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!"

Comments

Because without KaZaa....

[OwnerOfWhinyCat]

....your Microsoft O/S is completely secure.

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[Tarqwak]

... and since Microsoft Internet Explorer is also part of the operating system it must be secure too, right? Unfortunately some rogue "experts" are tying to prove otherwise but don't trust them! Those infidel bastards!

MSIE and programs embedding its MSHTML engine are totally secure and trustworthy, mkay!?

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[shaitand]

umm no, 2 windows vulnerabilities in the last month. 9 potential linux vulnerabilities axed in the last month.

The fact that vulnerabilities get found and fixed on linux is hardly a blackmark.

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[pantycrickets]

2 windows vunerabilities in the last month

9 Linux vunderablilites in the last month

Shhh.. keep it down, what are you trying to do? Start a riot? This is Slashdot, not some sort of place to post facts.

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[pantycrickets]

The fact that vulnerabilities get found and fixed on linux is hardly a blackmark.

I'm not looking to get involved in some battle of the zealots with you or anything, but what you said of course, doesn't make any sense. Of course it's a 'blackmark'. There is always a period between when a vulnerability is discovered, and when it was fixed that the machine was - guess what - vulnerable to compromise. Also, the more bugs that are found on a regular basis, regardless of wether or not they do eventually get patched is bad. With that many holes known to the public and security communities, you can be sure there are more that are unknown with exploits being traded in private. And using your logic, why harp on Microsoft then? After all, they eventually patch all their major security holes. Bleh.

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[Chester K]

....your Microsoft O/S is completely secure.

I think it's funny you're responding cynically to their FUD-laden scaremongering about backdoors and viruses being spread through file sharing programs with equally FUD-laden scaremongering about security holes in Windows.

Though I'm sure the irony will be lost on you.

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[Cpt_Kirks]

I'm not looking to get involved in some battle of the zealots

Jeebus, are you in the wrong place!

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[God! Awful 2]

"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."

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 /. readers would care to speculate on who would like to write such a virus...

-a

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[dubious9]

Those were all dead links.
s/yro.slashdot.org/www.securityfocus.com

1.Linux Kernel 2.4 XDR handler routines for NFSv3 have been reported prone to a remote denial of service vulnerability.
The issue presents itself in the XDR handler routine contained in the nfs3xdr.c kernel source file. The issue is due to a signed/unsigned mismatch, when processing the size field of an XDR packet.

A remote attacker may exploit this issue to trigger a kernel panic and deny service to legitimate users of the system.

2. A potential information disclosure vulnerability has been reported for the Linux /proc filesystem, specifically when invoking setuid applications. As a result, an unprivileged user may be able to read the contents of a setuid application's environment data. This could potentially, although unlikely, result in the disclosure of sensitive information, such as restricted file path information.

3.The Linux Kernel MXCSR handler code has been reported prone to an unspecified vulnerability. The issue presents itself when low-level MXCSR kernel code encounters a malformed address. It has been reported that the MXCSR code fails to sufficiently handle malformed address data and will leave garbage in the CPU state registers. Although speculative, it has been conjectured that this issue may allow an attacker to trigger a denial of service condition. Although unconfirmed other attacks may also be possible.

4.A vulnerability has been reported in the TTY layer that may result in a kernel panic. The precise technical details of this vulnerability are currently unknown. This BID will be updated as further information is available.

5. It has been reported that the Linux kernel does not properly handle a low volume flood of some types of traffic. Because of this, an attacker may be able to cause excessive consumption of resources and failure to route traffic.

6. It has been reported that the Linux kernel does not properly handle some specific types of network traffic. Because of this, an attacker may be able to cause excessive consumption of resources with malicious TCP/IP packets, resulting in a denial of service.

7. A vulnerability has been discovered in the ioperm system call for Linux. Due to a programming error, permissions may not be correctly configured on I/O ports used by a process. As a result, an unprivileged local user may be capable of reading and writing to I/O port addresses which they would not normally have access to.

8. A vulnerability has been discovered in the Linux kernel which can be exploited using the ptrace() system call. By attaching to an incorrectly configured root process, during a specific time window, it may be possible for an attacker to gain superuser privileges. The problem occurs due to the kernel failing to restrict trace permissions on specific root spawned processes. This vulnerability affects both the 2.2 and 2.4 Linux kernel trees.

9. Network device drivers for several vendors have been reported to disclose potentially sensitive information to attackers. Frames that are smaller than the minimum frame size should have the unused portion of the frame buffer padded with null (or other) bytes. Some device drivers do not do this adequately, leaving the data that was stored in the memory comprising the buffer prior to its use intact. Consequently, this data may be transmitted within frames across ethernet segments. As the ethernet frame buffer is allocated in kernel memory space, sensitive data may be leaked. Cisco has state

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[Lord_Dweomer]

" 2 windows vunerabilities in the last month
9 Linux vunderablilites in the last month"

We don't take kindly to strangers 'round 'ere.

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[dubious9]

OK, now I'll respond to the 2 vs. 7 post and i'll entitle it: "Lies, damn lies, and Statistics."

First off, you've got the kernel source, and anybody can look for bugs.
Second, you are encouraged to report bugs in linux so that they will be promptly fixed. Microsoft asks that you inform only them and if you tell the world, then Microsoft will likely get mad at you.
Third, what is the bug comparision total over the long term? A lot of the bugs you stated were similar and one was a vendor driver problem and only one gave the user root access.

In conclusion, bug count totals are meaningless when used in comparison, much like counting lines of code. They only speak of the quality of the code along with other factors.

The fact is linux is designed with security in mind, and windows is not. Even microsoft people say so. Linux is updated much more frequently than windows, and new kernel roll outs are simple. Windows is closed source and bugs reporting is discouraged and may be illegal under the DMCA.

I would then expect Linux to have more bugs reported, but that says nothing about the number of bugs present in windows. And as other posters have said the linux bugs are predominately unlikely to work remotely, and even if they did, only a couple are root cracks the rest are DOS bugs.

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[Quino]

You see, the line of thinking (disclaimer, I subscribe to this line of thinking) always has been that Linux is less buggy *because* bugs are more readily found, resulting in safer, less buggy software.

Here's the line of thinking as I understand it, well written software, just due to human nature and the nature of programming, ends up with a more or less constant rate of glitches (constant in a statistical sense, I'm sure). Usually, the hardest part about making glitch-free software is just knowing about the bugs. Apparently, the most important part in bug-fixing (and the hardest) is the bug-finding.

You're assuming that the argument is that, because it's OSS, it's bug-free from inception. I don't think anyone has ever made that claim. OSS, the argument goes, is just better software (in a general way, of course. OSS is no guaranty of crappyness-free software, just as the fact that someone succesfully managed to charge for their software is no form of guarantee either) because the process in which it's developed (checkout The Cathedral and the Bazaar, insteresting stuff) more bugs are found faster.

Your post pretty much suports this view -- what you're showing is pretty much, according to OSS suporters, the superior bug squashing process taking place. In that light, according to your nice list, MS is 7 bugfixes behind! (doesn't it appeal to common sense also? What do you think is more likely, that the 7 bugs don't exist in MS software, or that MS hasn't found them yet?)

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[shaitand]

Actually it's what you just said that makes no sense. It also makes no sense that you assume anyone who prefers one system over another must be a zealot, this is a clear indication that you yourself are a zealot.

Let's take a look at this for the moment, the linux kernel is primarily coded by people from a pool of top programmers in the world. Microsoft and other fortune 500 companies (including IBM and those who contribute to the kernel) basically buy and swap these people around. There is a list of about 300 names and you'll find at least a few of them on the roster for any given major project, commerical or gpl. What this means is, more or less the same people are doing the programming, and they are no more or less apt to write a bug. So given two projects with roughly the same controls, of the same complexity, and with the same programmers, you'll end up with more or less equal bugs going into the code. There is no such thing as an app without bugs, they are there, they never all get weeded out.

It's what happens after that which is interesting
In the case of windows by far more bugs are discovered by 3rd parties than by microsoft after release, those parties can do nothing bug report said bugs to microsoft. No shortage of bugs are discovered first by the crackers and the crackers exploiting them is how they become known to everyone else.

