Slashdot Mirror
Movie Industry to sue File Sharers
Wack Valenti writes "SiliconValley.com reports that the motion picture industry, taking a cue from the RIAA, is planning to file copyright infringement lawsuits against file sharers it says are illegally distributing movies online. The first suits could be filed as early as tomorrow."
It get's worse and worse everyday. Eventually though, maybe they'll get a clue. Suing customers sure as hell don't bring em back. I know i sure as hell won't be seein any movies anytime soon if this happens. ben
We all saw this coming. What's the surprise?
Personally I don't care anymore. I've quit sharing music and movies not because I'm afraid of a law suit but because it encourages my friends to support groups / movies they like. Yeah they groups may not get all of the money, but through the "process" they are rewarded.
'Sharing' of these copyrighted works is not legal in the first place. While it's not going to engender any great love for the film industry, this move is one of the many legal recourses that they have against copyright violators.
To be honest, I'd rather see a return to the days of 5 dollar tickets and extra extra buttered popcorn and a Coke for a couple bucks more than see the movie industry devolve into this legal sewer. With DVD sales doing well, it becomes more and more reasonable to watch a movie in your house. With the proliferation of file-shared movies online, the quality of playback becomes less an issue as viewers get attuned to the lower bitrates.
Personally, I'd rather go see the films in a theater and don't mind paying a couple bucks to do so. Lately, it's been getting outrageously expensive, well passed the point where one could argue that it was merely inflation. I'm not saying that file sharing would be curbed by cheaper theater tickets, god knows the addictive powers of the free movie drug. But I do think that they could really recreate the concept of the "blockbuster" with a little less take at the box office.
In short, file sharing copyrighted works is illegal. The movie industry probably shouldn't do this, but are well within their rights to litigate. I'd like to watch movies at the theater but not pay so much.
You may not have meant it as flamebait, but it comes off that way... I don't think there's a strong argument for any correlation between these particular lawsuits and Bush's re-election.
That said, I think there is a strong point to be made about companies being hesitant or cautious around election times.
Golly, people whine on and on about the RIAA and the MPAA as if there is music and movies out there that are worth listening to or watching.
The fact is, the stuff that comes out of the "Entertainment Industry" is 99% A-Grade crapola, and the sooner people come to realise that fact the sooner we will cease to care what these dinosaurs do to their ever-shrinking customer base.
Get over it guys. Who cares what these numbnuts do? Go read a book and stop lining the pockets of these cretinous music and movie execs for a change.
They're simply not worth all the angst.
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Interesting that this is upsetting. I read an earlier post that considered a spammer "stealing" their time as part of a justification for it being a crime. That may be debateable, they got a good mod though for the thought, but it isn't debateable that the downloaders are stealing some one's work. The work was done for the purpose of making a living. It was a legitimate business and harmed no one. Somehow the spammer is a criminal for stealing time yet the downloader is somehow extercising some nonexistent right of free exchange of information. How is this not a double standard? Just because one benefits you and the other harms you?
Well, what I find interesting is that they're going ahead with it, in the face of the RIAA's near-total failure. Sure, they screwed up some people's lives, but they haven't really done anything positive for their member companies so far as slowing the pace of file sharing. Come to think of it, they haven't really done anything positive for their members. But, hey ... maybe the MPAA figures that a double-whammy (music and movies) will be more successful. Personally, I doubt it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I will never pay for an MPAA movie in theater or on DVD again.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Now that we have proven we are sheeple who will roll over for just about anything as long as the spin is right, why *SHOULDN'T* they sue?
As far as I am concerned, at this point we should all be doing our best to hasten the decline.
Everybod jump on the pendlum and push. It's gotta swing trough it's arc before there will be any relief. The United States of America has to legislate and litigate itself into its role as a backwater far off the information super-highway, before anything here can get fixed.
The sooner the rest of the world leaves us in the economic and Intellectual Property [sic] dust, the better.
In fact, if the corporations can make enough of a mess SOON ENOUGH, it could even prevent the stupid legislation.
Sue Away, MPAA! (hey it rymes, it should be their new slogan! 8-)
As environmental pressure increases, the organisim is forced to evolve.
