-swapping have they been so readily pirated. If we want to convince *anyone* of the legitimacy of P2P networks bull**** like this has to stop, now.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
Well, if you want to see a really shoddy quality movie on a small computer monitor with more than likely bad quality sound and some stupid warez logo covering part of the screen, your screwing yourself.
I'd rather wait 4 months and pay my money to see it the way it is intended ! - BIG SCREEN, dolby surround sound, comfy chair, popcorn etc.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
They're going after everyone who *downloads* it? That's going to take some doing...
Either way, plainly put, the quality is going to suck, the movie is worth seeing no matter what, I'll just consider the alleged posting (if I find it) as an appetizer before watching it on a massive movie screen with full Dolby Digital surround...
If one followed the logic of the idiots in Hollyweird, anyone who ever read Tolkein is already in violation of their hush hush rules...
I mean come ON now, who here hasn't actually read the books by Tolkein? Bueller? Bueller? We know how the story goes, the movie is just a way to see how well the books can be fleshed out... Kind of like Cameron's Titanic (spoiler alert: The ship sinks)...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
An executive in New York promised if this is indeed part of the film that they would be punishing anyone and everyone that downloads the film or distributes it to the full extent of the law
:-O
*shivers in fear*
Hopefully, no executives from New York dressed in black will come into my innocent house in northern Sweden to punish me to the maximum extent of the law.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
It would be interesting to know whether the movie file was leaked by someone who is part of the team - or if someone cracked into their system and stole it. I quess the cracker possibility could be quite potential too, because: they clearly use a lot of digital/computerized technology - even probably for communication within the team (so there probably would be the possibilities to do it) and because I doubt that the one who leaked the previous episode would have had the balls to do it again. If it was stolen by a system cracker - I would not like to be in the shoes of their sys.adm / infosec specialist who did not take enough action to make sure it does not happen again.
Shouldn't the movie studios/recording industry pour all their efforts into finding the source of these leaked files rather than blaming everyone else on the 'net for their lack of basic security?
You know, simply NOT allowing their staff to send emails full of huge mpg files, or carry out CDRWs full of company assets would seem to be a good idea, would it not? It'd certainly be easier to stop this sort of thing at the source.
Imagine if the mints (places that "make" money - not the sweets) had security this lax? Everyone in the country would be a potential criminal. Mind you, the RIAA already think this, so...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
I'm one of those guys who is buying a DVD player partly because of the LOTR DVD, who spends some time reading a Quenya (elvish) course. But I suppose the question concerns most of us.
Who the hell would like to view an unfinished, probably mostly-SFX-free, score-free, unperfect version of the Two Towers ?
I want to watch it in the better conditions possible, not a shitty tiny pre-alpha version. I would watch that even if I was forced to. This is just ridiculous.
Cinema is art. You don't steal somebody's unfinished painting just to have a peak at it before anybody else, do you ? Let's wait for the final, fully worked movie. That's what we are wainting for.
theefer
I just looked on KaZaA, and tbh I don't see squat that could be TTT. Sure there are lots of dickheads pretending to have it, but you only have to hover the mouse over the file and it'll pop up with some meta information about the film, which in most cases says "Eight Legged Freaks" or "Spiderman".
I kinda get the feeling that Matt Drudge has been taken on a leeeeetle wild goose chase.
That is, unless anyone can reliably confirm that they have downloaded it and it is the real thing (something I seriously doubt, I would expect it to still be in post production at 4 months from release).
Chris "Ng" Jones
cmsj@tenshu.net
www.tenshu.net
If not, that's just speculation from your side. But I get your point - a good movie such as the two towers *should* be watched on cinema.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
[ conspiracy mode ]
Additionally, intentionally releasing a relatively clean copy of a movie that they know will be heavily traded provides them a great bullet point in presentations to Congress about how those eterrorist hackers are trading complete movies online and legislation needs to be immediately enacted to give them full search-and-seizure rights to your computer.
[
This comment has been pirated.
t ml
It appears orinally on bbspot.com
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2002/05/spiderman2.h
Even thought we have no idea a) where this trailer is available for download, b) how to legally obtain the names of individuals who DO download the trailer, and c) whether the information is legit or not.
Actually, I don't really have any desire to see a crappy copy beforehand. The first film was good enough that I'd like the full-on experience of seeing it in the theater. But I will go ahead and see if I can find the trailer somewhere, just for kicks.
You know what would be even scarier to contemplate?
;)
If they leaked different sub-versions, each with a special "marker" in it to track how far they travelled online.
Think of the potential marketing statistics and numbers they could churn out the next time they want to justify exactly what you stated, namely how all the eTerrorists are infiltrating their industry and causing such a downturn in the economy... (my heart breaks...
I'll say it again. The United States is NOT the center of the universe.
These people need to grow up, take a good look around at this world we live in, and realize that money doesn't solve everything.
user@host$ diff
But the real criminals are those responsible for initially putting it on the web.
And the fact of the matter is.....Most people won't download it and t ones that do
will only cause a spreading oif the word as to whether or not it's a good movie.
Hmmmm, how much money could be saved in mass marketing if replaced with the word of
mouth die hard big file swapers?
I smell hypocrisy.
All about me
If I recall correctly (and if I don't, I expect I will be politely corrected...) the rip of FOTR came from an Academy (read: Oscars) DVD that was circulated to possible voters. It came out quite a while after the cinema release of the movie itself; the first FOTR rip I saw was at a party in February, and that was from a camcorder.
Right now there is no complete TTT movie to send to Academy voters on DVD. There *might* be a rough-cut (no SFX, duff music, gaps with a whiteboard reading "big battle scene here") but that's all there is. Peter Jackson is still fine-tuning the release version (come on guys, you know what it's like trying to get finished code out the door...)