With linux after release there are thousands of people looking for and fixing bugs in the linux kernel, at any given hour, of any given day. Out of the thousands of people looking over the source code trying to find a bug and get an honorable mention in the changelog. These thousands were able to come up with 9 bugs and all of them had 24hrs or less turn around time before being fixed. A bug is virtually never discovered because someone was exploiting it, bugs are almost always exploited retroactively after there is already a fix out there.

Now either way, if you don't stay patched you'll be vulnerable to bugs... because no matter how many we find there are more out there. But I consider a system where the best the hackers can do is follow the bug announcements themselves and hope I didn't patch to one where the hackers are usually the ones who find the bugs to begin with.

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[eggarsuit]

Microsoft != MPAA

After all, isn't that the orginization we are here to bash?

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[Feztaa]

Excuse me, but what does the Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology have to do with anything?

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[j-turkey]

There is no such thing as an app without bugs, they are there, they never all get weeded out.

int main()
{
printf("Hello world");
return 0;
}

Find the bug. I dare you.

1. printf is undeclared
2. stdio.h is not bug free
3. compiler bugs

--Turkey

One word.

[James A. A. Joyce]

The be-all and end-all word: FUD.

Need I say more?

Re:One word.

[TedCheshireAcad]

But it's so priceless, on the page of ''Why you should care", they say:

When you download movies illegally from the internet, you're breaking the law.

genius...

Re:One word.

[MrLint]

Funny I was in Chinatown today and there no MPAA members stopping the *sale* of pirated movies out in the public street.

Re:One word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really fud? Granted, windows is insecure with our witout kazaa. But doensn't one increase risks by running these tools? Indeed, Kazaa is known to be a type of spyware. While not a virus, it is something that most people don't know about, and probably wouldn't like if they did.

I don't agree with everything on the site. Their coverage of the copyright laws is completely onesided. They neglect to mention the repeated, absurd open-ended extensions granted to copyright holders each time the rights were about to expire. But this is just the industry trying to give their side to the story, and provide alterative links to rental/purchase sites.

So, if you still think their site is FUD, then please present your findings from the code audit you must have run on kazaa. Or present your patch to removal all viruses and worms spread through the service so that the happless masses of windows users can enjoy the hassle-free sharing you seem to think is available.

Re:One word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown

Re:One word.

[RickHunter]

Duh. Pirates who sell their work are no threat to the MPAA - they, after all, have to make a profit. The MPAA's never gone after them. What they're scared of is people getting the idea that (a) culture or entertainment should be free, or at least cheap and (b) there are sources of entertainment and culture other than the MPAA. (Which IS what file sharing will eventually lead to)

Re:One word.

[rosewood]

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 :)

Re:One word.

[squiggleslash]

Reminds me of the warning Microsoft puts on its Windows installation CDs: "Do not make illegal copies of this CD".

Well, duh!

Re:One word.

[Jucius Maximus]

The thing that bothers me the most about the various coalitions against the 'theft' of intellectual property is that they always seem to assume that 1 downloaded copy == 1 lost sale. It's probably this argument sold to PHBs by skillful salesmen that gets things like macrovision and safecast out to the masses.

Re:One word.

[mr_sas]

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)

Re:One word.

[Stickster]

You're arguing apples to oranges. The point is not that the originator wouldn't have made a sale to you anyway; the point is that copyright is a right that rests with the work's originator. You don't have the right to make a decision on whether you're allowed to copy the work. The originator does, and if they decide that the only way you get a copy is by paying them, then that is the price. If you don't pay for it, you don't get to enjoy it.

And honestly, your argument is also somewhat specious, because if the work wasn't worth your paying for it in the first place, why would you want it to begin with?

So.

[emf]

I ran a file share app, someone "hacked" my computer and put those .mp3's there. It wasn't me. ;)

Anybody mirror the site yet? ;)

Re:So.

[Dylan_t_p]

from reason #3 of the why should I care section of the site

"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."

so basicly that wouldn't help you a whole lot from what that says

Re:So.

[jeffkjo1]

"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.

Re:So.

[DarkOx]

IANAL but I do know ./ers need to at least try and understand the difference between criminal and cival law. The FEDs might prosecute you for trading copywrited materials just like they or the state may charge you with murder if you kill someone while driving under the influence. You are correct the FEDs are not going to charge you or at least convict you for copywirte infringement if you got hacked and someone else used your box without you knowing. However civial liablity knows no end. If your car is used by your friend and he kills someone the decesed's family can probably sue you and win for your carelessness in loaning your car to your buddy you should have know was a druk. The MPAA will say you should have secured your box and prevented its miss use by others, you own the box you made the infringement possible so you are responsible. THAT IS TOTALLY F*up I KNOW BUT IT IS ENOUGH for a substantial judgement against you.

Re:So.

[debrain]

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.

Re:So.

[darkwiz]

"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.

No, you are guilty of contributory infringement. Having a filesharing program running, and sharing copyrighted files from it - you are knowingly distributing copyrighted materials. By the law, you do not have that right, only the copyright holder does, unless they have specifically given you that right.

It is in no way comparable to loaning someone your car, because the primary use of loaning your car is legal. If you knowingly give people access to resources that you are aware they are using to commit a crime, you are generally guilty of a crime as well.

The key word there is knowingly. You pay someone to kill someone: you have broken the law. You give them a gun knowing that they are going to use it to murder someone, you have broken the law. You give them the keys to your neighbor's house, knowing that they will use them to rob their house - you have broken the law. If you loan them your car knowing that they will use it to rob a bank, you are not only incredibly stupid, but also guilty of a crime.

You'd have to be pretty naive to think that people aren't going to use your filesharing of "J-Lo and Ben Affleck Cavort Around, Pay Us Money" to download it illegally, and stupidity is not generally a legal defense. In otherwords, you are knowingly facillitating the commission of a crime, and would be extraordinarily hard-pressed to argue otherwise (unless you were distributing licensed, or free media - in which case the **AA isn't your problem).

In the least, all these actions are "Aiding and Abetting" or criminal negligence. In the worst, they are conspiracy. Filesharing of copyrighted works is no different, although of considerably less gravity then the above crimes.

Please people, a little sanity here. The **AA are overblowing things, but distributing copyrighted works with normal, restricted distribution rights is illegal. Period.

Re:So.

[Necrobruiser]

If I loan my car to a friend and he gets drunk and runs someone over, am I at fault?
In some states, at least, if you lend your car to your friend, knowing that he is drunk, you can be charged with a "permissive DUI". I very nearly got one for my fiancee by driving her car drunk. I recommend NOT trying it.

Re:So.

[Danse]

Actually, the interesting thing about the statement is that they say "which makes you just as responsible if you had downloaded the movie", when it's distributing the movie that is the real crime, not downloading it.

Re:So.

[Qzukk]

You'd have to be pretty naive to think that people aren't going to use your filesharing of "J-Lo and Ben Affleck Cavort Around, Pay Us Money" to download it illegally...

Of course, what if I'm sharing mp3s of my garage band? Or a friends' garage band? Or if I got all the garage bands in my neighborhood together and put them all up?

See, it is not as hard as you'd think to come up with a sane, nonillegal use of filesharing. If I had a garage band it would be natural to post my music online to spread awareness and to see what other people think of it. Take a look at the Minibosses or God Ate My Homework.

Or, lets say you have an incredibly popular site or you know your site is about to be hit by /. You could toss your site into freenet and post the key, or set up several torrents for it and post links to the torrents.

So now, to mangle one of your analogies, since its obviously illegal to loan someone their car to be used in a bank robbery, should you be banned from ever loaning your car? Should filesharing be banned because it could lead to copyright infringement? Just because the legitimate purposes aren't popular at this point in time, who knows where it could go from here?