So it will be _best_ for the world if we can all get the pressure up as fast as possible.
Plus we know how much credibility the US now has overseas. The more they win here, the freer the rest of the world will be. They *know* (hopefully) that if they follow our lead, then they will enevitably end up with a Bush of their own.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Its not terribly surprising, they really don't care if the people their accusing is guilty or not. They're just throwing out hundreds of lawsuits in the hope that they'll get to steal a little money from people. Even if they have virtually no evidence, they'll eventually get lucky.
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
California/Hollywood and NYC are arguably the most staunchest of Democrat stronglholds. I'm not even an American and I know that much. If anyone was going to enact laws that are "Entertainment" Industry friendly, it would be a Democrat.
Sheesh
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Glad I live in Canada and not some oppressed nation where you can go to jail for stealing a movie. Boy, you guys should get some better leadership...oops sorry wrong day. Go ahead mod me to hell.
Stay tuned for new sig...
Poor government knows no party.
This is incorrect. Poor government is on a first name basis with at least two parties.
USENet isn't really all that centralized, and it isn't as well known. Nobody _really_ "administers" it and nobody with money really runs it.
It is peer-to-peer and egalatarian as hell, but everybody (with linux anyway) already has the software and you have to search it *by* *hand*. It is SUPER EASY to forge a message, especially if the forger is an admin of a host system.... *any* host system in the net.
Nobody really has the power to unilaterally remove any of the content in particular, and even the venerable "cancel message" can be blocked. As long as any USENET backbone exists almost any message can "pibby-back" through the "blocked" parts of the net as a crosspost.
It is just too soft a target to really take any action against. Don't beleive me, just look at what is flowing there. The borderline kiddy-porn that is in the alt.binaries.(whatever) group is unstopable.
Besides, there are enough stupid people involved that you can't keep titty-pictures out of alt.sex.pictures.erotica.gay.male. What a dumb waste of time to try to *send* those pictures in that forum. What a DUMB waste of time trying to STOP those pictures from being sent in that forum.
What an _incridible_ waste of time trying to filter, find, and catch every single USENET server site in an attempt to really trace the sources of movie fragments....
If *you* had to "go after" USENET where would *YOU* start?
P.S. Remember: Drugs, Terrorisim, and Kiddy Porn are the root passwords to the US Constitution.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Yeah, damn them for having to pay money to make their movie.
Damn them for asking money in exchange for viewing their film.
You see, it's not a matter of the method being easier, it's the matter that PEOPLE WANT SHIT FOR FREE. That's all.
Except for laws supporting trial lawyers; those litigious bastards are all Democrats :-)
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
While the actors and musicians working in Hollywood may be mostly liberals, the owners of the studios which produce these films and records surely are not.
Companies like Disney, which own Miramax, also broadcast Michael Savage on the radio waves.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Crime is crime. Kerry would support prosecuting violations of the law just as much as Bush would.
File sharing is not a crime. Apparently, the **AA has succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of sheep like you. If it were a crime, then the **AA wouldn't need to be sending out C&D letters, they would just notify the police.
Back in the 80's nobody gave a fuck when you made a copy of a VCR tape or a cassette tape and gave it to a friend. Hell, you could give away 20 of 'em and nobody'd give a fuck.
But now with the advent of the internet and file sharinig apps, it's much easier to share this stuff (CD's and DVD's now instead of VCR tapes and cassette tapes) and the **AA sees all the easy sharing going on and incorrectly concludes that all of the file sharing translates to lost sales. It doesn't.
If you are new to this topic, check out Downhill Battle or EFF or my website. By the way, the Xmas season is almost upon us. Time to remind people that CDs make crappy presents.
Test 1 2 3 4
Back when the RIAA started suing file sharers, the Slashdot party line was that the RIAA should learn from the MPAA. The MPAA, it was argued, wasn't suing its consumers, but was instead producing a higher quality product that was actually worth buying. Unlike CDs, where you paid $14 for only one or two tracks actually worth owning, DVDs came chock full of goodies that made people want to shell out the $20, like alternate endings and director's commentary.
