Slashdot Mirror
142 Directors Appeal MPAA to Repeal Screener Ban
Londovir writes "Nearly 150 directors, including heavy hitters such as Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Redford, and others have sent a letter to Jack Valenti & the MPAA. In the letter, published in the Friday issue of Variety, they call for an end to the ban on screeners, suggesting that the lack of screeners will harm the potential of movies that take risks and rely on critical acclaim. Despite the star power behind those signing on the letter, and after a conference call with 3 studio executives, what was the MPAA's response? "...the screener policy remains as it was originally announced." Will this mean an end to Academy Awards going to movies that open in only 100 theaters nationwide, or will it take an entire studio chain such as Universal or MGM to knock some sense into Valenti's mind?"
www.eonline.com
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
Be that as it may, but I rely on Slashdot as my main news source so I have no problem with items being duped.
When does slashdot ever post stories that haven't appeared on other sources first? It's a news aggregation portal, not CNN, damnit.
Since the MPAA isn't directly accountable to the directors I don't think this will have much of an effect. What it would require is for the studios themselves which are members of the MPAA to take stands against these actions.
True, but last I checked, slashdot was a compilation of news, where the most interesting news were posted, so that we didn't have to go scouring the net for our own news. Yeah sometimes the turnaround is slow, but this was new to me... and that's what counts. Go read the FAQ or something
Don't these directors have buttloads of money? Are they stupid enough to sign a contract that prevents them from starting their own studios, associations, and whatnot?
Seems to me if the MPAA totally ignored me, I'd get pretty pissed and tell them to fuck off. Maybe if they really had balls, they'd strike.
It's not like the Awards were actually based on merit, anyways.
Will this mean an end to Academy Awards going to movies that open in only 100 theaters nationwide, or will it take an entire studio chain such as Universal or MGM to knock some sense into Valenti's mind?"
I doubt it will mean the end of Oscars going to art films, but it could mean the end of the MPAA. Who needs them anyway? The Academy Awards are given by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Why does the MPAA even have any say in who sends AMPAS screeners movies?
Karma: Excellent (In Soviet Russia, karma pimps YOU)
Screeners comprise only about 49.847723% of the actual pirated software on the net. It's like this because it's convenient for pirates to snag a copy of the film and use it, before the film is released.
Banning screeners would mean that the industry is starting to cave in from the piracy movement. Is that what you want? Do you want Hollywood to crumble? But wait a minute.
Ten dollars for a bag of popcorn and a pop?
Five dollars for a box of candy?
Maybe there is more here than meets the eye! Maybe it's not that pirates want to ruin Hollywood. Maybe the public is saying somthing to the movie industry about other possible reforms that should be considered.
Like going to the theater when there are a couple of goofs talking through the whole movie. Or when some smelly guys wears flip-flops that are five years old, and sits near you while he adjusts his seat every five seconds.
The whole experience of the movies has declined since the eighties, while a lot of other industries have improved (like the video game industry).
Banning screeners is the way to go, if you want to hurt the little indy film maker, but maybe some smart person will release their films ONLY to the internet, and become the next Bill Gates.
Where is the art in movies any more? Taken away by the profit seeking MPAA. This shows how the MPAA is not concerned how good the movie is and how well people will think about it, they just want to herd people in like cattle! The recent story about how they are ruining thier own films just to reduce piracy is just another example about how this evil orginization cares not about the movie but the profits. It doesn't matter what the viewers think, just as long as they still pay to see the movie. This is taking away everything movies used to be about, sure they have always been about the profits to some extent, but you don't see directors on talk shows talking about the fortune they will make, they are talking about the quality of the movie and the fun they had making it. It is time to stop the MPAA!