What really happens

[AndyFewt]

For those of you who *always* wondered what happens When you download movies illegally:
#1. You're cheating yourself.. absolutely, I divorce myself!
#2. You're threatening the livelihood of thousands.. just the MPAA member company shareholders/execs
#3. Your computer is vulnerable.. avi/mpeg/mov can carry a virus? Learn something new everyday!
#4. You're breaking the law.. >:]

The best part of their site was their "Music Games & More" section where they say "Did you know that you can download the latest songs", I wonder what the RIAA would think.

"Don't cheat yourself (the poor shareholders/execs) out of the magic (new yacht/ferrari). Movies - They're worth it (HONEST!)!"

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 :)

Re:What really happens

[The Mayor]

Actually, the Windows Media Player has had several known buffer overflow problems. A carefully chosen media file could therefore exploit this buffer overflow to execute malicious code after the buffer overflow error is encountered. Although I am unaware of any such bugs in other media viewing software, I am sure that they exist.

Re:What really happens

[Robber Baron]

"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.

Re:What really happens

[AndyFewt]

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.

Re:What really happens

[erasmus_]

Just the MPAA member company shareholders/execs? Since you sound very knowledgeable about the topic, can you explain exactly how actors, directors, cinematographers, writers, or even key grips get paid when you pirate a movie and don't pay a dime for it? Or how about computer people just like us, who work on the special effects, or just install and support the computers for the people involved with a movie? You're going to save me a lot of guilt from downloading, so I await the answer anxiously. Thanks!

Re:What really happens

[AndyFewt]

As far as I was aware, the majority of the "crew" for the films are paid a flat rate before the movie goes out. Then specific people (mostly the copyright holder.. aka the company aka its shareholders/execs) get a cut of any profits from boxoffice/dvd/vhs.. I know the director and actors usually do get a slice of the profits depending on their contracts etc.

Obviously I do not know the actual payment structure of the whole movie industry and am making some guesses. Downloading the movie and not paying to see it/buy it on dvd is wrong. I believe artists/actors/directors should get paid for their skills, which is why I will pay to see the movies I like the look of and/or will buy the dvd.

Re:What really happens

[Ninja Programmer]

#1. You're cheating yourself.. absolutely, I divorce myself!

Well, if you were bisexual ... oh never mind.

#3. Your computer is vulnerable.. avi/mpeg/mov can carry a virus? Learn something new everyday!

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.

#4. You're breaking the law.. >:]

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.

Re:What really happens

[shird]

2. You're threatening the livelihood of thousands.. just the MPAA member company shareholders/execs

I had a look at the video and the general theme of their site and realised theres a bit of a fault with their reasoning. They claim that although it might not affect the producers and actors etc because they earn so much, it will affect the 'small' guys like set painters etc...

but... if the movie makes so much as they admit, theyre not going to pay the 'set painters' etc any less because, as they admit, they still will be making more than enough money to pay these guys. They are probably contract workers and will only do it for an acceptable fee. WTF.. shut up you stupid MPAA wankers.

Re:What really happens

[NanoGator]

" 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?"

Not really. Go download Winamp and you can listen to streamed music legally and for free.

Re:What really happens

[necrognome]

Slightly OT, but you have no idea how bad ads can get in the movie theatre. At one of the theatres in NYC, the UA Union Square to be precise, there is something called "The Twenty." It's this "hip, new" (their words) reason to come to the movies early to see (sit down) twenty minutes of ads, music video and TV show previews, and "short films" that are really ads for television networks. Imagine twenty minutes of commercials, BEFORE the previews, coming soon to a theatre near you.

Re:What really happens

[Eskarel]

Went to watch a movie today and they made a big deal about showing you this set painter and explaining how piracy doesn't really hurt the execs because they're million dollar employees, but it hurts these regular people. To me that was more an advertisement that film execs are overpaid and screw over their employees, though maybe that's just me.

Reminds me

[Anonymous Coward]

...of the movie "Truman Show" where Jim Carrey is in the travel agency, and one of the posters on the wall shows a jumbo jet being hit by lightning. The caption on the poster read "This could happen to YOU!"

LOL! Sometimes FUD is funny.

This makes you almost wonder

[Hertog]

Have they, besides seeding the P2P networks with bogus files, also started spreading virii?

I wouldn't be surprised a bit.

I think the MPAA just....

[The Analog Kid]

learned about the dangers of the slashdot effect.

Re:I think the MPAA just....

[Nutrimentia]

I suspect that this article was submitted here precisely for this reason!

Learn about the dangers of the /. Effect!

[bdigit]

Posting an article on slashdot is a new method hackers are using in order to carry out DDoS attacks on websites they dont like. Will you be next? Protect your site today!

New anti-priacy policy...

[groove10]

Only produce movies starring Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, that way... No one will want to pirate them because they suck so bad!

Re:New anti-priacy policy...

[BiggerIsBetter]

It's turkey time. Gobble, gobble.

Re:New anti-priacy policy...

[Dylan_t_p]

well I don't know about that theory, I mean if there was a horible death scene at the end (one that actualy killed j-lo and ben for real.) then maybe at least a few people would download the ending if nothing else

Re:New anti-priacy policy...

[prokofiev]

I happen to have liked Armageddon - but i'm the only person i know who did. And yes, i did have to go to dictionary.com to spell it.

I'm safe!

[worst_name_ever]

I was worried when I read this article, until I remembered that I am immune to this kind of thing ever since I bought the software that prevents my computer from broadcasting an IP address. I'm so glad I clicked on that popup ad!

This is great!

[Megor1]

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.

So the riaa should really sue the riaa since they were offering songs for download when their website got broken into?

You're Cheating Yourself

[error502]

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. Is that any way to experience the magic of the movies?

Is what any way to experience the magic of the movies? Free? I think it's a great way.

Only 4 out of 10 films turn a profit.

6 out of 10 films suck.

Do you really want fewer movies to choose from?

Gladly. Maybe they'll be forced to make movies that aren't complete shit.

Re:You're Cheating Yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

The sound isn't right, the picture isn't in focus, people are walking in front of the camera, and scenes are missing. Is that any way to experience the magic of the movies? Don't take LSD or any other type of illegal substance and that won't happen.

Re:You're Cheating Yourself

[BoyHowdyAAF]

Only 4 out of 10 films turn a profit.

6 out of 10 films suck.

And odds are, at least three of those films fall into both categories. ;)

Re:You're Cheating Yourself

[error502]

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.

Glad?

[sporty]

Am I the only one that is glad that my well being, that "cheating myself" is so much more important than "breaking the law"?

I won't bother debunking 3 or even talking about 2... but don't you love how they try and manipulate priorities?

Cheating myself?

[Xerithane]

Here's an idea MPAA. You can use this one for free, and I'm putting it in the public domain for you. Because you have such high opinions of movies such as "TITANIC" and "SPIDER-MAN" and "JURASSIC PARK", I have some news for you: Don't make movies that suck.

There is nothing that compares to the silver screen. Well, there wasn't, but home theaters are starting to come close. So, make movies that don't suck and people will still go to see them.

4 out of 10 movies don't recoup their investment because they suck. Gigli isn't going to recoup it's investment because it sucks. 4 out of 10 movies are going to suck. The other 6 are just going to suck less. Stop automating your script-writing, and be more stringent with what movies you actually produce and then people will still go see them in the theater and you will still make money. People will still pirate them, but so what.

The biggest thing people use pirated movies for: To find out if it is worth the $8. If it sucks, it isn't worth $8. I'm not cheating myself, I'm saving my damn money.

Re:Cheating myself?

[swordgeek]

Just a minor correction.

"4 out of 10 movies don't recoup their investment because they suck."

Correct.

"4 out of 10 movies are going to suck."

INCORRECT!!!

9 out of 10 movies are going to suck. 5 of those 9 will actually make a profit, despite that. (and the tenth, that one movie that doesn't suck, isn't likely at all to make back its costs)

Re:Cheating myself?

[bios10h]

"Do you really want fewer movies to choose from?"

Quality over quantity? oh you bet! :)

Re:Cheating myself?

