Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Opens Anti-filesharing Website
PontifexPrimus writes "The MPAA's new advertising campaign against movie piracy has a home on the internet. Did you know that '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.'? Learn about the dangers of filesharing!"
Have they, besides seeding the P2P networks with bogus files, also started spreading virii?
I wouldn't be surprised a bit.
-=- I heard rumours about an OS called "Social Life", heard of it? Is it stable? -=-
"Congress passed the first U.S. copyright law in 1790. Since then, nearly every country in the world has adopted some form of copyright law."
Well first of all that's not even true but let's pretend it was so I can make a snippy comment...
Ya, well America made the first atomic bomb back in the 40s and since then nearly every country in the world has them or is at least trying to make them. Once again thanks for leading the way to a bright future America!!!
"Don't cheat yourself out of the magic. Movies - They're worth it!"
:)
I know there's a plan to run commericals in theatres that are along those lines, but the last movie I saw in the theatre (T3) had a commerical for one of the local broadband providers with the tag line "listen to music online". Talk about mixed messages eh?
I don't know about other people, but I know that all of the movies have downloaded in the past I had actually paid to go see them before/after I had downloaded it and/or bought the dvd if I thought it was good. Not even Kazaa can beat Dolby 5.1 and a dvd picture
I'm the same. If I think it's going to be good, I'll see it in the theatre. If it's exceptional, I'll buy the DVD, even after I've downloaded it (after seeing it in the theatre). On the other hand, if it's a steaming pile of shit like Pearl Harbour (Thank heaven I didn't pay to see that abortion), I'll delete it immediately and contemplate sending a bill the the studio for the wasted time/bandwidth/disk space.
You're using her as bait, Master!
A lot of the public will hear this tripe and it will slow down file trading a little... but I doubt in the long run if it really puts too much of a hamper on file sharing, since what they are talking about is lies... if anyone is intellegent enough to be file sharing at the level the MP/RIAA is worried about, they will know that you can't get viruses from movie files... It's a sensible attack though, especially targeting us teens... and it will work marginally.. but this will only help slow the bleeding.. the damage has been done, they are going to die still, IHMO of course..
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
If I were sneaky, I'd log the IP of every comment made. Then go check out everyone who leaves an RIAA sucks to see if they were "sharing illegal content".
That would be a nice way to prioritise the millions of lawsuits.
I personally don't use Windows Media Player, never had. But like you said, it requires a carefully chosen media file which would exploit it, execute the code and do this without anyone suspecting it. I believe MS said that they had no evidence anyone had exploited it. The bugs probably do exist in other software but whether they will buffer overflow and execute the code you want is another matter. But either way, the virus in any file would probably be crafted for one specific problem in one specific (popular) media player.
Yet another reason to prefer the MPAA over the RIAA. At least when the MPAA's profits go down, they try something new, like adding content to dvds and varying release dates. When I buy a dvd in a store, I don't feel like a complete sucker. WHen I looked at buying a CD, I felt like an ignorant "consumer". Yeah, pay $30 for 1 hour of content, 8 minutes of which I like. When I bought the extended version LOTR dvd, I got:
1. The theater cut movie + deleted scenes
2. 5, count'em 5, seperate audio commentary's
3. Something like 8 hours of additional "making of" video
4. around 2000 production photographs.
I got so much content in those dvds I have not even watched it all yet. Whereas with a CD, you are done in one hour, tops.
The MPAA may be doing some unsavory things, but at least they are trying, without ripping me off or treating me like a criminal. I am boycotting CD's, but I still enjoy movies, and will pay money for the quality and experience.
"$DarlMcbride"==false
I did NOT learn everything I need to know in kindergarten.
ASF files appear to be able to carry executable activeX content. (I can't be 100% sure since Microsoft cease and desisted VirtualDub from reverse engineering the format, but I have run ASF file which popped up a web page from an URL contained in the binary of the file in MBCS format.) The problem is that often an ASF file will be renamed (I have noticed this from ASF files I obtained with Kazaa-lite) with an AVI or MPG file extension. Windows media player will detect the file by content, not by file extension, and after warning you about a mis-match, will go ahead and play it anyway.
Someone should inform them that price fixing, payola and anti-trust is also breaking the law. Though that applies more to the RIAA than the MPAA.