-Seriv
after all , everyone realises that the Oscars are nothing more than a incestuous marketing tool for the connected and not a celebration of creative genius
Then again who cares about awards at all, they have been diluted to the point where the public is turned off by the shere number of them making, Awards in the 21st century are now irelavent the quicker the MPAA and directors "get it" the better off we might be, perish the thought that we actually get films that succeed on merits and good stories over big budget dross like terminator 7 etc
What I don't get is how they could possibly enforce such a ban. If I understand correctly, they aren't the organization giving out the Oscars; what's stopping any movie studio from simply ignoring the ban and sending them out anyway?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
He's a studio guy, through and through. While I'm not a guy that looks for people on the grassy noll, it does make sense that the big studios are trying to squeeze out the indies.
This will also be death to the documentary movies...which in my opinion are the more interesting and entertaining of many movies out there now. How can all the academy members expect to drop everything they're doing and try to find some obscure theater that happens to be playing the movies nominated? How is this possible? They can't of course.
They COULD in the past get a bunch of movies together for the evening and watch them back to back in the comfort of their home, then make a judgement on them. But now, the MPAA has killed that off.
I say screw them. Send them out anyway. What's the MPAA going to do? They only have power because they say they have power. Screw them.
I mean, you're not allowed to even send out screeners to the members even IF THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN RELEASED TO DVD! WTF is that?
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
will it take an entire studio chain such as Universal or MGM to knock some sense into Valenti's mind?
Make no mistake, MPAA is simply a trade association -- the studio chains call the shots -- and likely called this one.
On the question how to lobby or make speeches, Valenti is king -- probably one of the best legislative advisors in the nation. But when they want Jack's opinion on film business and policy, they will give it to him.
(assuming there are any) will catch my reference, but here goes anyway:
Valenti: Ok, you can vote, but don't let me catch you watching!
KFG
This is just another nail in the coffin of the more-glamour-less-substance Academy Awards anyway. When deciding which movie I'm going to watch, I look at its score on IMDB, and occasionally read what my local movie critics say.
Award ceremonies have absolutely no bearing on anything, other than to give a dubiously limited selection of celebrities to flout their wealth and pat themselves on the back.
Computers are useless: they can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Stars and big-name directors are the studios enemies as much as the pirates. They take huge chunks of the profit margin and in many cases the studio doesn't have a choice but to pay what they want.
So "star power" in demanding business decision changes isn't going to go very far. Business managers at studios probably just see this as rich Hollywood employees whining about having to buy DVDs instead of getting them free before anyone else.
Furthermore, since when is the Academy Awards the arbiter elegantiarum of quality filmmaking, and not just a bunch of shills for studio crap?
Hmm... Right, hard to see how it could be the end of something which had never begun.
Well its time for the directors and actors to receive the cold slap in the face that is reality received earlier by their brethren in the music world from the RIAA. The MPAA doens't care in the least about *you* the only thing they care about is the money being generated by the product you create. What you think isn't important, what you want isn't important. Go figure... who'd have thought. -zr
Not to be crude (well, actually *TO* be crude) about it, but who gives a fuck?
The Oscars are just money driven politics used to shove more bad movies down our throats.
I pay *NO* attention to the damn things.
Look, if you want a copy, rent the damn thing and rip it. You have to wait 6 months, boo hoo! At least then someone is getting a little change out of your cheap ass.
Damn moves take too long to dl, the quality generally sucks and assholes get off on renaming files so you dl the wrong one.
Get all the movies off kazaa so I get have the bandwidth for Sealab 2021 and pr0n, dammit!
Damn hangover...
Check that out... you stole my handle!
How long have you been a member?
stuff |
If I was an independant film maker, not working out of the US, couldn't I just tell Jackoff V. and the MPAA to shove their no-screener policy up their collective asses and send my own out myself? I know the obvious answer is i'd probably get "blackballed" but what if enough people started doing this...couldn't some sort of collective action render the whole MPAA more or less irrelevent?
You're using her as bait, Master!
Do you want good luck to follow you and your offspring for geneations to come? This troll has the solution for you...
All you have to do is copy this troll onto two to four of the discussion threads of your choice! That's right! Just copy this into a new message and click "post anonymously." That's all there is to it! Taco is an ass.
Tired of that idiot talking about geek culture! Stick one of these babies on it! And it's good for the economy!
