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."
'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.
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.
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...
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
Let me get this straight, you are violating copyright and watching movies for free and THEY are stealing?
Who modded this interesting? Have I just been trolled?
Well, if you're going and paying that, you must think it's worth it. If you're not going, well, then you clearly haven't been robbed of anything at all. Besides, $13NZ for movies which can cost tens of millions of times that to produce is hardly unreasonable. Nor is $40NZ for a DVD, and the simple fact it is illegal so complaining "how dare they accuse me of being a criminal" when you pirate the movie is rediculous, since you quite simply are a criminal for it.
I should add the note here that I do have a number of downloaded movies off the internet, so I'm certainly not passing moral judgment on people for doing that, since it'd be simply hypocritical. What pisses me off isn't people who download copyrighted material, it's people who are self-righteous about it, convinced they have a god-given right to do so, and think any copyright owner who dares try to stop them is evil for doing so. If I got busted for piracy, sure I'd be pissed off, but I wouldn't think it unfair, any more than I'd be annoyed at getting a traffic ticket for driving 10kph over the speed limit, it's annoying, but a fair cop.
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.
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 &
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