When a gangster knocks on my door and announces, "Hello, fine young man, you look like you need some protecting there! For just $1 a day we can make sure your.. ahem.. house doesn't have a nasty accident!" he's being fundamentally honest about the threat.
When the RIAA/MPAA say, "Hello, fine young man, it looks like you need some protecting there! So, that's no reverse engineering, no buying blank CD's without a few pennies for us, no publishing of exploits and in return we'll make sure you.. ahem.. don't end up in jail!" they hide it behind legalspeak and a false interpretation of the American Way. Which makes them bullies and cowards all at the same time.
So, perhaps you should work for the mob. At least you'd get a little bit more respect from me then, but I'd feel less threatened: no mobster has the power of an appropriately lobbied US government.
I just saw American Wedding on friday (I'm not gonna give any opinions - I'm not a movie critic). They had one of these commercials just before the previews. This pne "starred" a set designer talking about how much he loves movies, and how he met his wife on the set of The Big Chill, and how "not everybody invloved in the production of a big movie makes 6-figures". and a lot of other stuff to put a human face on the MPAA side ('cuz Jack Valenti isn't human enough). It seems like they pulled out all the stops on this one. "Touching" music (sounds almost like something Williams would do), "artistic" font design, etc. This guy rambles on about how much he loves movies for what seemed like forever before he got to the point. Once he did, it became rather apparent that the plan backfired. The theater was packed (opening night), and several people started laughing openly at this guy say how stealing one copy of a movie online steals his ability to make a living for his family. I heard a guy behind me say to the person next to him that he was going to start pirating movies if this was the "sh*t these assw*pes are gonna make me sit through before they get to the f***ing movie". The person next to him agreed.
A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
"You also become a distribution source for illegal downloading of movies, music and more, which makes you just as responsible if you had downloaded the movie yourself."
Not according to the law.
While the MPAA is trying to scare you, this statement is untrue. If I loan my car to a friend and he gets drunk and runs someone over, am I at fault? No, the police will want to know where I was for purposes of proving I was not driving the car, but I am not going to be charged with murder. It's the same way with filesharing.... although it gets more interesting. If I install a program that puts a backdoor on my system... am I really at fault, or is the software manufacturer.
Funny I was in Chinatown today and there no MPAA members stopping the *sale* of pirated movies out in the public street.
"Imagine that someone had spent two years writing a book. It would not be fair to let someone else make their own copies of the book and sell or give these copies to others without paying the writer. And unless the writer was very wealthy, she probably could not afford to spend so much time writing unless she could get paid for her work. In fact, very few people would ever create books (or movies, or songs, or paintings) if they could not earn a living from their work. If everyone copied the book and sold them or gave copies to others without paying for it, it would be hard for the writer to earn a living from writing, and ultimately that would mean there would be fewer creative works for us to enjoy."
What a piece of crap. So what about libraries, where you can borrow the book and read it for free? What about all that stuff like Project Gutenberg? What about millions of people who make a living by other means and spend years writing books as their hobby?
I just released a webpage. I spent 3 days on it, with breaks for sleep and food. It's a detailed instruction how to make a rope halter, best kind of halter/bridle for a horse ever. The page is available for free. The instructions are very foolproof, everyone should be able to follow them. The halters are available on sale for $30 or so. I'm definitely NOT a wealthy person - but I don't ask for money for accessing my page. I decided this thing is good for horses and it would be good if people used it instead of different cruel stuff they use, for free. I put a small notice at the bottom - "if despite these instructions you can't make that halter, email me and I'll make one for you for quite low price."
That's about it. Information can be free. I may be paid for work I put in things. Not for allowing someone to own them, while I lose nothing. I spent 3 days for making myself feel better - for making life of hopefuly several hundreds horses slightly better. Now if I sacrifice a hour of my time to make one of such halters and mail it to whoever is too rich, lazy or all-thumbs to make one themselves - I may charge them for my time and effort.
Copyright? Doh, if someone else starts making that halters and selling them, using my instructions, I'd be happy! Because I did it for certain idea. Not for money. But that's far beyond imagination of small brains of MPAA employees.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
[Since I have never downloaded a full length movie from the Internet, most of this information is second hand. Some of it may be inaccurate. My comments are in braces.]
YOU'RE CHEATING YOURSELF
Most of the time, the movies available for download on the Internet are obtained when someone sneaks a camcorder into a theatre and illegally records the movie up on the screen.