Marge Gentry of Cambridge, Minnesota participated, and the next day she received a large fruit basket outside of her door from a secret admirer. Unfortunately, Marge was hit by a truck the next day, so she didn't get to the Granny Smith apples.
Commander Taco of Hole-in-the-ground West Virginia didn't participate, and he was violated by a group of raging homosexuals. Since the gang was headed by Jon Katz, Taco had no recourse to the law because the entire town knew about their previous relationship. The unfortunate outcome is enshrined forever at goatse.cx.
So if you want to get the fruit basket and not get poked in the bread basket, just copy this troll onto two of the discussions threads of your choice. We could have this place blanketed by sundown!
Ok, this is news for nerds because its interesting how far they will go to stop piracy.
On the other hand, I don't care about the Oscars or other award show, they've never picked anything I thought deserved it. Yes I know that it looks better and Oscar award movies do make more money with the general public, but to me its just a silly little self-congradulatory event.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
This was a blunder that he made in 1982. Twenty one years later he is still around, smoking his fat cigar, and calling "Wolf Wolf" (aka "Boston Strangler, Boston Strangeler") again.
He survived then, he will survive again. He ate his words then, and he will eat his words again, of that I am confident. But while he can, he is going to make life hell for everyone, and enjoy the spectacle from a distance.
If these corporate types, aka fat cats, were interested in consistency, they wouldn't be fat - they would be roadkill. But God, how much I would love for Jack "The Boston Ripper" Valenti to be roadkill, just this one time ....
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
In related news Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Redford have urged the members of Academy of Arts and Sciences to download the new movies from Kazaa so that they might be better equipped to pick the nominees for the Award show next year.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Who are ripping the screeners ;)
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Maybe not the movies they're producing, nor the records produced by RIAA memebers, but between the MPAA and the RIAA we have some high satire worthy of Jonathan Swift. Valenti and RIAA President Cary Sherman will be remembered long after "House of the Dead" and Brittney Spears have been left in the dustbin of pop history. And isn't that what art's about?
... but aren't the only studios that will follow the requirement to not send screeners to the Accademy going to be the large studios who can get their movies shown in thousands of theaters nation wide?
While the MPAA talks a good game when it comes down to it, the independent studios are going to be making their own decisions, and realizing that the Academy people are only going to be able to use their recollection of movies in theaters from the begining of the year, or in the now playing catagory, will send screeners in anyway as the potential for loss of revenue for them is less important than the potential for an award for work well done building up the market interest.
It looks to me as if the Independent studios are going to look at this as MPAA studios shooting themselves in the foot.
Then again, I could be wrong.
-Rusty
You never know...
Less is more !
Does anyone know if Lucas and Spielberg were on the petition? Or were they too busy to sign it?
As movie critic Roger Ebert explains the result is they started searching movie critics for video cameras at the entrance to film screenings and the MPAA ordered the studios to stop sending out tapes. That gives the major studios a huge advantage over small indie films which are hard to find in theaters.
Once again the security action is misdirection. The movies are leaking from insiders so they hassle outsiders.
The misdirection is a typical response. Like how the 9/11 terrorists used their real names, jumbo airliners, and were in the country legally so the feds make all airline passengers present IDs 22 times, come out up with tough new rules on small planes, and hassle foreigners to make sure they enter the country legally.
Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
...the terrorists^Wpirates have already won?
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
(and that's what downloading and sharing is folks regardless of what you may want to believe)
.. no, it isn't automatically considered theft, although it is probably illegal. Keep in mind that your opinion, my opinion, and every else's opinion is irrelevant in this matter. It's how the law is actually written, and has previously been enforced, that counts. People seem to lose sight of that at times.