[BWJones]

I have some news for you: Don't make movies that suck

I have some news for you. We are dealing with a common denominator here. The general American public will purchase just about anything and it does not matter the qualtiy. Lemme see if I can think of some examples: In the movies we have "Rob Schneider is (x)" People go to see that! And it must make a profit, because they keep making these Rob Schneider films. In the computer business we have Windows. And people continue to purchase Windows. Take your pick of any of this absolute tripe posted for sale in the inserts of your local Sunday paper. Today I saw a porcelain figuring of a teddy bear in desert cammo holding an AR-15. People must buy this stuff or we would not see this sort of crap. The other thing that amazes me is that people actually spend time out of their lives to make this stuff.

All that said, I am solidly in support of making more quality movies and fewer movies that suck.

Re:Good luck guys

[ceejayoz]

If they're anything like RIAA, they'll be hacked pretty quickly...

The RIAA website used to have an unpassword protected administration page at riaa.org/admin/ - helpfully pointed out by robots.txt!

The link got posted on FARK and Slashdot and several hundred fake news items got posted (including everyone's favorite goatse man) until they finally took it down.

Whoops!

And these are the people some Congressmen want to trust to hack filesharer's computers to remove copywritten works? Heh heh heh...

Re:Umm oops?

[AndyFewt]

Maybe they're using that same ISP that the RIAA uses (Tomorrow's Solutions Today, Inc), but after further investigation, they are on Ware(z)net, but of course we'll have to put this bit of information in (not that they have learnt from the RIAA but..) Windows 2000 - Microsoft-IIS/5.0 and for those who havent checked netcraft, it's also running on the same ip as mpaa.org

Reason #2

[CrowScape]

With movies taking in more money every year and with DVD sales growing by leaps and bounds, if those thousands of Industry employees aren't getting enough money I would think the problem does not lie with illegal downloads.

How soon they forget.

[PaddyM]

I just saw 'Pirates of the Caribbean'. 'Sometimes the right path, the right course, requires a little piracy'

Right-ho, chaps! What say we /. it?

[Limburgher]

Or, if you want, try this link.

Worst part

[ciroknight]

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..

Next targets for the RIAA?

[Stinky Glen20]

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.

Read it again...

[JessLeah]

They don't say that your system is insecure "while filesharing". They say that your system is insecure "while online". While some would call me a nitpicker for pointing this out, I think it indicative of the general anti-technology fears that the MPAA/RIAA "higher-ups" (Valenti/Rosen/etc.) hold.

It's simple really

[cubicledrone]

It's all about "we want it for free."

That's all. All this discussion of copyright reform and the "artists" is a non-issue. What it is really about is "we want everything for free."

People really think that if copyrights were repealed completely, that somehow the marketplace wouldn't change at all: that $200 million movies would still be made, people would devote 3-5 years to writing a book, and animators would spend tens of thousands of man-hours on television and home video.

Here's a hint: they won't. Sure, you'd have the odd street performer and concert in the park, but by and large, all professional creative effort would be pointless, and the people who are now making a living at it would have to find other work: probably a minimum wage fast food job, because as we all know, arts degrees are worthless in the "real world."

"All for free" is just as extreme, and just as absurd as "pay per play." But the argument will never be taken seriously, because it isn't about fixing things, it's about "we'll just take it, and then rationalize it with some bullshit straw man argument over the meaning of the word 'theft.'"

If copyright is repealed, it will render millions of man-years of effort totally worthless, and put tens of millions out of work. Dozens of industries will become pointless. That's not progress.

How about a real discussion of copyright reform instead of half-assed "nyah nyah nyahs" at the MPAA?

Re:It's simple really

[Maul]

No, I don't think many people on Slashdot agree that copyrights need to be repealed completely. While no doubt some do, that wouldn't work in today's world.

Copyright needs real reform, however. Film, music, and art has a significant impact on our culture, so much that these things become a PART of our culture in a very short time. This is why I have a problem with insanely long copyright terms.

The original term for copyright was fair. Let a piece of work remain copyrighted for 14 years, and then let it fall into the public domain so that society can utilize what has been added to its culture.

Elvis is dead. He had plenty of time to profit off of his works when he lived. His music has become a part of our culture and should belong to society, not some record company who will continue to take advantage of copyright extensions to charge for Elvis' music until the end of time.

Likewise, Hollywood has made a crapload of money off of its hits. Titanic, Jurassic Park, etc. all have made lots of money for studios. I doubt it would REALLY hurt Hollywood if Jurassic Park were to enter public domain in 2007.

Perhaps if the RIAA and MPAA knew they only had 14 years to make a profit off of a recording or film, these groups would focus on making quality material rather than being uncreative.

Re:It's simple really

[hankaholic]

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)

Re:It's simple really

[pgrote]

Actually I don't want it for free.

I want it easily accesible, portable and priced reasonably. This isn't about artists rights or copyrights as much as it's about distribution control.

Just today I Tivoed a movie called No Man's Land. It's an 80s flick with Charlie Sheen. Ebert gave it 3 stars, so I thought what they heck. Later on I went down to check on it and it was actually a 2001 movie about Bosnia or something.

Now, I wasn't able to get the movie I wanted. Why not let me hope on the internet, let me buy/use the movie for 30 days. Charge me a buck. Heck, encrypt my credit card in it. I don't care. But let me get it A) Right now. B) Let me move it to my laptop to watch on the plane. C) Don't gouge me on the price. It's not costing you anything except some bandwidth.

Palm does it right. They offer topical, up to date ebooks for purchase. They encrypt your credit card in it. This makes sure that you don't pass it around, but also makes it portable. They don't care where you read it. It's a very nice, easy solution for me to buy books for those long flights. I think some of their prices are too high. I think they should pass the savings of not having to publish a book onto me, but that doesn't matter. I vote with my money. I choose reasonably priced titles.

The cat is out of the bag. People want easy, convinient access to digital media. The companies better get in front of this.

As for the movie industry bitching ... why? Hasn't the success of videotapes and DVDs shown them that they can make a ton of money. I would suggest to them that they get in front of this.

The RIAA is just lost. They can't seem to grasp the fundamental fact that their market is moving away from them.

At least they're not the RIAA

[Robawesome]

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

Oh no! I might have the "Backdoor" virus!

[AntiOrganic]

Apher, Benjamin, Backdoor, Duload, Fizzer, Hantner, Klez, Neuer, Nimda, Livra and Magic Eightball

Good to see they include viruses/worms that have no history of spreading via P2P, like Klez and Nimda. Hey, why don't you put Code Red and Slammer/Sapphire up there too?

Thanks For Letting Me Know!

[FsG]

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.'?

Nope. Nor did I know that I can get music and movies online for free. Thanks for informing me, MPAA!

- Joe User

General

[Procyon114]

'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.'

As I remember it, if the member companies of the MPRIAA see the same type of stuff (whenever one makes a purchase or buys a subscription), they enjoy the legal right to collect any such information a customer must give them and "share" it with marketers for money.

How come they only "seem" concerned when they're not the ones doing it?

Irony, thy name is unauthorized mirror lawsuit.

[Cordath]

You know, I bet MPAA lawyers could make a good case for sueing anybody who mirrors their slashdotted site. Hey, it's copyright infringement isn't it?

MP3 exploit exists in Windows XP; Video at 11

[Ho-Lee-Chow]

There is a more serious MP3 buffer exploit in the Windows Shell of Windows XP (including SP1). All you have to do is hover the mouse pointer over an MP3 or file with a corrupted ID3 tag to trigger the exploit. Sure, that may not be the easiest way to spread a virus or a backdoor trojan, but what about code that simply formats your hard drive? I'm sure there are plenty of trojan EXEs that will gladly re-format your HD; now what if hovering your mouse over an MP3 could have the same effect? That would be a great method for "destroying" filesharers' PCs a la Senator Orrin Hatch.

Microsoft is quite innovative in the field of security. They find ways to open up exploits in all kinds of data formats that were previously thought to be safe: MP3s, WMAs, E-mail, etc. (Okay, that was a bit of a troll and extremely unoriginal, but what the hell.)

Why the MPAA is full of shit (and the RIAA isn't?)

[swordgeek]

OK, it's fairly simple stuff here.