The sound isn't right, the picture isn't in focus, people are walking in front of the camera, and scenes are missing.
[Most movies on the Internet today are high quality rips from the original. Point invalid.]
Is that any way to experience the magic of the movies?
Only 4 out of 10 films turn a profit. If people take the films for free and the Studios can't recoup their investment, they may not be able to make the big summer movies we all enjoy so much; the TITANICs, the SPIDER-MANs, the JURASSIC PARKs. So, not only will the creators lose, in the end, you, the consumer, will end up with fewer choices at the multiplex.
[Slippery Slope. The Jurassic Park series is the only series in this list that I believe is decent. Spider Man is just not my type of movie and Titanic is a movie that should have never been made. The MPAA has no one to blame but themselves for their lousy sales ratio.]
Do you really want fewer movies to choose from?
[Seeing the current state of the film industry today... I'd love to see fewer but better quality movies.]
YOU'RE THREATENING THE LIVELIHOOD OF THOUSANDS
The entertainment industry isn't made up only of familiar actors, actresses and directors. It is made up of over 500,000 everyday working people that bring the magic of the movies to you.
[And most of those 500K people don't see most of the money. Plus, the MPAA is assuming that every download would translate into a movie sales. This is not true for some people.]
But, when movies are illegally downloaded from the Internet, these are the people that suffer the most.
It's the woman who does the make-up, the guy who rigs the lighting, the sound technician, the costume designer, the set decorator and the caterer.
[Wrong Answer. It's the stock holders, the executives, and all of the people that make a profit from sales that suffer the most. Most people working on movies do NOT get any of the profit from movies.]
Do you really want these people to lose their jobs?
[Slippery Slope. I honestly don't think filesharing is going to cause the movie industry to go bankrupt. They seem to be doing just fine, even though the economy is in a depression.]
YOUR COMPUTER IS VULNERABLE
Have you ever had your computer crash and had to replace it or reinstall all the files due to a virus or other such problem?
[Never had a problem with viruses... That is what Norton Antivirus is there for.]
The nature of "peer-to-peer" file sharing sites like eDonkey, Gnutella, KaZaA, etc., open your computer to destructive viruses and worms and annoying pop-ups.
Common Viruses:
Apher, Benjamin, Backdoor, Duload, Fizzer, Hantner, Klez, Neuer, Nimda, Livra and Magic Eightball
[Appeal to Fear. All of those viruses are easily detected by Norton Antivirus and other virus detection software.]
You also become a distribution source for illegal downloading of movies, music and more, which makes you just as responsible if you had downloaded the movie yourself.
[Unless you don't share any of your downloads. Then you are not "just as responsible".]
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.
[Appeal to Fear. No real backing in the real world.]
Is the theft of your personal information worth the free movie?
[Sorry, most of the filesharing community has seen right through your FUD and know you are wrong.]
YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW
-Valen
> 2) The artists don't get paid millions--they get paid SHIT. > They get about a tenth as much as the tech staff, >instead of a thousand times as much.
How do you figure this? I seem to remember Britney spears making millons and millions for her first CD, the those shitty boybands doing the same. Stones, U2 and them dont do any work and make a hell of a lot more then any tech working on their albums.
Remember Seal, he made one CD, the first single came out and he bought some exotic itallian car. Hundreds of Thousands of dollars for a 4 minute song that SUCKED TOTAL ASS.
The whole point is making music or acting just isnt that much work, not compared to those who really do work., its definatly not worth anywhere near what they get for it. For that matter professional sports stars arnt worth what they get paid either, but at least the major leagues arnt sueing all their fans.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I wrote an essay a while ago about this very same topic. I'm saddened that nobody seems to have found it very noteworthy -- I think that given the media's efforts to invade and control our culture, they have little right to complain about infringement.
Text follows:
We are not criminals. We are the proud citizens of these United States of America, and we want our culture back. For too long the music industry has branded us criminals -- thieves who would fight to take what is not ours, unwilling to support those who influence our lives and shape our culture, our national self-image. Yet there is no sign of the media calling off its plan to define and control our culture.
The music industry claims to have the interests of artists in mind while persecuting those who would attempt to make free certain parts of our culture. With the belief that work should be compensated fairly it is self-evident that artists deserve fair compensation for their work. However, the music industry routinely uses the "work make for hire" clause of the Copyright Act of 1976 to rob artists of their right to profit from their own creations by working with whichever publisher they choose.