Ofcourse the RIAA will claim that the studios loose half a trillion zloties in revenues over this, but I wonder if it really matters. I watched LOTR 1/3 three times now. Twice in the cinema and once on DVD. Judging from the geeks around me, most of them saw it at least twice legally and maybe once or twice illegally. For geeks its a must to see it in the cinema and they maybe even buy the DVD. They are also the only ones with a real chance (bandwidth and opportunity) of getting the full 700MB or so of this release, so chances are low that it will result in lower sales.
I do predict however that the revenues on Part Two will be lower. This because of the perceived downturn in the economy and parents therefore less willing to shell out large amounts of money around december.
Use Adsense for Charity
...the release of "The Two Towers" was brought forward to September 11.
</tasteless>
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
How appropriate for this topic.
I tried to find another comment to pirate, but all I could fine were some comments with the first five words repeared over and over.
Normally I'm against blatent plaguarism; but in this case it's ironic - so no need for the mod-downs.
Admit it you just wish you'd thought of it first; I know I do ;)
Good luck finding the IP address of every single person on Kazza or Gnutella who is distributing this, then downloading the file from them to keep as evidence against them and them proving it was actually that person who was using that computer at the time.
-- Hulver's site
Most traditional newspapers have fact checking departments and rules that information must be vouched for by two independent sources. Drudge doesn't do all that stuff, so in some ways he's a bit more vulnerable to hoaxing.
Since he's broken enough news that turned out to be true (thanks to getting on the 'A' list for leaks seeking wide distribution), he has enough credibility to turn out OK. And the traditional guys don't always do the fact checking they should, or in the case like this, they can report the fact that "Drudge is reporting that Two Towers has been leaked" which is of course 100% true.
Plus as you say, it sells more papers. In any case, the old adage holds: don't believe everything you read.
--LP
If you were to go into the studio and take a reel with the actual film on it, that would be theft -- you're physically taking an object that belongs to the studio. When you download it, you're not depriving them of property, thus it can't be theft. That said, distributing this would probably fall afoul of several other, unrelated laws regarding distribution of electronic material that you don't own the copyright to.
I don't pretend to believe that trafficking in copyright-infringing material is right -- but when you use the movie studios' terms, you're falling prey to their flawed logic.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Poor taste. However, it is worth noting that they considered changing the name of the film in light of September 11th.
I translated Episodes I and II for local release and I had them on tape several months before the U.S. release. Imagine the pressure when you cannot tell anyone. :)
--- Frantisek Fuka (Yes, that's my real name and you have no idea how it's pronounced)
Someone could hand me a perfect DVD quality rip of this movie, and I would still wait until it is in the theaters to see it.
Dammit, I've waited 30 years to see this movie done right on the big (not just large) screen, and I'll gladly pay the $15 for me and my wife to see it in the theater on openning night.
Swapped file is FAKE. Please stop posting unchecked stories. Thank you very much.
The first US paperback edition of the LOTR never earned Tolkien one cent because of the shady state of copyright law in those days. A US company (ACE Books) could get away with selling Tolkiens intellectual property without consulting or paying him.
And now US companies are educating the world on the ethics and legal consequenses of infringing on their copyrights. Wherever the money is eh ?
beauty is only a light switch away
Saving TWOTOW~1.DVD...
69,914,794 of 6,442,450,944 bytes
1% Complete
2,214,592 seconds remaining...
If it's 4 months before the release now, I'm going to be able to see it a full *3 months* before the rest of you suckers!
Laugh all you want, but I know whose door *you'll* be knocking on, come September 28th, once the download is complete!
-- Terry
The first one was, and according to the story, I'm assuming the second will be as well.
The first one was excellent quality (divx) and good sound. I watched it on a 21 LCD at a friend's house and it was better than any rental video, not quite but almost on par with DVD.
That having been said, I too declined a copy when offered and am going to purchase the director's cut DVD when it comes out in December (it will be the first DVD I've bought in two years, and likely the only one, and the only reason I'm buying it at all is because I watched the bootleg and enjoyed it enough that I wish to pay something back to the creators.)
Don't kid yourself, if the quality is on par with the last bootleg I saw, it will be very good indeed.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I watched it from start to finish last week, and was totally unimpressed. Maybe they'll pull together some nice finishing touches in editing, but the story has been weakened from the book dramatically, there are a lot of holes, and I really don't think that's something that a big screen and big sound can save. I guess we'll see.
Is your browser retarded?
It's right here
Warning, this video may be offensive and is not suitable for younger viewers.
-no broken link
It was the marketing men, look at the press coverage they are getting, what a plan! They can even use it in the MPAA we will placify the world campain.
Bet there getting the biggest bonus they've had for a while.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Please expand on this. Who is "they", and what are your sources?
From IMDB, the Internet Movie DataBase.
I did too. The only applicable ones were marked as fakes, which is what I do to discourage other peeps from dling it (because it is fake, not because I don't want to share. I'd just mark it not sharing if that were the case).
-no broken link
Why don't they focus their efforts on finding who leaked it rather than going after the people too anxious to wait till the release (who are likely to go see it when it comes out anyways)?
It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that the footage was deliberately released in order to create exactly the kind of stir Hollywood needs to push through legislation and FCC regulatory interpretations designed to take away the last of our digital freedoms and complete the conversion of the internet from an interactive medium of information exchange into a glorified Home Shopping Network.
More likely, the emberrassment of having "one of their own" exposed as the culprit would diminish the MPAA's political efforts, so while they view the breach as unfortunate, the also will use it as a fortuitious political opportunity, and frighten the restless masses back onto the couch where they belong.
Either way, these thugs have far more incentive to avoid cleaning up their own houses while forcibly breaking into ours.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
How come they don't punish people to the full extent of the law (is it possible to punish someone with a 1/4 of the law?) every time they download copyrighted movies, reglardless of what movie it is?
The movie industry needs to get its shit together.
It's available via KaZaA and dal.net (and proabably other services). It is broken up in to three seperate DiVX parts, each one ~180meg. I've already received the first two of three... and am watching even as i write this.