1) The MPAA would recoup its investment MUCH faster by encouraging people to come to the movies more often, and by reducing costs. How can they do this?
a) Reduce ticket prices. Lower tickets mean more movie-goers.
b) Quit paying the stars so fucking much money!!! Ben Affleck made TWELVE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS for Gigli, one of FOUR movies released this year that he starred in. In other words, he made roughly one THOUSAND times as much as a skilled professional with a post-secondary education. (Notice that the MPAA site doesn't link to any stars' opinions--just the grips and the stuntmen, making a thousandth as much as the stars)
c) QUIT MAKING MOVIES THAT SUCK BADLY!!!

How many times do you need to hear it? How many brainless sequels to brainless movies do you need to make before it sinks in that you SUCK, and that your movies SUCK?

Imagine this: A movie where stars are treated as skilled employees and paid roughly $200,000/year (hey, their careers aren't as long as some of ours--they deserve higher salaries for that), the writers are required to come up with original and innovative ideas to earn their pay, and the tickets are $5/seat, with affordable popcorn.

Why they might actually make a profit, and DESPITE all of the file sharing (that doesn't take away a single ticket sale), get people out to the movies.

As an aside, you might ask how does this NOT relate to the RIAA?

1) The RIAA actually is hurting (some) from filesharing. Most people are as happy with a burned MP3 as they are the original quality song, whereas nobody would seriously miss a good theathre movie just because they had a really crappy camcorder copy they can watch on their TV.

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.

homophobic

[TerraFrost]

it seems as if half of the MPAA / RIAA's case against piracy is that everyone is out to rape you. after all, all p2p apps are really trojans designed to steal personal information, and even your own friends are out to get you. that last part is refering to the RIAA holding parents, grandparents, and roommates responsible for piracy committed on their computer, even though they may not have been the source of it.

also, the respectcopyrights.org website was mentioned sometime ago on slashdot:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72066&cid=6504 160

How'd that get in there!?

[jrockway]

> '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.'

Dammit! Did I put my_ssn.txt and my_bank_records.txt into ~shared AGAIN!? Damn the insecurity!

"Entertainment Available on the internet"

[Bradmont]

(from the "music, games & more" page)
Browse the links below to discover a whole world of entertainment available to you - legally - right at home.

Gotta love how they don't link to project Gutenberg on the books page. :D

The commercials are comming...

[Sven The Space Monke]

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.

Re:The commercials are comming...

[Tim Doran]

Jack Valenti isn't human at all. He's a high-performance killing machine sent from the future to wipe out filesharing -- and with it, all hope for humanity's future.

Jesus, I think I should go to bed.

Re:The commercials are comming...

[Danse]

Yeah, I went to a preview of American Wedding and they showed it then too. I cracked up. Aren't those guys all union members anyway? I don't see them taking a pay cut anytime soon. The only possible way that movie piracy could affect them is if people simply stopped going to movies and just downloaded them instead. I would have to happen on a scale that caused the industry to just stop making movies (and thus not hiring all those union guys). That ain't gonna happen. The quality is generally (very) inferior and you don't get the big screen/big sound system effect either. Sure, some people have home theaters worth more than a nice car, but they're few and far between. Then there's rentals. I could possibly see this impacting those, but even then it's a long shot. You don't get all the extra features and stuff that a lot of people like (and one of the few things that the movie industry is doing right). So I think the poor guy will still be able to put a crust of bread on the table for his wife and kids for a long time to come. Hollywood needs to handle this a lot differently and quit pissing people off. If they would simply create good movies and keep improving the package deal you get when buying a DVD, then they should have no problems.

Re:The commercials are comming...

[kamapuaa]

This is a ridiculous point. "Movies will always make money. What else do you do on a Friday night?"

Also worth mentioning - of course movies don't *have* to be seen in a theater. I'm sure everybody here has heard "I'll wait till it's out on video."

Some movies make money. Some break even. Some lose money. If a smaller percentage of movies make money, less movies will be made. If a larger percentage make money, more movies will be made. Piracy is one contributing factor to movies making not as much money.

Movies losing viewers to piracy? I don't think it's widespread, yet, but my friends and I will sometimes download movies, or purchase bootleg DVD's, as opposed to watching the movie in a theater. True that's more popular with urban Asians than with other groups - but as bootlegging movies becomes as easy as getting music off Kazaa, and as computers become better integrated with TV, it seems likely to become more and more popular, and eat into legitimate movie profits.

Re:The commercials are comming...

[Anthony Boyd]

Maybe we need to start a little campaign...something along the lines of everyone shouting: "Look, I already paid to see the f***ing movie, didn't I!?!" every time one of these ads comes on.

Done.

The "back door" is real ... Sorta.

[crankyspice]

Remember who these ads and websites are aimed at. The average /. reader knows the "truth" about back doors in software, and, more than that, knows how to share directories with granularity. The average computer user, I would posit, does not. Don't believe me? Hop on KaZaA, Gnutella, whatever, and do a search for '.xls' or '.wpd,' etc. See how many personal documents you uncover. We did that once and found a CEO's copy of the salary breakdown for his dot-com... No names to protect the clueless (and shareholder value ;)). So, it's FUD, but it's (if there is such a thing) justifiable FUD.

Movie theatre trailers

[innocent_white_lamb]

In real life, I run a movie theatre.

At the tail end of last week I received trailers for "Anti Piracy PSA" from "respectcopyrights.org". No explanatory note or anything came with the trailers; they were just tossed in with my regular shipment from the film warehouse.

So I guess you can expect to see these trailers soon at a theatre near you; I'm sure I'm far from the only one who got them.

fuzzy math

[Ender77]

OK, Movies are making more money than ever(the good ones anyway), DVD's are selling like hot cakes, and the movie indistry is losing money HOW? Even if they were losing money, I can't feel to sorry about it when you hear about the leading actor(s) making 6 to 8 million dollors to star in it. Here is an idea, instead of getting some famous actor and paying them all that money how about trying out some NEW actors to play the part.

Not worth the effort anyway.

[Frodo420024]

Strange people. Downloading movies off the internet is not even worth the time you spend on it - you're better off going to the cinema for the real experience.

Getting a camcopy or a DivX complete can take days - if your time is worth anything (mine is), it's cheaper to get a couple tickets for a real cinema, or rent/buy the DVD. Goes better with girls too, they do not appreciate watching movies off the computer screen :)

Relax, MPAA, it's the RIAA who's in real trouble.

Great Idea!

[straterpatrick]

I think the website is a great idea. What a good resource. In fact I think I will need to check this website many, many times a day. I would recommened we all do so. Keep going to the site and download as much of the valuable and correct information as we can, as often as we can. I just might have to tell everyone I know about it. If, per chance, the site can't handle the load we should all just keep trying, because hey, that set painter guy might lose his job, and even though the execs aren't in trouble of losing theirs, this important and truthful information might change the whole industry in favor of the 'little guy'. Because hey, that is what is at stake.

MPAA has much less to worry about than RIAA does

[scarolan]

First of all they have a built-in protection from piracy in the HUGE file sizes that have to be downloaded. Any dialup user can grab a few albums worth of MP3s if they leave their connection on all night. It can take DAYS to download half a movie on Kazaa, even on a broadband connection.

Secondly, most of the releases that come out on IRC, newsgroups, bittorrent or whatever are crappy cam recordings that people don't like anyway. Who wants to watch some washed-out version of a movie with bad sound anyway? If it's any good you'll go see it in the theater to get the real experience.

Third, most of the movies you find on the internet are in divx or some other format that generally only plays on a computer. Most people are not savvy enough even to burn a VCD to play in their DVD player, what to speak of building a dedicated home theater pc to play the divx movies. Most people do not want to sit in their computer room in front of a 17" monitor to watch movies. They would rather see it on the 42" widescreen in the living room, or in the theater.

Finally, movies is a social thing. People take dates to movies, they take their kids to movies. They like to eat the candy and sit in the theater with the big screen and surround sound.

So MPAA, take a chill pill. We're not going to drive your poor key grip and dolly boys into homelessness. WTF is a 'key grip' anyway???