At the time, I called BS, and said that the only reason that the MPAA wasn't suing yet was because video piracy wouldn't take off until Internet connections got a bit faster - given that video files are much bigger than audio files.
Well, guess what, that was exactly the case. I assure you, if FTTH becomes a reality, this will become an even bigger problem. Please, let's stop fooling ourselves that pirates are making a pseudo-moral decision that pirating from certain evil companies is ok, but pirating other products is not ok because those products are actually worth the money.
People pirate what is easy to pirate. That's how I pirate! Audio and video cassettes made pirating copyrighted materials easier, but not particularly easy, because it takes too long to copy and distribute copyrighted materials that way.
Computers and the Internet made this type of piracy an order of magnitude easier. Each time we get faster connections to the Internet and bigger hard drives, it gets easier still.
Stop pretending that the companies can offer you something to stop you from pirating their products. Or next, will you be saying that, actually, while the director's commentaries and alternate endings are great, DVDs are too expensive at $20 and need to come down to $10, otherwise you'll pirate them?
And then, what will stop you from demanding $5?
Listen, either you're ok with pirating copyrighted works, or you're not. But stop pretending that you're only ok with it because the system is rotten. Because there is no evidence that if the threat of lawsuits were lifted and prices dropped, anything would change.
And, also, please stop pretending that it's because the RIAA and MPAA are fighting the Internet or computers or modern technology. Last time I checked, Outkast just went platinum from online mp3 sales. iTunes sells millions of songs per year, online. The RIAA and MPAA have no problem with modern technology. But they need to make sure it works in such a way that it doesn't enable unrestricted piracy.
The entertainment industry realizes that they are being hostile to the internet and offending many potential consumers with the lawsuits. The problem is that there is no viable alternative at the moment.
Honestly, look at the alternatives they have:
Put heavy copy protection on DVD's or TV broadcasts.
Overturn Betamax - make all recording illegal.
Shut down the programs which allow filesharing.
Lower prices to point of where it is not worth stealing.
Sue downloaders / sharers.
The only one that seems to be non-hostile towards the internet is lowering prices, but that one also hurts the industry the most. Betamax and heavy copyright protection would annoy the whole populace as people would not be able to record or have to upgrade their dvd / tv / vcr players. Shutting down the programs has already been tried and that failed.
Therefore, it kind of makes sense that they sue the users. It is a fright tactic - one that they will use until a better alternative pops up. It only hurts the guilty (for the most part - there are exceptions...) and does not cost them extreme amounts of profit.
There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
I think it's more to do with declines in cinema attendance. By the time a movie is on DVD, people aren't going to see it at the cinema anyway, and the industry still profits from DVD rentals..
:) I really don't have a problem with this though, since the last time we took the whole family out to a "new" release it set me back over $40. (back in 2001 anyways) Another on the cheap, at least here in Montana is I get unlimited dvd rentals for a whole $20 a month from the local store. Then again, I live in the lowest wage paying state in the union. ugh!
Actually, here we have a "dollar" theater, so Monday through Thursdays it $1.00, Friday - Sundays it's $10 for two adults, with a large popcorn and 2 sodas. (kids under 12 are still a buck btw)
Of course, all movies come to this theater AFTER the dvd is released, but then again... some movies are a must see on the big screen.
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
It is not as flawed as you presume. The period is highly unstable and subject to external forces, but eventually it swings.
When you repress your own businesses, the market goes elsewhere. That is the free market theory at least. To date the swing of the pendlum often leaves countries totally devistated in its wake if it goes to far, but the regions recover even if the political systems don't.
I beleive that the current economic trends are tanamount to disaster and if the "ugly" can come on fast enough to be noticed by the populace they may act to fixe it.
We are boiling frogs here (to mix a metaphore). If the "Broadcast flag" (for instance) were to "suddenly go live tomorrow" it would be gone in a year. If we let it ease in slowly we may be stuck with it for decades.
