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."

Comments

Starting tomorrow morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

I look forward to the morning mail.

what has the world come to

[bebyrd]

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

Re:what has the world come to

[NotQuiteReal]

Suing customers [...]

Um, I think the point is that they are NOT paying customers...

Re:what has the world come to

[imemyself]

Just because they are downloading one movie doesn't mean they haven't ever gone to a movie theater or have never bought a DVD/tape. The music/software/video industries are just getting greedy. They're not happy with getting $700 billion (just a random #), they want $900 billion. They just want to steal more money from more people.

Re:what has the world come to

[metlin]

First the RedSox, then Bush. And now this.

So this is what the third horseman looks like ;)

Ahoy, folks. The end is nigh.

Re:what has the world come to

[iamplasma]

They just want to steal more money from more people.

Fill me in here in case I missed something, but how are the movie theaters stealing money from anyone? I mean, at least you can claim (however implausibly) that stealing music is okay because the companies make rediculous margins and rip off the artists. That doesn't even remotely apply to movie studios though, it's not like actors are underpaid (in fact, I understand they have a very strong union), and the amount they charge customers is far less relatively speaking. I mean, paying a few bucks to see a $200million movie isn't a bad deal.

So to reiterate my question, how are the movie companies stealing your money?

Re:what has the world come to

[BenjaminHall]

"Customers" probably won't be sued as they'll be "buying" the movies.

Re:what has the world come to

[Noginbump]

Suing customers sure as hell don't bring em back

Yeah! I want to continue getting movies for free, or else I'm not going to pay for any more...

Speeding on the freeway. Everyone does it and usually you get away with it, but sometimes you get caught and ticketed. It's a matter of whether or not getting from point A to point B more quickly is worth more to you than than what's in your wallet. If to you, saving $17.00 for a DVD is worth the chance of getting a major fine, feel free to risk it. But until enough voices force a change in the law, trading copyrighted material is against the law.

Re:what has the world come to

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:what has the world come to

[mark-t]

Actually, they are making an assumption (perhaps incorrectly), that the intersection of the two demographics (the people who pirate their material and people who actually pay for it in the first place) is statistically insignificant enough that these actions will not damage their profits beyond the ability for regular price inflation to compensate.

While we can go ahead and show that music and movie sales are at an all time high even while piracy is rampant does not actually show there is a causation link between the two, so while the assumption they are making is still unproven, it certainly isn't actually disproven.

Re:what has the world come to

[Anonymous Coward]

So to reiterate my question, how are the movie companies stealing your money?

By charging $13 (in NZ) for a ticket and $3 for a poxy single-scoop ice cream!
It's not actual theft, but it's daylight fucking robbery.

Anyway, fuck them. I buy DVDs when they're brand new for $40, I'm not going to let people call me a criminal for downloading the movie a couple of months beforehand so I can see what I'll be buying. I'm just time-shifting (in the opposite direction to normal).

Re:what has the world come to

[ssand]

Part of the issue is some of those people who pirate movies aren't customers. If you are unwilling to buy it, but willing to pirate it, you aren't exactly a customer.

Re:what has the world come to

[alanbs]

I hate that some people feel that they have an innate right to other people's things such as movies (or music for that matter). The fact is that they own the pieces and you must play by their rules if you want the content. If you have such idealistic notions of ownership, then only support actors/artists who use production companies that you think are fair to customers. Support independent films by people who care for art instead of customer exploitation if that is how you view it. It is just an incorrect view to think that they are alienating their customers when the only people who would be truly offended are people who are stealing.

I am assuming that they are only suing people who are not one time downloaders. The RIAA didn't do this, so the movie industry will likely not as well. By the way, I know your sad sob stories but I have a hard time feeling bad for some grandmother who was distributing gigs of mp3's. She might look innocent, surrounded by tens of cats, as she offers you cookies and milk, but I SEE THROUGH IT, DAMN IT!!!

Re:what has the world come to

[IBitOBear]

I think, the point is, that BECAUSE they are "not paying customers", they represent ZERO lost revenue.

The presumption that the ones who don't buy, WOULD buy if they couldn't download is specious at best.

The total, _ACTUAL_ "lost revenue" to movie snarfing is almost certianly LESS than the cost of one lawyer for one case.

These people should be persuing the people who MINT and SELL full bootlegs. This online trading stuff is literally NOTHING.

It's actually probably even a net gain from word of mouth.

(And I have *NEVER* downloaded a movie via USENET, any p2p application, or similar. I BUY DVDs.)

The people who will buy, buy. The people who won't, don't. The people who *may* don't exist.