If the music industry holds fair compensation in high regard, perhaps they could consider a business model in which an author retains ownership of her own works. If they are unable to fairly compensate artists, it is not the fault of the consumer. Business does not exist in a vacuum, and it is unfair to produce legislation which aims to preserve a monopolistic industry's position without significant consumer benefit. We want the right to experience the music of our lives at will without being forced to use our dollars to vote for the music industry's dominance.
While the popular media industries demonize citizens whose lives are most strongly tied to their products, they are fighting hard to retain their status as the group solely responsible for driving American culture. These self-proclaimed owners of our national identity strive to ensure that our lives are pervaded with their music, their movies, their values. They force their media into our lives; billing movies and albums as not just mere entertainment, but "events" which will affect our lives. One can hardly watch television or a film or listen to the radio without being subjected to mainstream music. Yet rather than rejoice and celebrate their successes they cry out at the realization that culture is a hard thing to bottle.
We do not consider it fair that the media surround us with the same sounds and images, over and over, yet we are criminalized for trying to integrate them into our culture. We have a right to our culture, and to not be regarded as criminals for demanding ownership.
A company cannot own a common term; trademark laws are such that trademark owners must take action to prevent their trademarks from falling into common usage, lest they become public-domain terms. The curious lack of a similar concept in the media domain means that our lives can be immersed in elements which become part of our cultural vocabulary, yet current law dictates that most of us will die before gaining ownership of our cultural identities.
We want ownership of the media that pervades our lives.
(original essay posted at http://www.tr0n.com/~chet/culture_ownership.html)
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
Here's some deee-lightful text from the site:
Hmmm... Have you ever had to replace your car radio because someone changed the presets? Have you ever had to replace your answering machine because someone changed the message? Have you ever had to buy a new guitar because yours went out of tune? Have you ever had to buy new clothes because yours were starting to get smelly after wearing them for a few months?
Um, let me think for a moment. Have I ever had to replace my computer because of a virus? Well, no I have not, because I am not a bone-headed knuckle-dragger who is too dumb to know the difference between software and hardware.
If I loan my car to a friend and he gets drunk and runs someone over, am I at fault?
The facilitation of distribution of movies can be seen in a very different light. It may be more akin to loaning a gun to a friend who you know will murder with it. Wherein, you are now a party to the crime by providing the instruments of the act (instruments which have no other purpose; a jinx in this argument? Is the sole purpose of the instrument to circumvent copyright?).
Short of cited precedent, I think arguments, and judgement, could go either way.
The only freedom is technically guaranteed in plausible deniability, such as FreeNet.
As a Grip, Key Grip actually, one of the "artists" listed on the site as being against the piracy of films, I am all for piracy as long as the studios aren't offering an alternative.
(Notice they didn't use actors as the artists that are being harmed by piracy? What, you don't feel sorry for Ben Affleck?)
I have to innovate to keep my job. The producers demand more efficiency from the crews and the "creatives" demand more creativity from the crews or I am not hired on the next job.
I can't sue someone that is doing a more efficient or more creative job than I am like the MPAA/RIAA are.
Fortunately "Respect Copyrights" reeks of "Just say No to Drugs."
We know how well that worked.
BTW-A Key Grip is the Head of the Grip department. The Grips are in charge of on set engineering. We build cranes to fly the camera, munt cameras on cars, fly lights from the tops of buildings, string light controlling cloth over a city street, etc.
The MPAA is missing the same opportunity that the RIAA ignored. Years ago, the RIAA should have noticed people downloading music and looking into why people do it. They then could have provided a better service and made a profit off it. Nope, they labeled it as thievery and attacked. Now they face a massive boycott. Lovely. That boycott will do more damage than P2P piracy ever could.
The MPAA has a little more time, seeing as how movies are 700 megs or so. Upload caps are still at 256k roughly so they've got some time to come up with their own service. And to an extent, they do. I found a site last night where I could 'rent' movies to watch on my computer. Damn cool really. I've been aching to watch Terminator again, and that'll only cost me $3. I won't even have to worry about returning a tape!