As it is now, the "rising rate-rate of litigation" (yes, rate twice) is enough that our economic partners around the world are starting to notice and scatter. But consider that this change of rate has been exhibited almost solely in my lifetime (or more correctly in Ralph Nader's professional lifetime). It has not yet become ensconsed in our "perminant" way of life, it hasn't outlived a generation cradle-to-grave. It isn't "tradition", so it is possible to escape it *IF* we can get the public to see the precipice.
I don't really "wish" for the colapse as some kind of nielist orgastic ideal. I have just become convinced that it is essentially enevitable.
(To continue to mix metaphores) we *really* need to pull the band-aid(tm) off quick, or we are going to lose a _heck_ of a lot of hair... 8-)
But even if the entire United States colapses economically (which would be hard to do given that we grow lots of food) business and creativity will simply rise somewhere else.
It's not a pretty pendulum. It's not a "local" pendulum. But the cycle persists.
Wehn it gets totally out of wack, we (editorial we not royal or possessive we) throw a war...
Oh wait...
How many wars does any given "we" get before the world calls a time-out? 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
What bugs me about the EFF statement is that they've backed away from it. I thought it was right all along to sue the individuals responsible for copyright infringement, and I still do (although I'm crass enough to make disparaging comments about the RIAA/MPAA as they sue). I currently use Kazaa to share out a handful of audio sermons from my church's pastor -- content that we own the copyrights to and are fully, legally allowed to distribute however we wish. So I have a vested interest in Kazaa and BitTorrent remaining legal. They have a legitimate use: they diminish the load on our Web server (and by extension, the cost) by distributing the load.
As the Web sites I volunteer for begin experiementing with video and other large chunks of data, it is imperative that technology assist us in moving forward. If we artifically limit the technology, then we will be unable to offer up content, even though we own the copyright on it, and wish to provide it for free!
Of course, suing thousands of naive kids and tech-illiterate grannies isn't really going to stop an onslaught of millions of infringers, and does have a chilling effect on legitimate uses such as mine, and does play right into the old line about making all citizens into criminals to keep them under control. So even though it's the right way to do it, I'm not sure what good it does.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
"I've wisened up to the fact that, even though they may charge horrible prices, I might still be stealing."
"might be"?
Fuck you,
Laws don't make things right or wrong, they just make things illegal.
In this case it's clear; they are abusing the copyright system to assert more money for themselves, while alienating you from your natural rights. They are using this system to blot out freedom of speech, chill research and stifle innovation, because technology no longer fits their business model.
It's only "stealing" because they've muscled laws into place making it such, freedom of speech is a natural right, a corporations "right" to profit and manage intellectual property is not.
Since last time I checked morality is an absolute, it does not bend for copyright law.
I would say the main reason e-books haven't taken off has nothing to do with piracy. The fact is that media formats change so frequently and the battery life on an *expensive* piece of equipment is so poor still that the reliability is so poor you're better off just sitting at a computer to read stuff (and even then, you'll possibly complain about the contrast not being high enough).
In fact, book piracy does occur rather rampantly for the "popular" stuff. It's by no means a fast process, as you've well demonstrated, and even if it were possible to rip a book in a matter of minutes, only the collectors would likely amass many books. Why? Because reading books takes a rather enormous amount of time. In the space of d/ling one song you can d/l 5 novels which in total will take hours to days to read. This slow absorption rate is probably a large reason on why the average reading rate of people is so low.
I would say that the selling of mass music as an actual marketed good is the main cause for this. In the past, people had to actually go to concerts to listen to music or go to the theater to watch plays. Shakespeare wrote for the regular urban masses. Because people have to pay for music, they don't find it offensive when bars or clubs don't actually have a band. And the economics of the record industry (admittedly not the focus of this article..) show that it's not even the artist who is making the bulk of the money on all those recordings, so the economic dispersion of wealth conglomerates away from the actual performers, piddly as they might be.
In any case, e-books are still DOA for the same general reason the Apple Mac of 1984 only received a relatively small following. Until people begin to value books again and be willing to treat copied movies and music like the samples which they are, the existing piracy will be relatively minor.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
I have become hooked on the tv show "lost". I missed an episode last week so I downloaded it and watched it on my computer.
Just exactly what is their beef with that? Should I have waited will the DVDs come out before I saw that episode?