Piracy And Baseball

[jeffkjo1]

Notice how baseball seems to be suffering the same problems as the RIAA and the MPAA... inflated salaries, and less and less return on their investments (Only one major league team turned a profit last year... one) but MLBA can't claim piracy is causing their losses, because... well, that would be retarded.
Interestingly, however, the reasons for baseballs, and the RIAA/MPAA decline are identical:
1. Overpriced... seats/cds are too expensive.
2. Salaries, stars seem to want more and more lately...
3. THE MAJOR REASON: Recession! People don't buy cds, movies, or go see baseball games because THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.

Baseball is adjusting, because it has to, RIAA/MPAA are fighting tooth and nail for legislation so they can retain their current business model....

STFU RIAA/MPAA.

Bad recordings vs bad movie theater...

[Keeper]

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. Is that any way to experience the magic of the movies?

Funny, I could swear the last time I went to see a movie in a real movie theater that ...

* The sound was off (too much treble, no bass)
* Lots of "muching" sounds by people in the audience pigging out on snacks
* Random noise/chitchat
* Cell phones/pagers going off
* The picture wasn't in focus (it was slighly out of focus until the last 15 minutes)
* People would walk across my field of vision (in order to get more snacks or to use the bathroom)
* I missed scenes when I went to the bathroom

Now, what am I gaining by going to an actual movie theater? They need to come up with a better arguement than the one they're using, that's for sure...

Re:From the site

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Ah, Spider-Man. Now that is a pirated movie:

The original scriptwriter sued Sony for ripping off his script.

Marvel sued Sony for hijacking the character of Spider-Man and trying to make it sound like a Sony creation.

The actual creator of Spider-Man, Stan Lee, sued Marvel for not getting his fair share of the movie profits.

That is all allegedly done by Sony, a MPAA member, and Marvel, a major comic book publisher.

The above allegations, if true, are a drop in the bucket of all the things the members of MPAA and RIAA and done in the last few decades to rip off artists, each other, and the general public. It sounds to me like they need to clean up their own acts before they start worrying about the security of file-sharers' PCs.

Bells are ringing: Mothra, Mothra! Every heart is calling: Mothra, Mothra!
Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have gotta pay! New Kirk calling Mothra, we need you today!

Re:One Better

[leviramsey]

Are you willing to pay an extra $5 per ticket?

"Imagine that someone had spent two years..."

[SharpFang]

"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.

Point by Point Analysis

[Valen0]

[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

Re:Why the MPAA is full of shit (and the RIAA isn'

[0racle]

> 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.

And Orin Hatch might sneak in!

[tjstork]

Keep that dirty old Senator out of your hard drive! He might be trying to look at those naked pictures you took for your wife!

Backdoors

[Strenoth]

Maybe that's why I use Kazaa Lite Instead! :)

They forgot to mention...

[sillivalley]

The risks of attending movies in theatres -- exposure to disease (SARS, tuberculosis, other airborne pathogens), risks to your sanity (insipid "previews," the idiot behind you with the cell phone, the gaggle of girls talking through the whole thing, bad sound and worse pictures), parking lot mayhem, $6 for a bucket of popcorn that's coated with the same stuff they spread on the floors to give them that wonderful, MPAA-approved tacky feel...

But then you didn't expect a balanced presentation, did you?

replace your computer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's some deee-lightful text from the site:

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?

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.

I have an idea...

[jwbing]

Perhaps the set designers, grips, make-up artists, etc, could all make a bit more if the big names stars weren't payed outrageuously. Arnold was payed around $30 million for his recent role in T3. Perhaps if they had skimped a bit and only paid him $29 million, the 'real people' could get paid more.

Seems like the MPAA is just a tad gluttonous these days.

hey, FUDster

[alizard]

can you explain exactly how actors, directors, cinematographers, writers, or even key grips get paid when you pirate a movie and don't pay a dime for it?

With the exception of the few who are "important" enough to get cut in on a percentage of the net, these are union people who get paid by the hour and get paid rather well while work lasts. Their payment does not depend on whether or not the movie sells or is pirated.

You are saying that no more movies are going to be made if somebody downloads a low-quality copy of the next Matrix movie? What are you smoking?

The RIAA argument you're trying to make also requires you to demonstrate that significant losses in sales are occurring due to broadband downloads of movies.

EVIDENCE PLEASE, other than studies paid for by the MPAA to PR firms.

Your argument also, carried to its illogical conclusion says we have a moral obligation to buy even movies we don't like or these poor, starving industry employees will be out of work. Do they have the obligation to buy software from companies that employ us whether they like it, want it, or need it?

Or how about computer people just like us, who work on the special effects, or just install and support the computers for the people involved with a movie?

You either expect to make enough from your share of the profit to afford to take the risk of their not being any or are getting the certainty of a pretty good paycheck. Either way, you are not my problem, any more than any failed dot.com I wasn't personally involved with is.

Re:hey, FUDster

[Overly Critical Guy]

Nothing you say can change the fact that pirating movies is illegal and immoral, even in spite of your typical Slashbot anti-corporation mindset that somehow justifies things for you.

With the exception of the few who are "important" enough to get cut in on a percentage of the net, these are union people who get paid by the hour and get paid rather well while work lasts. Their payment does not depend on whether or not the movie sells or is pirated.

Yes it does. If movies don't sell, those people won't get jobs in the first place. And quite frankly, if the fact that some union people get paid by the hour is your only justification, you need a new one. Next.

You are saying that no more movies are going to be made if somebody downloads a low-quality copy of the next Matrix movie? What are you smoking?

That's exactly true. If everybody downloads DVD-R rips of upcoming movies (and DVD-R rips are currently the rage), there won't be a reason to shell out for the DVD itself. Of course, you'll mention low-quality cam rips and ignore DVD-R, DivX, SVCD, and all the other high-quality rips floating all over the place complete with surround sound and subtitles.

The RIAA argument you're trying to make also requires you to demonstrate that significant losses in sales are occurring due to broadband downloads of movies.

It doesn't matter, pirating movies is still wrong and immoral. It's only a matter of time before broadband becomes so commonplace and downloading becomes so convenient that just grabbing the latest movie is merely an overnight affair. You are a fool to ignore this ever-growing snowball simply because you refuse to feel any guilt over it, and so justify it because you've grown accustomed to the convenience. You don't want it to go away.

EVIDENCE PLEASE, other than studies paid for by the MPAA to PR firms.

Ah, the copout ploy of playing it off as a PR stunt.

Your argument also, carried to its illogical conclusion says we have a moral obligation to buy even movies we don't like or these poor, starving industry employees will be out of work.

Why would you download a movie you didn't like? How is that still not wrong and illegal anyway?

Do they have the obligation to buy software from companies that employ us whether they like it, want it, or need it?

What are YOU smoking? The company buys software licenses for employee use.

You're just some lame Kazaa/eMule user trying to justify things to get rid of the pang of guilt that comes with the realization that what you do is illegal, immoral, and will not last forever. You're simply used to the convenience, but the free ride will not last forever.

Here comes the part where Slashbots accuse me of being a shill, bring up unrelated analogies usually involving cars, or try to shrug things off as a negligible loss. Nice try.

Re:hey, FUDster

[Reziac]

If movies don't sell, those people won't get jobs in the first place.

Actually, having worked in the business, I can attest that the majority of wage-paying jobs are for movies that are never finished, never sell, or have a brief run in small venues, then disappear forever.**

In short, these wage-paying jobs in film are there no matter what becomes of the film afterward. Commercials and series TV are even steadier work, whether your current job's end product is a hit or a bomb, and regardless of whether it's pirated later, because there are always N-many hours of production time to fill on every network.

** Some of these going-nowhere films are real productions, but one suspects that many are used primarily for money laundering.

Re:hey, FUDster

[hkmwbz]

"Nothing you say can change the fact that pirating movies is illegal and immoral"

Is it immoral to rip off an industry which is making its customers its enemies, rips them off, and basically spreads lies and accusations and are fighting to gain control over material we have already paid for? They are even saying that everyone is a criminal until proven innocent.