Only the industrial bootleggers represent actual lost revenue. The "traders" are only a threat the the CERTIAN DREAMS OF AVERICE of certian ??AA organizations.

So it is STUPID to piss off your customers and splashing them with shit because you are chasing the shadow of a penny you _thought_ you _might_ _have_ seen rolling down a sewer.

Re:what has the world come to

[IBitOBear]

Actually, you are right, and you are wrong.

The people who never buy were never your customers, and never would be, so they don't represent any lost revenue if they snarf.

People who do buy, will buy, and so _they_ don't represent any lost revenue.

But the people who _do_ _buy_ have to pay for the legal bullshit of the stupid and greedy ??AA types who *imagine* money floating around, that they "would have gotten", and people like ME, A PAYING CUSTOMER, GET SPLASHED WITH THE ??AA SHIT of having to deal with CSS and whatnot.

And I have to *watch* them make my country look like a collective bunch of ASSHATS.

By chasing non-existent "revenue" in the name of a non-existent "market", ??AA dickheads COST ME MONEY.

The snarffers are rubes, and represent an miniscule entropy cost to the movie people at _worst_.

Movies deprived from the public? ZERO.
Money lost to movie snarfers? ZERO.
Money stolen from my pocket to satisfy ??AA zietgiest? Something greater than zero.

"Product" "Taken" without paying? ZERO. [copyright was infringed. Copyright is not a property right, at least not yet, and god help us if it ever becomes one...]

Money wasted? Yep, by the ??AA pissing into the wind.

Time wasted? You-betcha. Here we are paying the cash entropy cost of our time because ASSHATS are SUING COLLEGE STUDENTS for MYTHICAL REVENUE.

Re:what has the world come to

[iamplasma]

By charging $13 (in NZ) for a ticket and $3 for a poxy single-scoop ice cream!

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.

Re:what has the world come to

[metlin]

No, this is Slashdot.

Nobody takes away the God-given right of a Slashdotter to share music and movies, not to mention watch movies for free. And anybody who makes money out of anything that has anything to do with the movie or music industry is evil, and it is the right of a Slashdotter to rip them off and distribute the spoils among the poor downtrodden geeks of the Slash-wood forest.

On the other hand, when EFF suggests the same thing, these same people stay quiet and not say a word.

Bloody pirate hypocrites. ARRRRRRRR! x-(

Re:what has the world come to

[cheekyboy]

And paying $14.5 to see blair witch project that cost $30k to make was 100% fair?

Re:what has the world come to

[killjoe]

You know if you read revelations it says that the anti christ will be seen as a savior and that the majority of the people will follow him.

Something to think about next time Bush talks about god.

Re:what has the world come to

[supraxnet]

The people who *may* don't exist

I have purchased many movies after "screening" them on my PC. Same again with music. And I regularly go to the movie theaters.

Re:what has the world come to

[ozbird]

Fill me in here in case I missed something, but how are the movie theaters stealing money from anyone?

Overpriced popcorn, drinks, choc-tops ...

Re:what has the world come to

[IBitOBear]

That makes you "a person who buys". You are using your access (which isn't really that different than your ability to borrow physical media) as a selection technique.

There are no "people who use p2p/etc as a replacement for home buying" for peculiar but no perfectly zero values of "no". (If you get my drift.)

There is no version of turing off P2P that nets "more custom" in any statistically valid sense. The people who will buy, buy and the people who won't, don't.

In truth there is a seven (?) step gradient for any given work/product.

People who will snarf any content because it is free and that is "their only terms" of acceptance.

People who will throw away _your_ content even if they get it for free; they don't want it and won't keep it.

People who will own your content if it is free and effortless to require, but will not exert any economic or personal force (above "trace levels") to acquire what you are selling.

People will own your content at "discount price", they don't accept your list price, but there is a reasonably non-zero price they will pay.

People who will own your product/content at list price.

People who are willing to pay a _premium_ price because they desire your product/content.

And "Early Adopters"/"Fans"/"collectors" who will pay unreasonable prices for personal motives.

The various ??AA people fantasize that if they could get rid of sharing and free access, everybody would be magically bumped one-to-several categories towards premium client status. In this fantasy nobody would be forced from free, nearly free, or pirate-only to "will not own".

Theis "promotion" paradigm is central to their "evidence" because they imagine that each transaction is a "theft", a "lost" full-to-premium price opportunity.

This is a pure pipe-dream.

For instance, back in the Napster day, in the middle of a intellectual discussion of "thematic principles" my roommate and I downloaded EIGHT DISTINCT (and truely horrific) versions of "Little Bunny Foo Foo" by various artists with various target audiences.

Horrific is an understatement on this stuff.