And, yes, they filmed them all at the same time... though they didn't do the production work (touch-ups, choose which scenes, special-effects, etc.) on all three at once. It appears that they have just recently either finished production on TTT, or have come near enough to have a darn good movie available to us leechers!
/dev/random
"This is four months before the movie is set to debut! An executive in New York promised if this is indeed part of the film that they would be punishing anyone and everyone that downloads the film or distributes it to the full extent of the law."
/. editors need bumper stickers put across the tops of their monitors to remind them the MPAA is evil? Are their attention spans that short?
Of course, the article wont't tell you that this is probably the same Madison Avenue marketing exec whose decision it was to release the "pirated" version of the movie onto the net to begin with. And what better way to call attention to it than to "complain" about it in the national media?
Seriously, hasn't anybody noticed that this kind of thing doesn't happen to the lower-budget and/or lamer flicks? Always the "highly anticipated" (by who?) "pending blockbuster" crap that gets splashed across the net and the news like this. The kinds of movies that have more than enough money involved to make sure these kinds of leaks don't happen.
The MPAA are downright experts on the uses and exploitations of digital rights management technology. Wouldn't it be child's play for them to fingerprint copies of the pre-release before dispersing them? What about asking why Bob over there is coming into the screening with a camcorder and a CD-burner? So why is their security so "lax" in these situations? Do I really need to spell it out for you?
The studio released its own "totally unauthorized" copy of the movie to build up yet more hype. It's actually quite cheap for them and effective on a consistent basis. After all, it's not like they have to pay sites like Slashdot to join in on the marketing bandwagon as well. Free advertising and teasing the raving fan(antics) as well.
Do the
Your tin foil hat is on too tight.
Why has this anrachaic "free love" notion got perverted in to greedy self absorbed and self justifed crimminal behavior.
Thieves and pirates are criminals, dimwit, not customers. No way that posting or downloading the entirety of someone else's property constitututes fair use (read the clause?). If you're so convinced that it is legal, see if you can find a lawyer to represent you based on that belief.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
This is a common and incorrect understanding of theft. Dictionary definitions of theft are very broad. It certainly doesn't have to involve tangible items. Have you ever heard of "theft of servces" ? Of course, it is an unconventional and possibly misleading usage, but then the anti-copyright folks use exactly the same sort of linguistic demagoguery (eg abusing the word "information")
How is distributing GPL work in binary-only format equivalent to claiming that anything is my own work ?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
We have been waiting for years now for the music and movie industries to completely lose their evil minds and follow the path you suggest.
Up to now, public awareness of the privacy and freedom problems posed by these two sectors of society is close to inexistent. The general public does not care much about this or that law, as long as some Britney has a new CD every six to nine months and the theaters have some new movies every summer.
Now, if you start jailing their sons and daughters, confiscating their properties and suing them into poverty for the sake of Disney, Sony and such other oh so poor companies, I believe we will see a backslash these guys won't forget for generations.
Some suggested the public reaction to the war on drugs should be seem as a sign that nothing will happen yet again. But I think these are two very different issues. Drugs and its criminal status are linked to issues like poverty, racism, mental illness and heavy health hazards. Britney is the opposite of it, as is Mickey Mouse. Jailing people for not paying a few bucks to very rich artists and companies will not be easily sold as a "Save the children" issue. Whose children, will ask John Doe, Hillary's? The Emperor's clothes will get pretty invisible here.
After that we will probably see the tide that will finnaly make some young executives sit back and start thinking about a new business model capable of keeping the money flowing instead of new laws.
When you see the lengths people are willing to go to to get ahold of the next episode of Sopranos you really have to wonder if these are signs of serious psychologocal addiction.
I know I watch too much TV and spend way too much money going to the movies and renting movies. Has anyone ever ready a study of the long term effects of video and video marketing?
Back to the point - With the number of people willing to sacrafice almost anything to get ahold of mp3Z and DVD Ripz I think the facts speak for themselves. The only rational conclusion is that we are addicted.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
But they try to hide it behind the cloak of freeing the media from the man or something. All ideas are open source. That sort of thing. Unlike music CDs, I have nor problem paying $15-$20 for a DVD on movies I like. But beyond that, do you actually want to watch what is probably another par excellent movie as a crappy .mpeg anyway? That alone is incentive enough to stay far, far away from it.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Same thing happened with Jason X, it came out a few months on Kazaa before it came out in the theater. The qualiy wasn't very good, since it was filmed in a theather, but I went back to see it at the movie theater when it came out, and it was the same cut as was released on the net a few months before. So maybe, juste maybe, TTT is already done and what could be floating around on the Net is "The Real Deal".
>I mean come ON now, who here hasn't actually read the books by Tolkein? ... I haven't :)
I think all this nonsens about ring to be vastly inflated, I was dragged along to see number 1 and wasn't impressed. I'll be dragged a long to see number 2 and i suspect I won't be to impressed there either.
And whats with this supposed power of that ring? I haven't seen any special powers, ok it makes Bilbo invisible, but that's it apparently! Does it shoot laser beams! Does it move mountains! Can it make them fly (hell no, they have to walk!) - face it, its just a cheap trinket Sauron had crafted to impress the chicks down at Ye Olde Drunken Dragon Cafe.
Oh, and want a real spoiler? The ring did it!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Instead of making threats about the law, just point out that the downloaded version is crap compared to the real thing.
You know that everyone who downloads the movie is also going to see it in theatres so why get you're panties in a bunch?
I saw a downloaded bersion of the first one, and I still went to the theatre. I'd buy the movie if my roomates hadn't.
Remember this movie was leaked by an insider.
Someone with priviledged access to the (near)completed and edited version has released this movie. This is not the P2P networks fault, the real problem is lax security in their production chain. Once their product is out in the wild a few individuals will share it, but let's remember that the P2P networks didn't break and enter. One of the employees paid to handle or create this product has *released* a copy.
That is the root of this problem, NOT the file sharing, I just hope that congress is made aware of this when the bleeding hearts try to use this as another excuse to control an entire industry they did nothing to create or contribute to.