As long as the entertainment industry continues with its attempts to control the consumers (it is not "customer" anymore, it is consumer - we are nothing but a way for the entertainment industry to make more money, and constantly insult us), a lot of people will find it moral and justifiable to rip off the industry as much as possible, to cripple its attempts to gain more and more control of our lives.

Many will, in fact, say that the only moral thing to do is to fight for one's rights. If that means ripping off the entertainment industry and helping to distribute their products to get them out of business, then a lot of people will be perfectly happy about that.

The fall of the current entertainment industry can only lead to others taking over, and they will know that they shouldn't try to screw with the customer because it will backfire and they will crumble up and die, just like the monopolist entertainment industry of today.

You can hide behind laws and some perverted sense of moral obligation to support an industry which does everything in its power to corrupt our rights. But others will disagree, and they will laugh at your attempts to make them feel guilty for doing what they perceive to be the only right thing to do.

And no, to them, simply not viewing their movies or listening to their music is not enough. They will try to make sure everything is available for free so that people who would otherwise pay don't, because they can get it without paying instead.

Re:hey, FUDster

[erasmus_]

I knew I should've covered this in the original post, but here goes. If you don't think that the payment for people depends on profits from movies, then how do you think they get paid? Previous movies are used to budget future ones, and if the movie brings in less than it should because we'd rather have the l33t DivX on my PC d00d, it's quite possible that people will get pay cuts or lose jobs.

Let's translate this into a non-media example for easier understanding. A manufacturer makes cars, but finds that half of them are being stolen from the dealerships. The people are justifying these actions because the workers that make the cars have already been paid for those cars, and therefore don't get affected. At the next board meeting, the company finds out that profits are down 50% and cuts its workforce. Is that really so unrealistic? You could say for any company or any product that stealing it only affects the shareholders of the company, but that is just not true, and doesn't hold up logically.

You don't have a moral obligation to buy movies or software that you don't like. You just have an obligation to pay for stuff that you would otherwise have to pay for. Otherwise it's wrong, no matter how you try to spin it. I'm not saying I've paid for every piece of software or music that I have, but at least I'm not deluding myself by saying that I'm perfectly justified when I do.

Sort of...

[wirelessbuzzers]

While you're rgiht that Linux is not perfectly secure, you must admit that those are rather different classes of vulnerability. The two Windows ones were a remote root exploits in the default configuration, and a root exploit that could be easily used by a webpage/email. The Linux ones were mostly DOS vulnerabilities, most of which would require substantial access (ie, a shell account or more) to exploit, and many of which are not present in a standard configuration (eg, you have to have NFS turned on).

I would say that considering the kinds of vulnerabilities we're talking about, Linux's track record is at least as good as Windows' in this department.

Re:Sort of...

[orasio]

If they are Linux vulnerabilities they _must_ be in the kernel, because that is the only thing Linux is!

Re:MPAA has much less to worry about than RIAA doe

[glitch23]

So MPAA, take a chill pill. We're not going to drive your poor key grip and dolly boys into homelessness. WTF is a 'key grip' anyway???

He holds the car keys of all the Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Jags, Lexuses (Lexi?), and Mercedez-Benzs for the actors and actresses while they are filming so that no one can steal their car.

I'm a Key Grip!

[Frogbeater]

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.

Re:I'm a Key Grip!

[Rogerborg]

Dear god, you have a sense of perspective, context and history. What the hell are you doing in the movie business?

Also, what's the real emergency code for sneaking a dead hooker out of Ben Affleck's trailer?

I'm a little lost on this whole "theft" thing...

[syukton]

If I'm trying to decide whether or not I want to go see The Hulk, the question of how much it will cost me comes into play. I may go see it at a $4.00 matinee price, but definitely not at $8.00. $8 is way too much money to spend on an hour or two of disposable entertainment; I'd rather go pick up a couple magazines or a book for that price... I can go back and re-read those over and over again, long after I've initially purchased them. Now, if somebody offers to take me to a movie (ie, it's free for me) and pay the $8 admission for me, then the chance is much greater that I will go.

What I'm getting at here is that there isn't money in my budget to go see a movie that costs $8 and leaves me at the end with nothing more than break-room gossip. There is however room in my budget for what is free. If there were no sources available for me to get a movie from for free, I'm still not coughing up the 8 bucks to see it in a theater, though, and I believe that's where the MPAA's reasoning has gone awry.

The MPAA seems to believe that for every time a movie is downloaded off the internet, there is at least one person not paying the $8 that they would otherwise pay if the movie were not available for download; but this is just not the case. If the movie isn't available for download, it doesn't get downloaded; however if people don't have room in their budget for an $8 movie, they still won't spend the money on the movie even if they can't get it for free.

Now, if I downloaded some movie and I gave it rave reviews to all of my peers, maybe some of them will have the $8 required to go out and see the movie in a theater; or the $3.50 to rent it; or the $20 to buy the DVD, or whatever. I'm just pointing this out because I know that it does happen from time to time, and it is probably a phenomenon that the MPAA is ignoring. This puts movie downloaders in the same seat as movie critics; people who see movies for free and then pass on their opinions. If I tell a buddy of mine that I know is into sci-fi movies that there's a sci-fi movie that I saw that he might enjoy; he may just rent it and check it out, because he respects my judgement of sci-fi films. It would probably never stand up in court, but if each movie downloader can drag some witnesses up onto the stand to testify that the movie downloader's recommendation is what solely motivated a ticket / dvd purchase, that might take the ball out of the MPAA's court.

So back to the subject of the comment: theft. What am I stealing? There was never $8 set aside to go see a given movie in the first place, so by my downloading it and watching it, what have I stolen from anyone?

Bad move, MPAA...

[NanoGator]

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.

The theater experience sucks

[macemoneta]

Our group (5-22 people, depending on the movie) has been going to the movies weekly for about 15 years. The experience has definitely been going downhill.

The theaters are so filthy, we go there early to find a clean seat. We used to be able to hold a conversation before the movie. While the theater showed a slideshow accompanied by music, it was quiet. Now, there's 20 minutes of commercials, followed by 10-15 minutes of trailers before the movie, and it's so loud you can't talk over it.

The sound systems are always broken or set improperly (front speakers only). The movie is never in sharp focus (no, it's not my eyes). If there's a problem, you have to wait 15 minutes for the projectionist to show up. We recently watched part of a film burn up, because there was no one in the booth. When there is a problem, they skip ahead to keep the movie on schedule, so you miss part. Sure, if you complain they will give you another ticket, but that's two hours of your time.

I've called the THX number and emailed the theaters to complain, but nothing is improving. Of course, the admission price is going up. It now costs less to buy the DVD than it costs for my wife and I to see the movie in the theater, and we get several hours of extras on the disk.

We obviously loved going to the movies, but with the increasing cost and reduction in quality, it's hard to justify. I can see why people are bootlegging the movies.

If the MPAA wants to stop the bootlegging, they should just release the DVD at the same time as the movie is in the theaters. Let the market decide how they want to see the film.

Re:The theater experience sucks

[WorldSolver]

Agreed, also they should release the movies all over the world at the same time, and release it for download for a price (compareable to theatre price). To keep bandwidth cheap and fast they could have a p2p system so users could download from users. I think if ppl were able to buy movies over the internet at the same time they were in the cinema a large portion of the non-student pirates would pay.

My personal favourite.

[BiggerIsBetter]

"Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get."
- Frederick Douglass

Translation: It's OK for us to rip you off, but you can't rip us off.

MPAA is not talking to those responsible.

[SuperBug]

MPAA is as responsible for content being pirated, as are those who pirate after the fact of an initial illegal copy hitting the 'Net. I say this because apparently the MPAA is ignoring the fact that *TEST* coppies of movies which wound up on the cutting room floor actually make it to the 'Net before the final production release. Are you telling me that it's *our* fault, and not the keygrip, or the sound man, or whomever that works on the movies that are at fault for that as well? It seems a blind eye is turned to that by MPAA maybe? I mean, how is it possible that many of these movies they complain about are actually released on the 'Net *days* before the actual release date? How's that I ask of those bastards at the MPAA!!