They're going to need to do more, though. The on-line equivalent of HBO would be nice. Pay $10 a month and get access to some movies. Heck, I'd pay my $30 month cable bill to a VoD service. Maybe more if their selection is really good, even with commercials.
The point is that if movie downloading is so popular, despite how painful it is, they need to look at WHY. Are prices too high? Are people obnoxious in theaters? Do people have time to sit and watch a 2.5 hour movie? Do people want to spend $8 to watch an iffy movie? (Sort of like the prices are too high, but it did suck that Star Trek Nemesis fell to the bottom of the heap when Two Towers, Harry Potter, and James Bond blew a gaping crater into people's movie budgets.) Can college students even make the time to go see a movie?
With the answers to these questions, the MPAA could do something shocking, like provide supply for the demand. Who'd want to download a movie off of P2P when they could spend $5 and get the Hulk streaming down like right away? I know that in my house, a good deal more money would go into watching movies. Right now I have to pick and choose a movie in the same way I pick and choose a new computer. That sucks.
"Derp de derp."
"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."
/. readers would care to speculate on who would like to write such a virus...
Hmm... there have been e-mail viruses that randomly send personal files to your friends. How long before viruses start placing your personal files in your shared folders?
I'm sure some
-a
Personally, I would rather pay to see a movie than watch a screener. My friend has shown me a number of screeners like that, and I hated them. It's just not worth it in my opinion.
I only download the screeners of movies that I know aren't worth my money (e.g. Legally Blonde 2, and Daredevil). Sometimes I end up downloading a movie and unexpectedly liking it (e.g. Spider-Man) in which case I'll go see it in a theater.
I'll gladly pay to see a movie if it's worth it.
Ok, so the MPAA is trying to convince the public that downloading movies means movies won't be able to make a profit.
Yet, thanks to very creative accounting, the people that the MPAA represents very rarely have ANY movies that make a profit.
There is a reason that the stars, or producers, or key people in the project go after percentage of GROSS and not NET. Even Stan Lee got burned on Spiderman because his contract was for a percentage of NET and according to the studio, the movie didn't make a profit.
If a movie doesn't make a profit, it is much more likely it is one of: (1) creative/slick accounting; (2) intentional overspending; (3) bad business decisions out of ignorance; (4) intentional bad decisions to drain money; (5) illegal financial transactions of one kind or another; (6) or perhaps the movie just stinks!
I find it quite funny how upset MPAA gets about people "stealing" by downloading movies, but does not care in the least when the people they represent effectively steal from people they've made deals with by artifically charging up expenses and other costs to prevent a movie from making a profit, thereby denying the artists, writers, or whoever might have been given a percentage of the NET.
Talk about a double standard. But of course, that's what we've come to expect now days isn't it?
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
I have painstakenly researched each of the viruses mentioned on their site, and written a rebuttal on my site. There is a weak connection at best between P2P software and these viruses. It's almost laughable that they even chose some of them for the list at all.
Read the Anti-FUD on the front page:
http://erik.la
# Erik
The part of the FUD I want cleared up and I would love to send the internet hound dogs on is: who is the guy in the video?
:)
I first saw this before I watched Bad Boy II. I then saw it before American Pie 3. I looked up the movies he mentioned and I did not see a common crew member between them all. Either he is too low on the food chain to even make it to the credits (is that possible?) or my paranoia tells me he is a fake.
If he is real, some EFF people or some people with inteligence needs to let him know that its the MPAA shooting itself in the foot and that organization that will be putting him out of work. Hell, he should be more worried about Pixar, because they don't need a set painter like him
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Piracy is wrong. Now for my comment:
About 10 years ago, I read in an accounting journal that a fixed amount of money is added on to the "cost" of a movie for advertising. But this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with how much is actually spent on promotion. Maybe that's why the "four out of ten" movies didn't recover their investment?
And shouldn't the "toy figurine money" that McDonald's or Burger King pays the studio reduce the cost of advertising, instead of being "merchandising income"? (Remember all that stuff in Mel Brooks' "SPACEBALLS"?)
Speaking as an accountant, changing your outlook (and a few numbers) can do wonders for your books (but outside of Hollywood or Washington, D.C. this could lead to a jail term).
It's the accounting.
We've seen articles on slashdot lately about the music industry. Everything the artist needs is a loan against future royalties. Is the interest rate fair? Royalties assume 25% breakage, even though we stopped shipping fragile 1940s vinyl years ago.