There is _NO_ (and I *REALLY* mean *NO*) chance that we would have paid 99 cents per track, or even one sent per track, to complete this conversation and buy this tripe.

The intellectual persuit was valid, the points were made and appreciated.

But there is no conceivable scenerio that would allow a rational human to model this as eight dollars of "lost revenue".

(... seriously... horrific... /shudder 8-)

Re:what has the world come to

[arose]

You can either pay or not pay, but you can't get it from anyone else. So we have an important product (mainstream culture) and a monopoly. It follows that prices go up and capitalism does not help us.

Re:what has the world come to

[HybridJeff]

Maybe Im misreading you, if you meant pay or not pay (and hence not recieve), then you left out one option: get it without paying (eg pirate).

Just be sure that whatever option you choose you're ready for the consquences. (eg, loosing money vs. a 1/100,000,000 chance of getting sued+possible (depending upon the person) moral uncertanty).

Re:what has the world come to

[Matt - Duke '05]

Exactly.

That's what's so funny about the "Your Rights Online" section - these rights are completely imaginary. Where exactly in the Constitution is the Bill Of Internet Rights located?

I honestly believe that this is a side-effect of being indoctrinated by the GPL (*duck*). The GPL is great and I'm totally in favor of it. If you read over it, you'll notice that one of the most striking characteristics of it is the number of positive rights it grants you. Indeed, the first sentence of the preamble embodies this very idea:

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users

Again, this is great. However, some people don't realize that _not everything_ works the same way. I think that after becoming accustomed to the GPL, which grants significantly more positive rights than most other sorts of software licenses, one comes to (understandably) wish for, or maybe event expect, a greater number of positive rights, not only in the software field, but in the sense of "rights" in general.

Sorry to break the news, but life in the US isn't licensed under the GPL. You don't have the positive right to do anything that your little heart desires. Although in your delusional world you may believe that you have the right to just download copyrighted movies from the Internet without paying for them and then throw them up on BitTorrent, the only actual right that exists in this situation is an artist's right to control the distribution of their copyrighted material as they see fit. When you violate that right you have broken the social contract (again, which is not a GPL-compliant license), and the aggrieved party has legal recourse.

Think about it this way. The mantra of the open source movement is somewhat like this:

"If you want to use proprietary software, then you have to play by their rules. If you don't like these rules, then fuck 'em, let's go make our own software and rules that are better anyway."

I think most people would agree with this statement in general. Thus, the converse should also be true:

"If you want to use free software, then you have to play by their rules. If you don't like these rules (i.e. you want to do things that the GPL forbids), then it sucks to be you: go write your own software under your own terms."

Again, I think people would agree that if someone was taking GPL software, boxing it as another product, and distributing binary versions without the source, most people here would be up in arms about a violation of their rights - rightly so, I might add.

However, when the situation is reversed, a different picture emerges:

"If you want to see a movie that Hollywood makes (which I assume some of you do, because despite the fact that you continually state that these movies "all suck anyways" you still leech them by by the gig), then you play by their rules. If you don't like their rules (i.e. you don't want to pay), then tough: go make your own movie."

But oh no, this time it's different. Since this situation doesn't benefit you, you get to change the rules and invent a new "right" to break the rules. As you quickly throw logic and reason out the back door, you grant unto yourself the inalienable right to get shit for free because you don't want to pay.

Some of these people just seem to be living in an imaginary place where the world revolves around themselves: they love to go on for hours talking about their _own_ rights, while conveniently ignoring the rights of anyone else.

Re:what has the world come to

[Richard_at_work]

Whoa, are you saying they shouldnt have a monopoly on their own individual product? Anyone can grab a film camera, go shoot 120minutes of film and audio, open their own cinema and show the film theyve made for whatever price they want to, the MPAA are not stopping you doing this. What you are claiming is like saying "Hey, that Icecream parlor is selling its own brand icecream, and noone else is. They have a monopoly." when theres nothing stopping you setting up a competing parlor, with your own brand icecream.

Re:what has the world come to

[babybird]

Where exactly in the Constitution is the Bill Of Internet Rights located?

The tenth ammendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

However, that being said, your post is right bang on.

Re:what has the world come to

[arose]

You can't copyright the flavor of the icecream which makes your argument moot. Monopolies destroy the markey, copyright started as a time limited monopoly, but effectively gone now.

Re:what has the world come to

[duguk]

it's not like actors are underpaid (in fact, I understand they have a very strong union)

F.A.G?

Re:what has the world come to

[iamplasma]

You can't copyright the flavor of the icecream which makes your argument moot. Monopolies destroy the markey, copyright started as a time limited monopoly, but effectively gone now.

Again, completely wrong. Patents give monopolies, copyrights don't.