Is it a coincidence that an employee of the movie industry releases an early version of LOTR on file sharing networks just when legislators are deciding whether to legalize hacking of P2P nodes?
Unlike many people seem to think, the only film of the trilogy that's been finished so far is the first one. The movies were only filmed at the same time, their post production is done one at a time. Just like Fellowship, The Two Towers probably won't be in its finished form with soundtrack and all the effects in place until October. That's why the story talked about "part of the film". And most likely The Return of the King exists only in rough cut form for now, they won't even start working on it before TTT is done.
Next time, before everyone spends a lot of time and energy debating the morality of copyright laws and the hypocrisy of Hollywood and the MPAA, we should probably take a look at the source of the article to determine how seriously we should take it (even though that's not as much fun).
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
If you believe pointing to a dictionary can defend you in court, go find a lawyer.
In fact, you are depriving someone of property. The movie you're stealing is intellectual property. You're depriving the owner of that property of their exclusive right to reproduce and distribute copies of their property. If you illegally download a movie from someone who has illegally posted it, you are acting to deprive the property's owner of that right. Lost sales might be an issue in a damage claim as part of a civil suit, but -- as open source advocates realize -- property can be stolen even if the owner chooses to give it away.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Is there an upper clue limit to be a movie executive?
I think you'd find that "criticism" would mean a published review, essay, examination, etc., that quotes a portion of the piece in order to illustrate and support the thrust of the criticism. It does not mean "It is legal for me to steal this thing before its owner wants to release it".
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Those of you who think that stealing a physical DVD is somehow the same as making a copy of the numbers on it, should contemplate why there is a "fair use" clause in the copyright law, but none in the laws for physical property. (i.e. "a television may be removed from its owner's home for scholarly or nonprofit purposes").
Of course the fact that there are separate laws to begin with, the fact the copyrights expire (presumably), and the fact that there is a separate and specific clause in the Constitution about creator's rights should also suggest that these are different activities.
stealing: 1. the act of a person who steals
steal: 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force. 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etd.) without right or acknowledgement.
I'll stop there. (Props to Second Edition Random House dictinary for allowing me the priveledge of citing their definitions)
Under steal(1), intellectual property infringement steals someone's right to exclusivity. Also, the mere existence of a copy devalues the original work, thus taking (without right) the artist and publisher's profit.
Under steal(2), plainly visible. That describes I.P. theft to a T.
Thus, it *is* in the dictionary. You are wrong.
You won't admit it though. But, you'd better find a new way to justify your crime. Oh, and look up crime in the dictionary while you're at it.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
when you take the media without paying for it, it's theft of services, and no different than an employer that refuses to hand out a paycheck to a programmer after a month of coding because it's just ones and zeros on a hard drive.
Employers enter into contractual agreements to pay. Copyright infringers don't.
Cracking DeCSS is breaking criminal law. Downloading copyrighted files isn't.
It would also legitimize their attack on p2p networks...
"...making a copy of the numbers on it" is too broad. (In any case, intellectual property has little, if anything, to do with "physicial" property.) If you copy some of those numbers in accordance with the fair use clause, you're OK. If someone disagrees, they can take you to court.
/.'s think that is fair use, why don't they start countersuing the media companies?
If you copy the entirety of an intellectual property and post it on a global distribution network, you won't find solace in the fair use clause.
If so many
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Dubs are lip-synced to the film using ADR equipment. They have to have picture reference for that to work.
This sig intentionally left justified.
No, he only has to show that there is one download that is a lost sale.
Meanwhile, you would have to prove that every download results in a sale.
Copyright infringement is theft.
--Blair
It doesn't really matter if it was deliberately leaked. The trafficing is illegal, no matter how the content got out into the wild.
It certainly does matter, if public policy is being made as a result in a way that harms the many to protect the few who, it just so happens, are leaking the material.
That an adolescent with a computer and an easy way to download a hot new movie months ahead of release will give into temptation is hardly news, hardly suprising, and doesn't warrent the kinds of policy changes that are being made, snide remarks about tinfoil hats notwithstanding.
That that fact seems to be irrelevant to the policy makers, some of whome appear dead set on making exactly those sorts of changes, is IMHO indicative of just how far our erstwhile democracy has fallen.
That no one seems to care is, I think, the final nail in the coffin of the digital renaissance. There is really only one entity that benefits from this: the MPAA entertainment cartel. It is not inappropriate to question what their role in all this is, given the current political situation, nor is it unreasonable to be suspicious, given the history of their behavior.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
You're obviously not watching your DivX:es (with AC3 sound, no bloody downmix) on a 10-feet-wide projection cloth in your living room (BIG SCREEN, dolby surround, comfier sofa, popcorn, single malt, a fuzzy blanket, and whatever the hell I like to wear in my own home).
Why did I get that equipment? Because I got tired of watching movies on a 19" computer screen.
Perhaps they haven't even leaked it at all. Do YOU have a copy of The Two Towers? Can you even find one? I wouldn't put it past them to pretend to leak something and then cry blue murder to the press, the police, and the senate. But maybe I'm just paranoid. :)
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Heh. Is it really spelled "Zathruss?" I always thought it was spelled "Zathrus." Or maybe I'm confusing him with his brothers, also named "Zathruss," and the other one, named "Zaathrus."
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
My guess (somewhat propped up by recent RIAA actions that are of the same general thrust) is that you're right, and this is a deliberate leak of a marked copy (or several differently-marked copies) for ease of tracking it thru the evil P2P networks, for the end purpose of waving its trail in front of the U.S. Congress. "See? You've got to do something about all this piracy! And not only American pirates, but all those evil ferriner pirates as well! Shut down the internet at the border, or we'll take our toys and go home!"
Hmm. If they get that "license to hack" bill passed, should we refer to the **AA as "privateers" ??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
First of all, the __SCRIPT___ would be completely useless for any sort of translation because the dialogue in the resulting movie almost NEVER corresponds with the script. Movie translators are getting special "DIALOGUE LISTS" that are made AFTER the movie is completed (which is sometimes too late).