As for the MPAA, I read in an accounting journal about 10 years ago that a fixed amount of money is added on to the "cost" of a movie for advertising. But this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with how much is actually spent on promotion.
The MPAA has learned the accounting profession from the RIAA. I wouldn't trust either of their figures, even after a full audit. The reason for setting up the deal a certain way, their estimates and projections, their "costs", I question all of it.
If I did business this way, I could get the same tennis instructor as Martha Stewart (Federal prison). Worse, I could be her doubles partner!
I don't know how the market should decide which musicians or movies do well. But with music payola and only a few good movies, the market really isn't deciding now.
In my several years in the business, I never once saw a production company fail to pay its crew every cent they were owed -- probably because between powerful unions and the ability of even a non-union crew to stage a sit-down strike on the spot, they wouldn't dare short 'em.
However, extras are generally paid out of petty cash, and at that level, there's lots of pilferage (mostly disappearing into producers' pockets. Universal is so bad about this, that I got so I would not knowingly work on a Universal production, because it was a given that we'd get screwed out of part of our pay, one way or another.)
Frex, Darkman -- big budget, big name director and star, major studio behind it (Universal!) -- yet somehow they couldn't find it in their petty cash to cough up the *legally mandated minimum* for extras' meals, so the extras' food wagon made do with stale noodles (WW2 surplus, I kid you not) and hotdogs**. But somehow the rest of the cast and crew still ate well. (On-set food is normally both *good*, and the same meal for everyone.)
Mind you, this is all money that's spent the same whether the film in question ever makes it to the box office -- and many don't.
** Fresh hotdogs only appeared because I personally bitched to the A.D. about the hideous quality of the food, until he finally checked it out and deemed it unfit to eat. If they'd fed the main cast and crew such slop, there'd have been an instant riot.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
...but I had worked up a response the their campaign last Friday, I think. It's called Shout at the Screen. Basically, I suggest using their ads as a platform to reclaim the public domain, or at least make people aware of the issue.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
How about respecting our rights? Ah, a little parody is good for the soul, if not the legal bills.
umm, yeah that didn't make sense. I meant it wasn't the MPAAs best idea to advertise unfinished work. (although now i think about it, it probably is)
The Blair Witch Project was made for about $30,000 IIRC. Terminator 3 was probably 10,000 times that. They wouldn't need to sell anywhere near as many BWP tickets/DVDs to turn a profit.
Why would scenes be missing? Does the camcorder guy take a wizz every half hour?
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Let me stand on my soap box for a second.
All kidding aside, the RIAA and MPAA have totally missed the point. I know I don't have to tell ./ers this but filesharing means just that. Sharing of files! It's not exclusively movies and music, although, to be fair, that does seem to be the major focus of programs like KaZaa. Furthermore, the movie and record industries has had rampant pirating of their material going on for decades. Yet not only have they survived, but they have flourished. Movies make more now than they ever have before ($10 at the door plus concessions) and has anyone been to a concert lately ($50 is a drop in the hat)?
Anybody remember the stink the Record industry made when tape cassettes first came out. "Oh no, some one can steal our material off the radio with one of those things."
The same thing happened with video tapes.
And CD burners.
And MP3s.
ad infinitum
The only difference with file sharing is that it is usually done with total strangers and thus seems to be more widespread when a single person can share the file with hundreds of others.
Yet once again they fail to see how to use the technology to thier own advantage. The only music I've downloaded has been from artists I've been unsure of the quality of the other work on thier CD (I've bought too many CDs of one-hit wonders to shell out $20 a CD for them anymore) and the only movies I've downloaded have been ones I probably wouldn't have bothered to see otherwise.
Net Result: Some of the music has prompted me to buy the CDs and some of the movies I own on DVD now. Why would I bother you ask? It's nice to own a copy of them and many contain extras that you just don't get with file sharing. That is the positive side to the file sharing. But of course, 'They' are too blind to see the marketing potential.
And of course I am still evil in their eyes since I share my files! ;)
Seppuku: Your solution to my problems!
Woooooooooo! they've been slashdotted..
;)
Anybody mirror the site yet?
Mirror their site? Absolutely not. If they can't keep their own webserver running, I dont think anyone should help them get their message out. After all, their message is to not share information
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
Shouldn't respect be a two way street?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.