There's nothing stopping you going out and making another movie about the Titanic, another war movie, another cop movie, another really bad Hugh Grant chick flick, or any other kind of movie you want. Sure, you can't copy the exact movie, but that's simply because in essence that would be like stealing the ice cream itself, skipping the entire cost and effort required to produce it in the first place. No matter how you put it, there's nothing stopping you from going and making your own near-identical movie (within reason), so there certainly isn't a monopoly by any margin.

Re:what has the world come to

[aussie_a]

Movies are hardly an important product (well important is a subjective term, but I think most people will admit it isn't going to kill you not watching it). Movies are a form of entertainment, don't like the price, look for alternative entertainment. I haven't gone to the cinema in quite some time and I am certainly not sorry. I am certainly not missing out on "a fundamental activity." If you require to go see a movie to fit or be an outcast from your friends, perhaps you should re-evaluate your friends.

Re:what has the world come to

[iamplasma]

Maybe Im misreading you, if you meant pay or not pay (and hence not recieve), then you left out one option: get it without paying (eg pirate). Just be sure that whatever option you choose you're ready for the consquences. (eg, loosing money vs. a 1/100,000,000 chance of getting sued+possible (depending upon the person) moral uncertanty).

I don't see how that really changes the ethical issues. You seem to be saying "well you could break the law, it's an option, therefore it's okay". Correct me if I'm reading it wrong, but that could be used to justify just about any breach of the law: "I could get a job and have money, or I could not have money, or I could rob someone and take a 1% chance of getting arrested". Sure, you're correct, I left out the option, but it doesn't affect my argument in the slightest, that if you willingly pay $13 for a movie, you clearly think it's worth it, or you wouldn't go (and no, just because your girlfriend wants to see it doesn't make it duress, you're going because you think not pissing off your girlfriend is worth the money then), and on the other hand if you don't go, then the movie companies can't have ripped you off. The point of my argument was to show under both sets of circumstances, you haven't been robbed by the movie companies, and I don't think anyone could possibly suggest they could have robbed you in the third option, when it's you stealing their movie.

Re:what has the world come to

[Matt - Duke '05]

Yes, I am well aware of the 10th (and the 9th for that matter) and I knew that was coming =)

I was actually going to make a comment about it, but didn't want to start a political flamewar that I was certain would devolve into a discussion that involved the phrase "activist judges."

That being said, neither the Constitution nor the laws of my state say anything about me, as a consenting adult, receiving a really great blowjob whenever I want. Therefore, I must certainly have a "right" to get really sweet head at my whim, right? I wish.

So, I'm not sure if you were actually criticizing my post (I don't think you were since you agreed with the rest) or if you were just pointing out an oversight of mine. Regardless, I just wanted to clarify that I don't really think that the 10th is referring to the type of "rights" I was speaking about.

Re:what has the world come to

[dirk]

Actually, the middle ground does exist. I have downloaded movies that I was on the fence about seeing. I have then not rented or bought the movie because I already saw it and it didn't impress me enough to see it again. But they certainly lost at the very least a rental, if not a movie ticket from me being able to download the movie. I know many people who saw the Matrix Reloaded by downloading it and hated it. While they had little hope for the movie and had heard the terrible reviews, they took the time and effort to find and download a good copy of it, and keep the copy after they had watched it. These people would have seen the movie if they couldn't download it, regardless of how they felt afterward. If you care enough to find and download the movie and keep a copy using your disk space, there is a good chance you would have at least rented the movie or watched it on PPV.

And don't worry, they are going after the people who mint and sell bootlegs (just as they have been for years). But just because they are going after them doesn't mean they should ignore you while you trade movies with other people online. Having someone worse than you in no way makes what you are doing any better.

Re:what has the world come to

[arose]

Movies are hardly an important product

Tell that to the people creating laws for copyright protection... :-D

It's not really about my friends here, it's about culture wich forms the the way people speak and act. Do you really believe movies don't do that? Common culture gives people common ground for communication.

Re:what has the world come to

[Anonymous Coward]

That being said, neither the Constitution nor the laws of my state say anything about me, as a consenting adult, receiving a really great blowjob whenever I want. Therefore, I must certainly have a "right" to get really sweet head at my whim, right? I wish.

You do have the right to receive a really great blowjob whenever you want. There just isn't any obligation on anyone else to provide you with one.

The right to freedom of speech does not mean that the government, or anyone else, is obligated to provide you with a speechwriter or a megaphone. The right to freedom of religion does not mean that the government, or anyone else, is obligated to create a god just for you. The right to receive blowjobs does not mean that the government, or anyone else, is obligated to provide you with them.