When you are translating for the dubbing, the Dialogue List is needed but not sufficient for doing the translation, because you have to see which actor's mouth is visible in which shot and consequently decide how much the dialogue must phonetically match the original dialogue. Not to mention that you have to get the timing right, i.e. the translation must not be shorter or longer than the original. I'm not talking about number of characters but about the time it takes to say the dialogue which you cannot know from the Dialogue list.
--- Frantisek Fuka (Yes, that's my real name and you have no idea how it's pronounced)
If you wanna go there, and obviously IANAL (but since you have stated otherwise, I believe YANAL too), the whole problem is that the megacorporations who control the content production and distribution are willing to make a copyright violation as serious a crime as murder, grand theft or drug smugling. This completely violates the long-standing principle of law that prescribes the punishment should be proportional to the crime. If you don't think this will cause a backslash I think you are misreading the public willingness to put up with anything the corporations want.
The only backlash here is the one against the anti-intellectual-property camp and their constant disregard for the laws and treaties under which we live
Here, I believe, you are confusing matters even more. Who, exactly, are you talking about? The Free Software Foundantion? The Open Source Movement? Would you care to point instances of their disregard for law and treaties?
And this, naturally, without even beginning to discuss the problem of how to deal with unfair, unjust laws. You are aware that sometime in the past the law used to say women couldn't vote, ain't you? And black people could not vote and could not do a host of other things.
Nobody but the people who created the DMCA "caused" the DMCA. Think for a moment about "cause" and "effect". We might just as easily say that we "caused" them to lower their prices, or that we "caused" them to put their products online in a form that would be as useful to us as the pirated reproductions, but none of that ever happened.
They "caused" the DMCA by deciding that radical technological developments didn't justify adaptive business models/practices. They decided it would not be for them to change...even though it could be argued that nearly a century ago their own industry, coupled with technological developments, spoiled the potential markets for live music performance, musical instruments, sheet music, etc...they decided it would be for society to change.
They would rather render new technology impotent to create new market realities. Did they consider whether or not this was the right path? No, I don't think so. It's just enlightened self-interest working its selfish magic. Surely the only question that they ever asked themselves was whether or not they had the political capitol and lobbying muscle to pull it off. They're doing a bang-up job, and they're not even close to being finished. They'll wine about piracy until they experience ever-expanding profits (pay no attention to the larger recession or the fact that they haven't shown anything valuable to distinguishing music "consumers" in years).
What bothers me the most is voices like your own, demonstrating the extent to which they're winning the PR war as well. They're taking away your freedom to use technology for perfectly legitimate purposes (betamax VCR "legitimate usages" = "legal product" precedent, R.I.P. Now, if it can be used for pirating we have to do something about it...obviously bad for technological development), and you're worried about them. It's so sad.
There is a very good reason to download a copy of this. To figure out if it is actually out there or not.
I have a couple of very good reasons to believe that this has more to do with Drudge making up ways to be "relevant" than it has to do with actual reality.
First of all, they are not done with the actual editing of the film. Hard to do a bootleg of a film when the film is not even done yet!
Second, there is a longstanding tradition of mislabeling on the p2p networks. Much of what is labeled as "Lord of the Rings" is either the cartoon or something totally bogus. (Not to mention any song parody is labeled as being by "Weird Al" or "Dr. Demento", even if it has nothing to do with either of them.)
I take this as being crap-filled hype until proven otherwise.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
If The Two Towers is really out there, it is because a studio insider put it there. No one else had access to the film. Why would they do this? To convince Congress Hollywood needs more protection from Piracy. I hope they don't fall for this rouse.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
But it's not stealing.
Trespassing, yes.
You have not COST the movie theater a dime by sitting in an empty seat in their theater, watching a movie you didn't pay to watch.
Now, I'm not excusing it... I'm simply saying it's not the same as if you walk into wal-mart and steal six leather jackets.
That's a bullshit argument. It's not a contractual agreement if I don't have a choice whether or not to agree to it.
Who, exactly, are you talking about?
I'm talking about you, you idiot. I'm talking about people who try again and again to argue that copyright violation isn't a crime, and that stealing isn't wrong because only the big, faceless corporations suffer. This is a foolish argument, and those of us with sense see right through it.
Calm down. There is no need to start calling names in a civil discussion. That said, I have NOT, in any of my comments so far, stated my position about copyright violation. I believe my first and foremost argument was about the social reaction the companies may suffer if they get really serious about sending to jail the boyas and girls who are downloading their property. I made no argument about the fairness or unfairness of stealing from a corporation.
I also said it clearly that I think I new business model is needed. That much should be clear. When most of your consumers start taking away your product for free somewhere, you have problem no law will solve. Your product has suddenly lost its trade value and to recover it you must investigate what is exactly that made people exchange the quality and confot of your product by the uncertainty and limited availability of a instable network.
But if you seriously think this is one of those times, if you seriously think that your right to free stuff is being violated, then you need to spend some time reevaluating your life.
Again, I was never talking about "the right for free stuff". I was talking about not having my privacy and my property violated because some company think I might one day violate their copyright. I am also talking about about keeping in touch with the real world, where the public does not really give a damn if Disney made 10 or 20 billion dollars last year. And where the public will find it very wierd if when a teenager got some years of jail time for a "crime" that costs the producer almost nothing (for what that particular individual has "stolen", if you can "steal" such untangible things as a string of bytes).
You are aware that you sound like an idiot comparing media piracy to women's suffrage or civil rights, aren't you?
Deep down you know it is not about copyright violation, but about the right for privacy and the advancement of technology.
Did you hit the Reply button to a different post?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If copyrights create "property", then isn't it massive theft for the government to have them eventually expire? Imagine if traditional property became public domain ~100 years after being manufactured...
--
Benjamin Coates
Copyright violation is civil, not criminal, litigation, you arrogant prick. No one is going to jail or getting a criminal record for sharing files.