... it predates the advent of the Internet by a long time. It was intended to deter actual pirate organizations: those that took a copyrighted work, mass-produced it, and sold it for a profit (i.e., those that the law does consider to be thieves.) Furthermore, that number was set in the light of a single work being pirated in a large way for profit. That's another key distinction. It was never, ever, intended to be used against individuals in the context that the RIAA has been using it, and is just one more example of the way that group has been abusing both the letter and intent of the law. Their treatment of the law is even more disrespectful than that of file-sharers. Now ... should the law be changed? Perhaps. But I would like to see a little more popular influence in Congress the next go 'round, rather than having drafts of new bills sent directly from the RIAA and MPAA's legal departments.
Um
The RIAA's legal approach recognizes the way the law is written, and thus they are avoiding any actual court time. They would love to win a couple of nice, high-profile, court cases against file-sharers but they don't dare try. The best they can do is scare people into settling out-of-court (and the effectiveness of that tactic is questionable.)
You, personally, may not consider the distinction between "copyright infringement" and "theft" important, but believe me, if you were currently under threat of copyright litigation you would. You should read the applicable section of U.S. Copyright laws: I did and it was very informative. Your own personal sense of ethics may consider limited copyright infringement to automatically be punishable as theft, but U.S. law apparently does not.
The law is very specific about what types of infringement are considered theft, and which are not, and intent to profit financially is a very big factor in all of that. As the average file-sharer doesn't earn anything by his efforts (in fact it costs him money) it's very difficult, if not impossible, to prove a charge of "theft" in court. And forget about making a claim of true piracy: that wouldn't stick either unless the individual was, say, burning CDs from his MP3 collection and selling them.
A lot of noise gets made over that "$150,000 per infringement" number, but remember when that law was made
Sorry for the rant, but that issue is one that I perceive as central to the entire brouhaha. Other than that I agree with your commentary. Over the years, the RIAA and MPAA have done a very good job of insulating their member companies from the usual costs (and risks) of doing business. Unfortunately, by doing so they've pretty well shafted the consumer. Very little good will come of all this on either side, I suspect.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Valenti is, in my opinion, an idiot. Maybe it's time for all those high-profile directors to create an awards system that is meaningful and not just political payback for favors done.
Anyway, I think movies are much more enjoyable in a theater with a cute girl next to me. Ripping movies is just one more way to keep yourself from getting a girlfriend (or boyfriend). Next time you want to rip the latest flick stifle it and call up a cutie and rub shoulders for a few hours. Hell, even the popcorn is better at the cinema.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Each year the academy sends DVDs of movies up for nomination to academy members (ie, actors, directors and so forth) so they can watch the movies and then vote for them.
As you can imagine, nobody can see each movie up for grabs each year, much less the less-distributed arthouse ones where the real 'art' is.
The MPAA is worried these DVDs will make it onto the internet.
-
I agree. If they get rid of the screeners, then they lose the potential to gain awesome word-of-mouth advertising. I know a lot of films that I have enjoyed were only found through a few people I know from other people who screen movies.
It's a great way to find the needle in the haystack.
--If only there was a license required to use a computer.
Jack's doing it for the artists. That's what he's been saying all along. Don't these directors care about the artists?
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
... The RIAA has announced that it will stop sending albums and singles to radio stations, to prevent unauthorized copying.
Come to think of it, that would be a good thing!
Scorsese, both Coppolas, Barry Levinson, Redford, Sam Raimi, Darabont, Altman, David Lynch, Spike Jonze, Cronenberg, the Coen Bros... It's virtually a who's-who of all the best filmmakers in Hollywood, and a mix of old greats and up-and-comers.
If those people decided to jump ship and form their own movie collective, they could. Easily. Hell, many of them ALREADY have their own production companies and\or studios. Sure the MPAA technically controls distribution - but do you see any of the huge theatre chains saying 'no' to the latest Redford or Scorsese flick? The Academy - which is a separate entity - refusing them entrance? I don't think so.
The fact that so many truly great directors (and writers) are on that list, I think, proves just HOW misguided Valenti is being. He and the studios see films as nothing more than Product - made as cheap as possible, peddled out to the brain dead masses. But the people who signed that list are the ones who *know* better. And if they ever decided to leave, they could, never look back, and the MPAA system would likely crumble in their wake. (I mean, really, who's the MPAA got left? Speilberg... Uh...)