To suggest that you don't have the right to receive blowjobs is to accept a ridiculous amount of interference from your government in private matters.

Re:what has the world come to

[aussie_a]

culture wich forms the the way people speak and act. Do you really believe movies don't do that? Common culture gives people common ground for communication.

Funnily enough my grandfather didn't watch many movies for quite a few years (he is partly deaf) and he was able to communicate with people fine. That might not be what you mean, but if it isn't I have no idea what your trying to get at.

Re:what has the world come to

[lxs]

For yea brothers you will know that the end times are upon us! Is it not written in the good book?

"They sitteth in their parents basements and downloadeth torrents of Star Wars movies and the skye will weep for they are not the true gospel, nay they are the originals where Han shooteht first."

Amen brothers!

Re:what has the world come to

[arose]

Did he read books, magazines and newspapers? The movie penetration these days is very high. It's not that it's impossible to communicate without movies or books, it's just harder to find common ground. IMHO culture is a very powerfull thing, and that so much of it (that would be the last 70 years of most movies, music and books) is controled by a relatively small group of people and corporations (mostly those who have the marketing money to push their works into maintream) does make me worry about the future.

Re:what has the world come to

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

Not sure if you're calling the poster a homosexual or if you mis-typed the name of the union, which is S.A.G. for Screen Actors Guild.

Re:what has the world come to

[izomiac]

I always considered stealing to be linked to depriving someone of something's use. In the case of media it would be denying profits to the **AA. If I know that I'm never going to buy something in the first place then how is it stealing if I watch it without buying? Isn't that the same as watching a movie at home with friends who don't own the movie? The only media I buy is after I know a movie/band/anime is awesome and I'm not wasting my money. In fact, the **AA has gotten a lot more money out of me by my occasional piracy. I never listened to music (radio, cds, anything) before I learned I could download it off the internet for free from ftp servers. Of course, back then it took me a week to get one song with my connection, so I'd buy a cd to get the rest of the albulm in better quality, but the concept is the same. I can't understand why those at the **AA could even begin to think that stopping people from watching/listening to their media would help them. I'm beginning to think that they would prohibit you from singing a song to yourself in your head if they could.

Re:what has the world come to

[babybird]

It does say something about you receiving a really great blowjob whenever you want. It says that if the constitution doesn't forbid it, then it is left to your state, or to you should your state have nothing to say about it.

But I'll wager your state does say something about the whenever part. For example, probably state statutes don't allow receiving any kind of blowjob at a bus stop, or at a school play, or at the mall food court, or from someone under the age of 18, or if said blowjob is contingent upon the giver being paid a monetary sum for services rendered (unless you happen to live in nevada). So long as you remain within those kind of limiations, you're free to receive a really great blowjob anytime you want.

I can understand not wanting the conversation to devolve into a discussion that involved the phrase "activist judges." I wasn't criticizing your post at all, and I assumed that you were aware of the 10th (and 9th) amendments, I was just stating them for completeness sake... in case any young students are surfing slashdot at school when they should be studying civics class. ;)

Re:what has the world come to

[schemanista]

Welcome to Business 101. My name is Mr. Schemanista. Please take out your text books and turn to page 21: "Running a business".

Rent, wages, utilities, property and business taxes, licenses to show movies... a movie theatre is a service business. They don't have a "cost of goods sold" which can adjust the price to view each movie: you've confused your local cineplex with your local supermarket. Instead movie theatres have a "cost to deliver services", also known as "expenses incurred to generate revenue". They have to spread those costs across their service revenues, including concessions, or else they can't afford to stay in business!

They, like the studios, make money on some movies and lose money on others and the moneymakers finance the money-losers.

Their "sweet spot" for profitability is very narrow. Seriously, do you think that AMC is charging 600% markup on popcorn because they plan to buy their own Caribbean corporate island? They're jacking you because, even at $15CAD/head, admissions don't cover their costs.

Re:what has the world come to

[JaxGator75]

There's NO over-lap? None??? Nobody has EVER been a "Good Customer" while simultaneously being a dirty no-good Pirate (yarr)? Are you SURE about that, or just shooting off your mouth online?

/yarrr

Re:what has the world come to

[dark_requiem]

The point is not whether they would have bought it had they not had a chance to steal it. It is the principle that they OWN this stuff, it is theirs by right, by virtue of the fact that they conceived of it, and created it. It is patently immoral to steal from them. If you claim a right to steal it, you claim a lack of property rights. If this is the case, I ask you: Where do you live, and what time will you be at work, because I could use a new couch, maybe a bigger TV, etc.

Re:what has the world come to

[duguk]

I thought it was Film Actors' Guild... Teach me to watch Team America too often....