Man these people are just evil. I just want to watch your tv show for god's sake why do you have to make it do difficult for me. Don't you want me to watch the damned show?
evil is as evil does
It's probably safe to assume Stargate Atlantis and MGM are among the plantiffs.
Look, they broadcast this stuff free of charge over the airwaves into my home. For cable you pay for distribution not content. This is not content for which they are worrying about copy-control at broadcast time anyway. Copyright was intended to secure for authors the profit from their works. If it is distributed for free, they are not losing profit, they are being shortsighted in their estimation of the market. It is not entirely clear-cut that you would lose a court case for redistributing unmodified broadcast TV (unless for instance you transmitted it outside its original broadcast range -- there was one court case about this WRT a canadian company rebroadcasting American TV, IIRC).
This is the market segment of on-demand TV. Lawsuits will not make it go away, nor desire for it. They need to provide on-demand TV. If there was an offical source for episodes, I would use it. They are not satisfying the demands of the market.
It's very simple -- insert a short ad into your "official" content. Track its distribution on file-sharing systems to report back to your advertisers. Allowing distribution on file-sharing systems means that the distributor doesn't even have to pay for bandwidth, making it a very easy revenue stream. Provide a fee-based download service without ads. Prosecute people who distribute the episodes without ads for contract and/or copyright violation (it would be pretty easy to mark downloaded episodes with an ID so you can track them back to the person that originally downloaded it).
One thing's for sure, I ain't watching that show anymore. It's been questionable from the beginning. I only started watching it because I liked SG-1.
The MPAA should stop suing people and instead concentrate on hooking people up with boyfriends and girlfriends.
Couples got to the movies more often than individuals.
In part that is so they can stop having to talk to each other for a while without risking offence.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Let's be honest. The costs of tracking these people down, having lawyers send out letters and to even bother to threaten legal action in parallel to the RIAA is far too expensive.
What's the average settlement been for people sharing Britney? Roughly 3000$? Its not a viable source of revenue, its certainly not PR friendly and it definetly won't get people into theatres.
It would be much nicer to see that incentive put in to making movies affordable. Up North here, its about 10$ for a movie ticket. Now take your wife and 2 kids to see the new Disney crapathon, buy a coke and a popcorn for everybody, and you've just hit 60$ to take the kids out to a flick. Its terribly unaffordable.
Not that its a reason to "steal", but even then, the product downloaded (unless its a DVD) isn't comparable to the product the RIAA puts out. A cd is a cd in your discman or in mp3, ogg (insert format of choice here). You can't yet substitute a screen the size of Brando's ass on your computer yet. I've downloaded a couple of flicks to see if they were worth seeing on a big screen with friends, and they weren't, but just like music is now, I have a means of checking before buying. Critiques of films mean nothing, everything gets 3 thumbs up.
This litigation is totally out in left field relative to the problems (if any) downloading causes to theatre revenue, and irrelevant to the people who download significant amounts of movies.
I'm just guessing (yeah, dangerous) that the MPAA picked up the people off kazaa or something. I doubt it was BT, seeing as the RIAA hasn't tracked anyone down through that anyways (I could be wrong).
And truth be told, if you're significantly downloading DVD rips, its not off Kazaa.
Since the lawsuits have started, I have quit buying any products from companies represented by the RIAA. Now I will also boycott MPAA products.
So far, my quality of life is no different than before. Maybe slightly improved by the additional money in my pocket. I spend some of it to see live music. I buy wine and books with the rest.
It's gotten to the point where the best thing to do is to shoot your TV and spend more time taking the dog for a walk. And don't buy another CD or DVD until they end the shakedown. 86 the bastards. It's a luxury, not a necessity.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
I missed the show. I was not in front of the TV. If they gave me option of watching it with commercials I would not have downloaded the thing.
evil is as evil does
Lesssee here. You willingly re-elected a president who has done more damage to the bill of rights than any person in the country's history. A man who has shown a clear preference for the interests of large corporations over the people he is supposed to lead. So the *AA's abusive and heavy handed tactics are surprising... how?