Someone said it right a few posts back...pointing to a dictionary does not make you correct in a court of law.
I love how you people can be so flip and cocky about your statements when you're completely and utterly incorrect.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
So the GPL isn't a contractual agreement?
The GPL's validity rests on this clause (in the sense that the GPL would be automatically invalid if this clause were found invalid).
You clearly don't know the law.
The holder of the copyright owns the rights to copies and to charge royalties on those copies. When you make your own copies and fail to pay him royalties, you have stolen royalties from him. If he has sold the rights to a publishing company, and the publishing company has joined the RIAA and pays them to protect the rights, you still owe the royalty even if you think your stupid little crime is somehow "civil disobedience".
This all began when printers started making money on sheet music and the artists whose music they were printing wanted to be paid for their work. The publishers realized it would be cost-effective to buy the rights. Then audio recording came around, and the system of music copyright transferred nicely. Then several publishers formed an organization to simplify and homogenize the administering of the copyrights. Hence the RIAA. The fact that it's a big organization that produces nothing but copyright lawsuits and confused teenagers doesn't change the fact that they own the right to do so, and you don't.
--Blair
Copyrights don't create intellectual property. Property is produced by the person who creates it. Copyright protects that person's interests in his/her creation for a period of time, as defined in law. In the U.S., that period of time has increased subsantially. Also, creators of intellectual property can transfer copyright to a corporation or some other organization. This often happens, for example, when a musician signs a contract with a recording company. That company will hold copyright on the tracks on the CD, while the artist may hold copyright on the actual sheet music.
"Traditional", or physical property is also transferred from one owner to the next when the property is sold. If a piece of physical property -- say, a house -- is left without an owner for enough time, an element of the government will certainly intervene. That's not reverting to public domain, but it does represent government action in the public's behalf.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
How is copying a movie (which someone spent a lot of time and money creating) your right to privacy?
I can't see anything even closely resembling your "right to privacy" in pirating -- other than they share some of the same letters.
You misundertand me here. I am not saying that copying a movie is part of my right to privacy. I am saying that the same laws (both in existence and in the making) that are supposed to prevent copying of copyright content are also restricting the privacy (and left unchecked will go on to open your personal property to the eyes of the law enforcement without reason except that of protecting the profit of half a dozen corporations).
Secondly, how come there is this supposed "right of advancement of technology" yet someone doesn't have the right to have their art protected?
I don't think you should put words in my mouth. I never said content providers can't use technology to protect themselves. I just say that the law should not prevent the development of technology and the use of this technology. The recent trends in legal copyright protection are a menace not to pirates (they will keep triving elsewhere) but to technology development and even to the whole free/open software as a whole.
The DMCA has already been used to jail one programmer for some months. It can also be used to prevent the public from knowing flaws and bugs in proprietary software. New laws mandating CRM in software may be used to kill some pieces of free software. Even independent cryptography research is threatned. As it is, a state of affairs that pleases many governments.
Thirdly, what buisness model for the MPAA and RIAA members would you propse (short of giving it away) that would almost halt piracy. Even if you could download a CD for $8 (50% off) people would still pirate it as much as they do now. Even if it was given away, but you could not copyright it, it would still be pirated. Until more people become more moralistic (for lack of a better term), these laws need to exist.
Would they? Some years ago, before the advent of fast internet and MP3, were people actively buying pirated CDs made in China? Some were, yes, but most people were buying their CDs where they always did, in the stores. I know that if I can download the music I want at the bitrate I want through a efficient network for a fair price, I will do just so.
I believe the music industry problem is that they can't see a way to make people pay for the low quality of their offering except by law. If you could choose which songs you want from an average CD, 10 out of 12 songs would be left undownloaded, unheard and unknown. And that is an optimistic figure. But the industry has grown fat and lazy, they can't see a world where they can't make you pay for the 10 garbage songs to have the right to hear the 2 good ones, the ones that made you purchase the album.
I will agree that perhaps archival backup should be legal as long as they stay in the owners possesion. Fair use should exist, but not in the manner that most people on Slashdot think it should. Their idea of fair use, and probably yours, is that you can use any amount of a "work" you want and that's fair.
You judge me unfairly. If you peruse my comments in this thread you will never see a defense of free-loading on the artists shoulders. I even think the producers and distributors have a place, a value to add to the process. I don't think (and I don't know anyone who does) downloading a song from the P2P networks is fair use. But I know it is a fact, a fact that should warn the industry about their relationship to their consumers and to their artists.
I also think the companies should expend more time and money thinking about how they can make a profit with these new technologies, instead of expending their time and money in the halls of Congress trying to buy laws to prevent the existence of the said technologies.
Before you start calling people arrogant pricks, perhaps you should apprise yourself of Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 506 of the US Code. Copyright violations can incur criminal charges.
So the GPL isn't a contractual agreement?
It's a contractual agreement, but you're not required to accept it.
And how does this differ from a normal copyright agreement (other than it grants you a right to redistribute, provided you meet certain preconditions).
The plain and simple fact is that the GPL is not exceptionally different from any other copyright license.
And how does this differ from a normal copyright agreement (other than it grants you a right to redistribute, provided you meet certain preconditions).
It doesn't. What exactly does this have to do with what I'm saying?
You said "By definition, every copyright infringement is a contract violation." But this is not true. It is only a contract violation if I agree to the contract. Alternatively stated, "It's not a contractual agreement if I don't have a choice whether or not to agree to it."
Let me give you an example.
It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.
The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats. At one end of it a coloured poster, too large for indoor display, had been tacked to the wall. It depicted simply an enormous face, more than a metre wide: the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black moustache and ruggedly handsome features. Winston made for the stairs. It was no use trying the lift. Even at the best of times it was seldom working, and at present the electric current was cut off during daylight hours. It was part of the economy drive in preparation for Hate Week. The flat was seven flights up, and Winston, who was thirty-nine and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way. On each landing, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.