Posting anonymously from the UK :D

Re:what has the world come to

[IBitOBear]

NO, YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.

The point of COPYRIGHT is that WE ALL "OWN" IT, and we are letting the creators "borrow it back from the common pool of culture" as a reward for creating it. That reward is given in the hopes that the creators of culture will create more.

There is NO SUCH THING AS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Read the law.

If you came into my house and took my couch or TV that _WOULD_ be "stealing" because you would then DEPRIVE ME OF MY COUCH AND TV. But when someone listens to, or even COPIES movies and music, the place where they got it from STILL HAS IT.

Quite frankly if you had a Star-Trek-Like "replicator" and you wanted to come into my house and point it at my couch and TV to make a copy, there would be no "theft". The question would then be a matter of "access". If I didn't let you in, then you would be guilty of "entering". If you had to damage or subvert something to gain entry you would be guilty of "breaking and entering". If you "broke" but didn't then "enter" because someone showd up, you would be guilty of "vandalisim" or "tampering".

See how all of those words are *DIFFERENT*?

If I let you in, then there was no crime at all.

Comparing the violation of Copyright to Theft as EQUAL PROPOSITIONS is INVALID.

The correct issue, the VALID comparison to P2P copying happening today, would be comming to my house and taking pictures of some pictures I willingly have hung in my window. If those pictures are mine to display publically, then do I have any expectation that requires you *not* to take those pictures? If those pictures were covered within other peoples copyright, am I breaking the law in having them? displaying them? taking no measure to prevent their potographing them?

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT (especially for comercial purposes), but I do understand that in the modern paradigm it will be essentially unstoppable.

MY POINT IS that in the presence of the changing cultural and technological paradigm, JUST AS THE INVENTION OF THE CAMERA probably "damaged" painters but created photographers, easy digital communication will muck up the business models of the "stupider" "distributors" because "pure distribution" no longer _needs_ professional distributeors.

Having those distributors SUE THEIR CUSTOMERS CAN, IN NO WAY, RECREATE THE NEED FOR THEIR JOBS.

The law suits are just a waste of everybodies time an money. The horse had left the barn and elvis has left the building. This legal delaying-action will not keep these people roling in the easy dough of yesteryear. Ask the village potter and the stationers guild, they can tell you all about it.

Any yet, there are still potters and stationers, and you can indeed still buy a buggy whip if you so chose.

And people make *fortunes* with photography.

The ??AA people are at a crucial (for them) evolutionary juncture.

Their law suits are like listening to your little brother whine about his melting popsicle. The thing is going to melt no matter how much he complains, but if he'd *eat* the damn thing there wouldn't be a problem. Yea, either way he is going to achieve the state of "bare stick" but it is his choice where the sugar-water goes.

The RIAA, in particular, exists solely to *DISTRIBUTE* music. Don't really need that any more, at least not in the scale previously required. So sad, too bad.

And yet, people want the box, and the disk, and the liner notes, and the cool poster. They want that stuff badly enought that there is a market for special editions and my hosuehold contains no less than five distinct (purchased) versions of "Dark Side of the Moon" in three distinct media formats. This didn't happen because I and my Room Mate were legally required to do this. It happened because the value was worth the money.

The wailing and the suing....? not so much.

Re:what has the world come to

[IBitOBear]

That isn't middle ground. You are a PAYING CUSTOMER. Nobody expects you to pay for everything indiscriminantly. In the context of the discussion at least.

In finer degrees of granulatity, for any given work you are either one who will pay, and does, or one who wouldn't and doesn't.

The thing I was saying DOES NOT EXIST is the person who, if you snuck back in time and took away all his downloads, would have bought all the crap he downloaded.

It is the "each download represents a lost sale" guy who "would have bought" which is a complete fantasy of the ??AA.

There are only two types of people that the ??AA cna sue. Those who are their customers and who will/will-have/or would-have bought because of their exposure to the music... and those who wouldn't have bought period.

In the former case, they got their cash.

In the latter case, they didn't lose a dime because the sod didn't want the tripe.

In both cases, they got free advertising.

THE LAW SUITS ARE STUPID.

The greedy clods need to adapt to the new business conditions, and generallly STFU.

These are the same people who said "the VCR is to the Movie Industry and the American People, what the Boston Strangler is to women out alone at night."

They were wrong then (go into any Blockbuster for demonstrable proof) and they are wrong now.

Meanwhile, their legal machanations are COSTING ME MONEY. Not only do they raise prices but they cost court time and so tax dollars (etc).

And all of this is being done because they wish in their greedy little souls, to CREATE a whole new, otherwise non-existent guy. They want to "realize" the profit from that non-existent guy who *might* have bought.