It seems that this is clearly the kind of thing Americans want. If the capacity for outrage doesn't exist for prisoners of war abused in Iraq, if it doesn't exist for voting machine manufacturers pledging money and support for only one party, if it doesn't exist for the zero accountability expected of the Enron, Worldcom, and Haliburton criminals... why should any American give a second thought to the people who will be fscked by the MPAA?
As has been said by people more eloquent than I, it's too late anyway.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
Tired of the boring ol' "Spot the Fed" game at Defcon? In this article, we can play "Spot the Astroturfer"! No t-shirts, just pride, but then again you don't have to try to expense a Vegas trip to an increasingly suspicious finance dept. So I think it works out even.
Pay special attention to phrases repeated by supposedly different posters (even though that's also a staple of genuine Slashdotters), and ACs replying to themselves with "I agree!".
Get spotting, and post your Astroturfer-spotting tips here!
"Of course, suing thousands of naive kids and tech-illiterate grannies"
Guess they never saw those PSAs on TV or Radio about copyright infringement.
"...isn't really going to stop an onslaught of millions of infringers, and does have a chilling effect on legitimate uses such as mine"
Now who would have thought that people using a legitimate (1) technology in illegitimate ways would have such bad consequences. Bet we didn't see that coming.
"... and does play right into the old line about making all citizens into criminals to keep them under control."
Is that their line, our the copyright infringers? Because I've never heard them say they're "making all citizens" (just the ones who infringe) into crimminals for the purposes of control.(2)
"So even though it's the right way to do it, I'm not sure what good it does."
You never know till you try.
(1) Obscuring of identity throws the whole "legitimate use" argument into a shaky gray area.
(2) Maybe people are mad because what they want to control isn't citizens, but their property. Gee I know it makes me mad when I can't control the citizens who want to steal my property.
You don't think lots of people would rather like a world where you don't neede any fucking licence whenever you take a damn holiday photo?
Essentially, the objection to this is, as with the RIAA suits, that they are attempting to solve a problem of massive civil disobediance by going after a few peple and making examples of them with disproportional punishments.
Tax avoidance is illegal and it isn't wrong for the government to enforce those laws, but I think we can all agree that it is wrong for the government to sieze all assets of somebody who missed declaring a couple of thousand dollars of income. The philosophy behind these lawsuits is: millions of people are breaking the law, and we can solve this by taking a couple of hundred of them and fucking them over in a way they nowhere near deserve, in order to scare everybody else. That is not how a society built on justice should work.
They are going after the wrong people. The could stop about 3/4 of the piracy by cleaning up their own studios. A lot of those early DVD screeners all get out because of insiders and movie cam captures are a problem with theaters. Stop piracy there not at the end.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
One way to fight the movie industry is to use freeway blogging. The movie industry is different from the music industry. A lot of their revenue comes from concentrated sources--namely these huge cineplexes that are frequently located near high traffic areas such as freeways. You could hurt them and cost them some money by placing signs on these high traffic roads near the cineplexes. The signs would tell people about the lawsuits.
Hi! I think you're confusing "web logs" with "signs on the side of the road".
HTH! HAND!
Man these people are just evil. I just want to watch your tv show for god's sake why do you have to make it do difficult for me. Don't you want me to watch the damned show?
Actually no, they don't. They want you to watch their damned commercials.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
How's this for a solution to film piracy? 1. Make film (Citizen Kane: starring Adam Sandler or something). 2. Make a VCD cut and make blank label vcd's, using the economies of scale, sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate vcd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies. 3. Sell the film as a download for the same price as you get for the vcd. ...wait a few weeks
4. Make a nicer, longer dvd cut of the film and sell this on no label media like the the vcd.
5. Sell the dvd cut online at the same price as the DVD wholesale price. .... wait some more
6. Theatre release of film in lovely THX/35mm
7. Boxed set dvd release with extra everything.
8. Forget chasing 'pirates'
9. Profit!!!
By doing this you make money from the guys selling 'pirated copies' of films and money from people who can't be bothered to find a torrent of your film.
The money saved on lawyers and advertising would probabley pay for setting up the servers.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.