I just committed copyright infringement. But I did not commit any contract violation.
Sure, resale of copyrighted material for profit, as in pirating rings. File sharing on p2p networks cannot and will not get you in jail under current law.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
OK. So what's your point? What are you trying to say? Why don't you try making a positive statment of your own?
The GPL is contractual agreement just like any other EULA. So?
You're clearly being disingenuous here. The OP never said say he copied anything--yet you make baseless accusations and write an attempt at showing erudition that's nothing but a long-winded, polysyllabic diatribe that doesn't even disprove his original statement.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Unfortunately, a whole generation is being brainwashed into believing that copying bits is stealing. I suppose the *AA have enough money to make them believe the sky is made of cotton candy, too. But those who have been around any length of time remember that the earliest misuses of this terminology were by greedy "rights" holders. And they pretend to tow the line around the ignorant, while doing what they please among themselves. As it was and always shall be.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
First off: I'm on your side. But you fail to understand who you are arguing with, or why it will never amount to anything.
The "stupid assholes" simply see the distinction you're making as a strategy to change the subject. A "rationalization". As if they are the only ones allowed to be rational, and then only when it suits them. That you are trying to argue that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, falls on deaf ears, because again... they are the only ones allowed to decide the punishment, and they have no reason to show mercy. Who cares, if some college kid gets ass-raped for 5 years, because he let some friends copy a pattern of 1s and 0s off his harddrive or cd. It's not like it's them, or anyone they know.
And nothing you can say, short of agreeing with them unconditionally, will get you anywhere with them. Ever. And when it gets to be this way, as soon you will realize it to be, it's best to just shut up, and plot their overthrow. Try to figure out ways to starve the RIAA, and the idiots that worship them. Make them feel pain. They don't care about yours, and they've shut themselves off from ever sympathizing with yours. You even tried to reason with them, and look how they treat you? It's time to tell them to go fuck themselves, and be done with it.
Other posters have answered the philisophical elements of your essay far better than I could have. However, another problem with Intellectual Property as a concept is the difficulty in defining the elements involved and enforcing the rules around them.
What is a unit of property? How much must a piece of data differ from another piece of data to not be considered a copy? Is an artist's rendition of a beautiful cathedral a theft of the archetecht's work? What if the artist's medium is sculpture? What if it's concrete and steel?
Any visual or auditory medium can be copied well enough to be considered perfect as soon as anyone witnesses the property. People will smuggle high-tech recording equipment into theaters and concerts, and their data will be copied. It would be easier to legislate fingernail length than IP theft. No matter what technology is used to keep people away from the medium, at some point they will see or hear it, and they may be wearing special glasses or hearing aids.
The key ingredient to understanding the irrelevance of IP law is trying to determine what has actually been taken from the artist. When physical property is taken from an owner, they can identify the last time they had it, and the first time they didn't have it. This is not so with copied IP. The artist can't tell how many copies of her work have been made, or when.
Note also that the "value" of IP as determined by the free market goes up over time as it is purchased from the owner. No other kind of property can be re-sold in this manner.
"Hello, would you like to rent an apartment? I have only one, and I'm renting it out to a million other people, but you don't have to worry about waiting to use the bathroom because you'll get your own copy of the apartment. But you still have to pay me. Why? Because otherwise you'd be stealing."
"Hello, would you like some food? I can give you as many servings as you like and I will never run out, but I have to charge you for every serving or I will starve."
I guess I dipped into the philosophy afterall. Oh well.
No, while I'm certain I can't change your mind on this one - I strongly disagree with you.
I don't think "piracy" is really "theft" in the traditional sense, so I don't need to make up lies and become "self-brainwashed" to make myself sleep well at night over it.
As many people have pointed out before, the term "piracy" is ridiculous in the first place. It's a euphamism created to make the act sound much more devious and wrong than it really is. Pirates hijaacked ships with weapons drawn, and forced people to hand over items of value or risk death. It's insane to claim that copying "copyrighted works" is in any way similar.
The bottom line is, piracy ends up being yet another of the victimless crimes out there. Sure, you can create scenarios where someone gets injured by the act - but it's all based on quite likely incorrect assumptions.
Primarily, the assertion that by copying a movie or piece of software, I'm somehow depriving the author of revenue is, at best, a "straw dummy".
Can you prove I would have plunked down the cash for the product if I hasn't duplicated it instead? Fact is, I buy plenty of "virtual goods". I pay about $25 a month to watch whatever programming I'm spoon-fed via satellite TV, for starters. I buy software packages now and then, too. I own over 200 music CDs and a handful of vinyl records, not to mention 60 or 70 cassettes, 30 or 40 DVD movies, and at least 20 movies on VHS tape. I go to the theater occasionally too. When I had a Playstation 2, I bought around 20 games for it. I certainly feel I've done *at least* my fair share of contributing a percentage of my income to these industries over the years! Nonetheless, I've also "pirated" a large number of programs and music. I'm here to tell you, though, there's no way I'd spend more than I already on these things. There's no real "lost revenue" from any of the stuff I copied - because the industries in question already collected the max. amount from me they possibly could collect.
Reality is, when you're in the business of selling digital works, or recordings made on analog media, your real goal is to offer a vast selection of "tempting choices" for your customers to buy. Most people will get "illegal copies" of at least 2 or 3 for every one they decide to pay for. That's just how the business model works. Greed drives them to scare people with legal threats, because they're dealing with a largely saturated market. There are more works out there than any one person can digest, and most people already buy as much of it as they can afford.
The Two Towers is NOT on the net. I did a seraach on WInMX to grab the trailer to the movie to check out something. I was suprised when I saw "Two Towers 2002"
Well I did what any one would have done. I exclaimed, "Holy shit" and went to DL it.
Needless to say, I was in a long ass line. Well I went to find other sources and what did I get. Some Busty Asian porno movie.
Obviously someone is just renaming the movie to get us all in a tizzy.