Re:what has the world come to

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Both of the crimes you listed are interesting in that while there is arguable, potential harm in committing them, there is no concrete harm. For example, speeding might be dangerous, and might cause an accident. Is that why speeding laws are enforced? Nope. It is purely a fund raiser for the police/country/state/reservation or whatever. The mayor of New York even acknowledged this and suggested that it was "in poor taste" to ticket off duty police officers. This instance is not a safety issue, or it would be illegal to cause an accident through recklessness, which it is.

The second crime you mention is pirating movies. Does it cause harm? The potential harm is lost sales. Not quite in the same ballpark as endangering people's lives. It is threatening the livelihoods of those in the movie industry. This is probably unethical, but I have no sympathy for an industry that relies upon draconian copyright laws for their income. The laws they have bribed our lawmakers to pass are so sickeningly unethical and unconstitutional that it makes me angry just thinking about it. Entire generations have been stripped of their literary and musical heritage, in the name of increased profit margins. I can think of few ways to intellectually bankrupt our country faster than what the media companies have done. I say, rob them blind, all you want. It does not make me feel one bit sorry for them.

Re:what has the world come to

[Parity]

Yes, the same was said of Reagan, and furthermore, each word in Reagan's name had six letters! Ronald Wilson Reagan = 6 6 6, the number of the beast!

I'm still waiting for the apocalypse.. .

Re:what has the world come to

[HybridJeff]

Ok, I completly agree with you in the being robbed by the movie makers department. You do have the choice to go or not go, and you're not being robbed either way. I diddnt indent do justify crim e in general, I was trying to make a point regarding moral reasoning more than anything else.

Basically I was saying that just becasue something is against the law doesnt mean its wrong (and conversly somthing might be legal, but still morally wrong). In the case of somthign being illigal, and not morally wrong, said illigal action is an option for the person considering it, as long as they are willing to face the consequences.

Re:what has the world come to

[dark_requiem]

The point of COPYRIGHT is that WE ALL "OWN" IT, and we are letting the creators "borrow it back from the common pool of culture"

Wow, now THAT'S a warped sentiment. You must love the idea of socialism. There is no communal ownership of the contents of my brain. Said communal ownership does not come into being merely because I put those thoughts down on paper. The thoughts are still my own, I am not "borrowing" them from a wonderfully benevolent society. The fact that I record a manifestation of my thoughts does not make them any less mine. If I sell someone a liscence to use that manifestation for PRIVATE and PERSONAL use, I am doing just that. Personal use means that the original purchaser may use said product themselves, not that they can duplicate and distribute my INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (aka COPYRIGHTED, and yes, the term copyright means exactly what it sounds like, an exclusive right to copy) to whomsoever they choose. Further, private means that you may not exhibit it publicly. A very good case can be made that file "sharing" of copyrighted works constitutes an infringing, non-private exhibition of the copyrighted work. In order to do that, my work would have to be in the PUBLIC domain. It is not in the public domain by virtue of your decision to illegaly distribute it. This is the entire reason we have copyrights, to protect the author of a work from THEFT.

Re:what has the world come to

[dirk]

Except I would have paid, but didn't have to. If I had not been able to download that movie, I would have rented it or watched it on PPV. I didn't do either because I downloaded it and watched it. They lost revenue because I was able to download it instead of watching it another way. Not everyone purchases movies, many people rent them, see them in theatres, or watch them on PPV. This is where the money is lost because people can download the movie. Sure, the hardcore people will still buy the movie, and the apathetic people who never would have bought it still won't, but there is ahuge portion of people in the middle who want to see the movie, and will pay for it if they have to, but would rather see it for free.

Re:what has the world come to

[Tim C]

By charging $13 (in NZ) for a ticket and $3 for a poxy single-scoop ice cream!

That's the cinema's pricing, not the movie company's. The movie companies affect those prices by the amount they charge the cinema for the films, but they don't set the prices directly.

If you have a problem with the cost of the icecream, take it up with your local cinema.

Re:what has the world come to

[IBitOBear]

You need to do some research. Start with the U.S. Constitution, section eight, paragraph eight:

[Congress shall have the power] "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

See that "limited time" up there? "Property" rights are not thus limited, real property is for ever, as a matter of law. Whatever these limited rights are, they aren't property by definition.

And to quote a paper found online in under two minutes:

One of Jefferson's most famous statements on patent law was in his often-quoted letter of August 13, 1813 to Isaac McPherson, in which he wrote that, since there is no natural right to property in land, how much less is there a natural right to a property in ideas. I think Jefferson's words apply equally well to copyrights as to patents; to "expression" as well as to "ideas": "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

See that "receives light without darkening me", Jefferson understood. The legal phrase is "non rivalrous goods". If I can not deprive you of a thing, I can not commit "theft". Look it up.