The Theater Experience

[smelroy]

The one thing about movie piracy is that it is not very easy to reproduce the whole theater experience. Downloading music and burning it to CD is just as good as buying the original (minus some album art) but downloading a movie just gives you a pixilated file to watch on a 17 inch monitor. Granted some people get high quality rips and burn then to DVD, but not all of us have DVD burners. I imagine some people also hook they computers up to a tv or home theater.. not most of us either. So the way I see it, a night at the movies always has the upper hand.

No movies profit, it's in the accounting...

[linuxtelephony]

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?

Re:You people disappoint me...

[Little Brother]

Stealing? Who's talking about stealing? We're talking about copyrightinfringement here. What? You didn't know there was a difference? The fact that stealing, by definition, deprives the origional owner of the thing being stolen? The "owner" still has the same access to the movies as before. The movies are not being stolen.

"What about the money the copyright holders arn't making?" you may now ask. "Isn't this stealing?" No, the copyright owners never had the money, thus it cannot be stolen. Why is this difficult?

"What about the constitutional right to intellectual property?" Try reading the constitution. All it says about copyrights is that the congress may set a copyright. But this isn't to protect people's intelectual property, the point of the option of copyright law is clelarly spelled out in the constitution. The point is to further the advancement of the art by granting a TEMPORARY monopoly to the creator. There would, however, be no constitutional ground whatsoever to stand on if congress decided to revoke the copyright laws, it is not gaurenteed.

"But its still illegal!" you may now protest, your arguments becomming flustered. NOW I'll agree. This is obvious copyright infringement. This is illegal, under current laws (which I don't agree with but accept as law) but this does not make it theft.

rebuttal

[erikdotla]

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

the thing that gets me...

[dfj225]

is the way they complain about money. I could see arguing that it is morally wrong or that it is illegal, but saying that a company that makes $50 million on a good movie on opening weekend doesn't have enough money to pay its workers because of p2p apps is just rediculus. If they really can't pay the lighting crew, maybe they should stop paying the "stars" $30 million a pop for a crappy job.

Re:the thing that gets me...

[Reziac]

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.

My rebuttal

[Rinisari]

I've already got my personal rebuttal and thoughts written down.

Bogus Accounting happens, that's what

[saturndude]

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).

Campus and Corporate Networks?

[fredistheking]

So by your logic, if some network administrator knew that any illegal activity was going on, they would have to shutdown the entire network? There are usually far too many students or employees to be able to afford policing all the traffic (nevermind the privacy issues).

Furthermore, it is not a crime to install or run a p2p app. It is only a crime to knowingly engage in copyright infringement. Do you think your average kazaa (not slashdot) user knows how to turn off uploads or even know that they are allowing uploads at all?

Anti-FUD.

[saturndude]

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.

Interesting statement in their "Terms of Use"

[MarkusQ]

The Studios may at any time revise these Terms and Conditions by updating this posting. You are bound by any such revisions and should therefore periodically visit this page to review the then current Terms and Conditions to which you are bound.

They could revise the terms at any time and I'd be bound to them!

Yikes!

I'd better take their advice and periodically go back and get a fresh copy of their terms. What do you think...is every 100ms is periodic enough? Of course, if they could change them at any time I might miss a short lived change. Maybe I'd better check back every 10ms.

-- MarkusQ

Wow, RESPECTCOPYRIGHTS.ORG.

[Jason Scott]

Well, good to know someone has a parody site up at DISRESPECTCOPYRIGHTS.ORG, huh?

I'm too late for anyone to see this, I guess...

[Anthony Boyd]

...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.

Poking the bear...

[Chilltowner]

How about respecting our rights? Ah, a little parody is good for the soul, if not the legal bills.

Such a dilemma...

[preed-man]

Ethically, I'm so confused...

Godwins law

[junklight]

Godwins law doeesn't say anything about winning or losing - it merely states that at some point in any heated internet discussion someone will mention the Nazis. At this point the conversations/argument no longer has anything useful to be said and has most likely become a slanging match.

There is nothing about winners or losers.

Read all about it: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GodwinsLaw

Re:Why the MPAA is full of shit (and the RIAA isn'

[moncyb]

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.

My favorite phrase...

[natet]

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.

For most of the P2P programs I have seen, you have to have actually downloaded the file yourself to become a distribution source.

It's also possible that they are trying to say that if you install a P2P program on your computer, you become liable for any and all illicit material posted on that network, whether or not it actually resides on your computer. That seems like a pretty nasty blanket statement to me.

ORG? As in non-profit organization?

[hkmwbz]

Why have they registered an .org domain, when they are clearly only out to maximize profit? They aren't doing this to be nice or educate people. They are doing it to spread FUD and make more money.

Odd quote from website

[Zog The Undeniable]

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.

Why would scenes be missing? Does the camcorder guy take a wizz every half hour?

Once again 'They' miss the point

[Kaishaku255]

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! ;)

Slashdotted

[nycsubway]

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

Respect?!

[Anita Coney]

Shouldn't respect be a two way street?!

So the best way to end an argument.

[Snaller]

Is starting out calling the other guy a Nazi.

Here's how it works as I understand it

[Rogerborg]

1. Producer decides that he needs to build a bigger swimming pool. This can happen for many reasons, but most often because he needs somewhere to bury all the dead hookers he's been stashing for Ben Affleck.
2. Producer approaches other producers who need bigger swimming pools. They all agree that they should have bigger swimming pools, but they need to find some rubes to pay for them.
3. Producers look at what films were popular last summer, and decide to do exactly the same, but with more explosions and titties.
4. Producer picks either a director, scriptwriter or actor that was in a profitable film last summer, but who hasn't done anything since, and allows the "talent" to plead for the chance to get in just one more movie before everyone forgets who they are.
5. Producer instructs "talent" that they'll be doing exactly the same as they did last summer, only with more explosions and titties. Talent gibbers and moans in pleasure.
6. With one talent safely secured, Producer approaches increasingly less desparate cast and crew, and gets them onboard one by one. This is much like the communist "domino theory" of the 1950's, only with more explosions and titties.
7. With some talent secured, Producer now approaches studio and sells them the film based on it being exactly like last year's film. Studio demands something more. Producer promises more explosions and titties. Cocaine and hookers all round!
8. Studio approaches theatre chains and offers them the movie. Theatre chains demand to know why they should take it. It's explained to them that it's exactly the same as an already profitable movie, only more so. Theatre chains commit to taking it.
9. The movie is made. Does it suck? Who cares! The chains have already agreed to take it. The Producer gets his new swimming pool, Ben Affleck's dead hookers get buried, the studio gets to buy the "coffee" output of a small Central American country. Everybody wins!
10. The movie opens to crappy reviews. The theatre chains have to suck it up, because they've already paid for it. People go and watch it anyway, because it's the least bad thing on, and they've got used to making excuses. The movie makes money. The cycle of life continues.

This doesn't always happen. Sometimes movies go into production before they've been pre-sold to theatre chains. Those are the movies destined for "straight to video/DVD" status, although very occasionally, a small film is picked up by theatre chains to fill a hole where a pre-sold movie hasn't made it out of post-production in time, usually because some snotty director mistakenly believes that it matters that it sucks. When this happens, we tell ourselves that the system works, and that it's vitally important that it continue to work in just this precise way, for ever and ever, otherwise society will fall apart, cannibalism will ensue, cats and dogs living together...

And nobody ever asks what happened to all the music hall performers when movies came out. Nobody cares what became of the movie theatre pianists when talkies appeared. We don't recall the MPAA saying that the VCR would spell the death knell for the movie industry. We don't wonder whether movie theatre box office takes might be being transmuted into DVD and home theatre sales. We don't dare to consider that people will spend exactly the same amount of their disposable income on entertainment, but that they'll spend it in different ways.

We just accept the line that the system works, that it's always worked, and that it must go on working exactly the same way - whatever the MPAA declares that to be - until the end of time. Or it will be cats and dogs, living together...

Re:IHBT?

[undertow3886]

Acronym Finder. It works better than you'd think. And it can give you multiple meanings, not just the one most popular one.