The question is whether these directors would be willing to take that chance - and whether the studio heads even REALIZE the importance of visionary directors in their schemes anymore.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
I personally think this is a swell move. Why? Because unlike the tactics of say the RIAA, the MPAA is going after a subset of folks who aren't their consumers but collegues. In a way they are changing a way the movie industry runs instead of trying to alter human nature.
Yeah yeah, the poor screeners and indie film makers. Well I guess all those independent films won't be winning Best Picture.
Outside of studio marketing folks, who cares who wins Oscars? People still go to movies, with or without the Academy's approval.
What is music when you despise all sound?
After seeing a sample of the anti-piracy red dots,
http://www.vcdquality.com/image.php?id=18919
I saw it in Kill Bill 3 times last night. The are very obvious because part of the movie is black and white. It's rather distracting. I forgot to complain to the manager afterwards cuz I was upset about how the movie sucked, but if any of you are going to see the film, remember to complain about it.
... and here's why.
This WON'T stop piracy one bit, we all know that. These business dinosaurs deserve extinction, and the sooner the better.
This WON'T kill the Indy movies, because whether or not it wins an Oscar doesn't matter to 90% of the people who rent movies. Word of mouth is king with Indy movies; it's icing on the cake if one wins an award. It MAY affect how wide the distribution of the movie is, which may hurt. But it will still be sought out due to word of mouth.
Which brings us to point three, and the REAL reason this is all irrelevant, which is that APPLE is going to start selling streaming Quicktime Movies over iTunes for $2 - and then screeners, little video stores, and even the Oscars themselves, will be moot. I'll stream a movie based on the fact that my friends have set up an iTunes Awards show online and have given it 5 iPods or something. And with the crazy online selection, I'll go back and watch 1988's "Wall Street" again, or "Shawshank Redemption", or "Evil Dead 2", rather than watching Ashton Kutcher be a complete ass in some moronic lowest-common-denominator romantic comedy swill that Valenti et al thought would hit the spot of the addlepated masses.
..."We are going to ban movie studios from sending out copies of their own copyrighted material to our members because we believe that some of our own members are breaking the law and selling that copyrighted material."
If the movie studios who send out these copyrighted (copyrights that *they* own, not the MPAA) thought they were losing money because of this practice, they would stop sending them out. Remember these screeners are sent out after the movie has been out for a while (sometimes a *long* while). By the time these screeners are going out, most of the money to be made selling unauthorized copies has already been made (and almost all of the money that cuts into ticket sales). Some of these movies will already have been in distribution through Blockbuster. If an unauthorized duplicator wants a copy, he may be able to rent a DVD.
If ever there was evidence the MPAA is not doing any of this to protect the rights of copyright holders, this is it. Valenti is actually trying to quash one of the fundamental rights which has *always* applied to copyright owner: the right to copy and distribute their own work. Usually the MPAA attacks the long-established rights of the purchaser of copyrighted material, but now they have switched to attacking the most basic rights of the producers themselves.
Once again, Jack Valenti is exposed as a fraud of the highest order.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
...stop showing trailers that shows the entire plot of the movie. Too many movies like "Sweet Home Alabama" had trailors that showed the entire movie in less than 1 minute.
Surprise ending, huh?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Taking the 49% figure for granted, there is 49% of hundreds of millions (or [puts pinky by lips] "billions?") of dollars at stake in the way the Academy releases movies to screeners.
;^)
Why don't the MPAA and the Oscar people hire private jets to take groups of screeners every weekend to a special [secure] theater in Los Angeles where they sit in leather couches and drink wine and eat caviar while they watch a bunch of noninated movies in a category in glorious and gluttonous comfort, then take them out to a designer restaurant, and then put them up in a $500/night five-star hotel? Total tab per person - $10000. 3000 screeners -> $30,000,000. Wow, look, it's not a watch-movies-with-the-barbarians inconvenience anymore - it's a privilege to be a screener.