(Why do I post this...? No one will read it, much less, moderate it)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
Revealing data gleened using watermarks means revealing the versions WERE marked and that the leak was ON PURPOSE. Such a revelation will seriously undercut the legitimacy of any study done. Also anyone prosecuted for distributing a copy will cry "Entrapment!" whether they are justified in doing so or not. The public loves to hear about cases of supposed entrapment and will be more sympathetic to the pirates than they otherwise would be.
Finally, if everyone figures out that the movie was released on purpose they will see it as a publicity move, and view it as legitimizing piracy. This is very bad for the studio in the long run.
In short, even if there are watermarks, I can't see any way in which making the existence of those marks public without the movie studio doing more harm to itself than good.
Lasers Controlled Games!
So easy to add some flick called "The Two Towers" to my blacklist of movies I don't need to see.
And if it has anything to do with LOTR I definitely won't see it, since the first flick sucked so badly. (Talk about saving money on the most important scenes, and cutting out Tom's valley!!)
It doesn't matter one bit whether downloading is legal or not (and that question matters where you are in the world). It matters who did it, since there was either a conspiracy against the audience, or a conspiracy against the producer.
And I have no interest in paying to see a film by someone who might be pushing for laws of seizure before proven guilt. What ever happened to "please see my film"? I saw one recently (Shaolin Soccer) that was totally hilarious, and the director, actors and lead actress came to the theater and thanked the booming crowd! They came from Hong Kong to Tokyo to do this! They served up something wonderful on a shoestring and everyone was delighted. Not like these newfangled people who shoot a film by paying for special effects, but then don't even pay enough to do it right that way. No thanks. I'll wait for Darwin to take care of inferior wannabees like that by voting with my wallet.
Too many memes to absorb already, hey they make it easy for us to choose what patterns join the kill list. Anything with Two Towers or LOTR is right up there for me.
His said was it was not theft. He was wrong. I proved that. This post is all in words with one foot, just for you.
(a) Criminal Infringement. -
Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1)
for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2)
by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
Under (1), IANAL, but if you ask me, avoiding paying for movies or music when it is justly called for is getting "private financial gain," as in, your pocketbook is a little thicker because YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR IT.
Let me spell it out in big, bold letters: THE LAW SAYS THAT ARTISTS AND PUBLISHERS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE PAID FOR EVERY COPY... EVERY SINGLE ONE!!! You are violating someones law-given rights when you make illegal copies.
File sharing on p2p networks cannot and will not get you in jail under current law.
Under (2) most movie and music pirates I know have exceeded the $1000 mark many times over. That IS a criminal offense.
Sharing 66 CDs worth of music or 40-50 movies in six months will most certainly fall under that statute. Personally, I've met someone with over 150 GIGABYTES of illegally copied music and movies. If he can do it, there are a lot more people out there who can do it.
Note that sharing a mere 11 copies of Windows XP Home violates this law, and just a few copies XP Professional.
When I was in high school, I watched someone violate this statute when they made a copy of 3D Studio 4.0. The retail price was several thousand dollars. In addition, I've seen more copies of pirated AutoCAD than you'd ever imagine.
Don't worry, though, I don't ever expect you to admit you are wrong. You'd need a conscious for that.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
While I appreciate some intelligent thinking on this matter, might I suggest another, part complementary, part conflicitng perspective. You said:
If the resources aren't intrinsically scarce, introducing artificial scarcity [through IP laws] might not be the best option. However, in post scarcity society, one would function in a gift economy anyway.
Modern economies are most broadly divided into three sectors: manufactured goods, services, and agriculture. You (much like most of the business community) are attempting to fit the round peg of intellectual property creation, which is a service , into the square hole of the digital manifestation (bits) of intellectual property, which is a good .
Currently we treat such services as goods because we haven't determine a better way of distributing economic resources than the license-for-access model.
Certainly there is no scarcity of bits out there, the scarcity in that regard traditionally has been the costs of the transportation medium, whether it be disks, tape, etc., which the Internet now theoretically makes negligible (though practically isn't the case due to limited bandwidth, and consequential opportunity costs incurred by waiting for a download over a 56/kb modem link, or for larger items over a hi-speed internet link).
But anyway, let's assume that theoretically transportation costs are negligable. Your added stuff about nanotech really is irrelevant to the discussion because it just places physical goods on par with the theoretical reality of bits today.
Let's divide the two kinds of work into manual work and knowledge work -- some jobs are a significant combination of both (surgeons, for example).
My argument is that it is not information that is the world's economic driver, but it is the value of knowledge work. Bits aren't scarce, the people that know what bits to use are scarce. This isn't a new idea, Peter Drucker has been knowledge work for over 40 years, and a post-capitalist society significantly driven by knowledge for over 10 years. Alivn Toffler has also referred to knowledge being the new form of power in the future, the prior forms being violence and money.
When you use a service: a hairdresser, a plumber, an accountant, etc., you are gaining value from act of work they provide. You pay them money for their services. Similarily, when you licence a piece of intellectual property, you are gaining access to the manifestation of a service that is valuable to you.
Services are intrinsically scarce. They involve a universal scarcity: time, and more intangible scarcities that certainly warrent further study: talent, creativity, and knowledge. Hence there is a need for law to regulate access to such services to ensure the distribution of economic resources.
Having said that, current U.S. IP laws are flawed, and overstep their bounds. The DMCA does this by preventing people from "figuring out how things work", which probably should always be an intrinsic fair use. Patent time limits are probably too long, and need to be narrower in scope.
However, there is a continued need for some form of IP law -- which may look very different from today's copyright and pattents -- to correctly distribute economic resources to service providers. This probably will require a lot more thought and experimentation. The world of the future may transcend capitalism, but it won't likely be non-capitalist, as supply for certain services will remain scarce.
-Stu
The poster for Two Towers. You have to scroll to the bottom of the page.
I can't vouch for video stores, but I do know that most (more than 75%) of ticket sales on first run movies does in fact go to the studios. Soda and popcorn is so expensive because that's where the theater makes it's money.
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my