Or, how difficult would it be to add some loss during any part of a distributed two-hour movie (i.e. color, bluriness, sound, distortion, watermark) that is unique to each and every distributed disc? When pirate disk hits the market, you look for the loss or signature for the content or areas of the film that were cut out and then prosecute the violating screener(s) for all that they are worth? Let's say that you need a bunch of equipment and some trustworthy expert staff to make it work - total cost $2,000,000 per year. Stopping screener piracy through accountability - priceless.
Lame! I can only assume that they have no interest in solving the problem - just punishing everyone for the acts of a few.
-ez
PS: Sorry about the flip-flops. It's about time I got some new ones.
Business 2.0 says that Valenti is preparing to retire. Anyone know who will replace him?
if those directors don't like what the MPAA is doing, maybe those directors will stop supporting the MPAA?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I can't help but think that the screener ban is a good thing, as long as it applies only to movies produced by or distributed by the members of the MPAA.
The group of producers who are protesting the ban may believe that they are helping independant artists, but the truth is the opposite. How independant can you really be if your work is being sponsored or distribution is dependant on the powers within the MPAA. If MPAA members are not supplying the screeners then there is a greater chance that films not accompanied by a note from a Redford or Scorsese might just be reviewed by the Acadamy members, instead of sitting at the bottom of the pile of submittals that includes all of the MPAA high budget crap, the "independant" work of the children and relatives of Hollywood executives and other MPAA insiders, as well as the truly independant screeners that are submitted by talented artist but will never be watched for lack of time.
If these 142 directors and producers really want to promote somebody's independant work, maybe they should shell out the bucks for a theatre screening instead of attempting to drown out the work of truly independant artists that they don't happen to know (instead of flooding the screener market with films of "independants" that they happen to be sponsoring).
Read, L
Again, I am amazed at how powerful had the RIAA become. It is supposedly an organisation formed by studios and now it dictates them what to do. What next, the Congress telling American citizens how to behave? Oh, sorry, nevermind...
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
You can buy screener copies in NYC on Canal street around Broadway. There is always at least 1 table set up selling new movies for around $5. It always amazes me that they aren't arrested. I guess the NYPD has better things to do..
I bought one once, the only difference was every 15 minutes or so a ticker ran across the bottom saying "It's illegal to buy this" or something.
...how long until the industry realizes that the MPAA, RIAA, etc. is no longer necessary? In response to the MPAA, this group of RICH, POWERFUL directors shoud take their fortunes and create a wholly independent film scene. Create their own studios, distribution facilities, theaters -- EVERYTHING. Leave out the MPAA. Leave out the $6 sodas and $8 popcorns and $10 tickets and screens-smaller-than-my-tv and anything else which corporate greed has given us to increase their profits and reduce our experience.
These ARTISTS are in a position to reform the industry into supporting the values of the artists and consumers over those of the shareholders and executives. When I'm not contributing to Valenti's gold-plated hot tubs, downloading video/audio warez won't be as fun.
I think they need to fire Valenti and maybe the movie industry may do something right for once.
Trouble with that is it can easily screw up the soundtrack
If what you add from the end of one shot you remove from the beginning of the next shot, everything should stay perfectly synchronized. The technique I'm envisioning merely changes the frames around cuts. For one thing, people aren't going to notice one frame more of the previous scene or the next scene (3 choices per shot: -1, 0, +1). For another, the so-called "invisible" watermarks are also more likely to be invisible when they're masked by cuts.
Will I retire or break 10K?
the movie sucked
You do know that the studios decided it was too long and chopped it in two, figuring that they have found a way to make people pay twice for the same movie?
You can't take the sky from me...
... can you please tell us what it means? Maybe it's common in America or among movie buffs, but I have never heard the word "screener" before nor has anyone I've asked about it.
My mistake, I thought the DGA was a subset of the MPAA.
0 1 - just my two bits
I saw Kill Bill last night, which was great, but I was annoyed by the skip in my immersion caused by a flashed set of code dots appeearing across Uma Thurmon's face.
The cigarrette burn things are annoying too, but they come from a technical cause which is dissappearing with digital distribution. Intentionally marring frames to stop low-quality cam releases is idiotic. The award show and screener thing is an internal issue the industry should figure out; they're the ones who care about and receive benefit from their own award shows. What affects me is the quality and immersion I receive when I pay to see a film, dammit.
This is an example of corporate greed squashing talent.
Who am I to tell Robert Altman that he cannot give away copies of his work for generating a word of mouth campaign. I guess I am Jack Valenti, Defender of the old school and opposer of any new innovation.
Well, Guess what mister asshole. The people are slowly but most certainly wising up to you and the evil spite that you continue to spew.
The members can and will recall you. Rosen is a very smart woman, she saw the handwriting on the wall and stepped down.
When will you at least show the class Grey Davis showed in his concession speech.
This is happening bigtime all over the face of American culture. IMHO the watershed moment was when Disney dumped its 2-d animation unit. How shallow is that? and yet at the same time California Adventure has a mock "Disney animators" studio in which a few animators are used as robots to interact with an Eddie Murphy voiced cartoon with the express intent of getting you to buy art in the shop that you are dumped in at the end of the ride. Just like the recently PC nerfed Pirates ride.
I tell you that corporate culture needs a reality check like us proud voters gave to the professional politicians in California.
(I admit I am a little worried that Carly Fiona was named to the transition team)
I don't know where I am going with this, I just felt it needed to be said.
Figures. A post that should be at +5 right after I expended my clip of modpoints on whiny flamebait. Please mod parent up.
"Whatcha doin?
I'm appealin!
That's a minority view."
"Derp de derp."
When I was in high school, I worked at a small video rental store. We would always get dvd's of movies that had not yet come out on dvd yet. They did have the legal warnings every 15 minutes or so, but my point is that the distributers also send out a lot of dvd's before they come out.
The law is very specific about what types of infringement are considered theft
It doesn't consider any copyright infringement as theft, but it does consider some copyright infringement as illegal. Illegal is not the same as theft.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Yes, exactly, that was my whole point. But in extreme cases (where a lot of money is involved, usually from the illegal sale of copyrighted material) copyright law does permit infringement to be considered a criminal matter. But so far as I've been able to figure out that doesn't apply to Joe File Sharer, much as some people would like it to.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Yes, I should have brought that up. That one is so outrageous I'm not sure how long it will stand. In practice it seems those huge numbers are just there to frighten people into submission (which they do) since it isn't possible to extract several million dollars from the average American citizen/P2P user. So those statutory damages are really meaningless in terms of actual penalties, but they have a substantial intimidation factor.
... the law is becoming more lopsided all the time, in great leaps and bounds. The good news is that public awareness of this nonsense is at an all-time high, which means that, ultimately, it is beginning to affect actual voters. Perhaps that will convince Congress to start behaving and restore some balance. Perhaps not. Given their track record on copyright law so far, I wouldn't recommend holding one's breath.
And while the amounts needn't be proven (technically, although a court is sure to ask) whether there was any infringement certainly does. That is really the crux of the matter. The RIAA is having a hard time proving infringement, they are simply assuming it, and as the technology improves even that will become more difficult. All they can show to a court right now is that someone made some files available, which unfortunately doesn't prove who received said files, if anyone. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and they really don't have much of it. Proof, that is. And it is still an open question as to whether the person posting the files to a network, or the person who actually requested them is the real infringer. Obviously, from a technological standpoint it's much easier to go after the person sharing the files so that's what they've been doing. Fortunately, file-sharing applications (at least, none that I've tried) don't keep records of what IP addresses they transferred data to/from, or the RIAA would certainly have a better chance of proving their case in court.
But you're right
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Here is a link to the actual act:
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/hr2265.html
While pretty draconian, there is one part I find interesting:
"(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000 shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.'.
So, here's the question: if the RIAA wants to nail a file-sharer under the No Electronic Theft Act, what exactly must they show to a court in order to win a conviction?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.