Do I take it that Thomas Jefferson was a socialist and beneath your contempt on maters relating to the U.S. Constitution?

They're called books, laws, and legal opinions. You should read some before you start publicly voicing your opinion. You'll look smarter... 8-)

Re:what has the world come to

[IBitOBear]

Failure to profit is not the same as loss. It's a fine hair, but an important one. The only way that failure to profit exists as anything statistically significant is if you were certian to watch the movie no matter what the cost.

By extension, every time you go over to a friends house and watch his copy of some movie that you didn't pay for, is the MPAA suffering a "loss"? If you go to Blockbuster and rent a movie for four dollars and watch it alone, and then the next day you rent another and watch it with three friends, was the transaction on the second day a "loss" for the MPAA? Did your three friends "steal" the movie or did the four of you "share" it?

The simple fact is that only the small-term details of "sharing" have changed because of the internet, which has made "your living room" infinately large.

In practical terms, all evidence suggests that as sharing on line increases, so do rental and purchase revenues.

Suing your customer and cutting off word of mouth, to deprive the people who wouldn't have paid anyway access to the data stream that otherwise increases your gross profits by getting your material to the people who _will_ pay is TERRIBLY STUPID as a business position.

Suing your customers is always bad business.

Re:what has the world come to

[dark_requiem]

And perhaps you should stop reading them selectively. Note the phrase "exclusive right". Regardless of how the timeframe is limited, while still protected by copyright or patent law, you have an EXCLUSIVE right to your work. Which means, by definition, that for that time you own it. Which means, by definition, that for that time makes it your property. Which means, again, by definition, that unauthorized copying is theft. How that is not obvious to you, I do not know. It's right there in black and white in your own quote from the constitution. Look up the word "Exclusive". It's called a dictionary. You should read it before you start voicing public opinions based on selective reading. You'll look smarter... 8-)

Stargate Atlantis

[Anonymous Coward]

I got a warning letter from my friends at MGM and bay TSP about illegally sharing my 2 episodes of stargate atlantis. I thought, hey, they are tv shows, and they arent on dvd... why would they care. Well, they did care, and they sent me a letter. And you know what? because of that letter, I havent used a p2p app since. I think that if they just focused on scaring people with letters, they would get the job done just as well, without looking evil like the RIAA

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[Sheetrock]

Even if it isn't on DVD yet, sales of TV series on DVD are absolutely huge, to the point of outstripping movie sales. A good thing, given that advertising dollars are drying up (thanks to the fast-forwarding in Tivo-type devices).

I wish they'd find a way to solve their problems without being outwardly hostile to the Internet, computer users, and/or their customers.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[metlin]

Heh.

A friend of mine got a C&D for sharing one of the Star Trek blooper episodes -- I suppose they were just looking for the keywords and then send you a letter.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[ScrewMaster]

And, let's not forget, hostile to the U.S. copyright system.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[Anonymous Coward]

I was cut off by COX HSI for the same reason. I was downlaoding a few epeisodes of Six Feet Under via bit torrent. I called locally to restore my service, and they directed me to a national number and gave me a case number. When I called the number I was told that my IP address was given to them by MGM and they said I was sharing content (The other side of bit torrent) The COX rep promptly restored my services and informed me of a COX 3 strikes policy, but he said it in a joking manner kind of implying that permenant cutoffs don't happen and that the policy is there to keep the studios away. I have not used any p2p since then because it is a hassle to have to call, and I don;t want to test the system during the end of the semester (my wife also gets annoyed when our connection is down :)

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[{X-Frog}]

heh, yeah I received one too for sharing an episode on bittorrent!
What I find absurd, it's that I do not live in the US and Stargate Atlantis was not (and is not) playing here yet! ;)

I already received another bot letter from Paramount Pictures for sharing a movie of them on edonkey a year ago.

I did not stop using p2ps, I just use them in a smarter way.

Only bittorent, they can't browse what you share, just see it if you download/upload it from/to them, and I use mldonkey with "Guarding for mldonkey", which is an IP blocker to stop rogue connections.
Like Peer Guardian on Windows.
No email from a firm that check for movies yet! ;)

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[killjoe]

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?

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently got a C&D letter about Stargate Atlantis as well...

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.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[Babbster]

Azureus has a similar plug-in called SafePeer.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[TheGuinnesseur]

Here's the lesson I learned the hard way--through two cease and desist DMCA notices forwarded from my university ISP with the threat of internet disconnection. I used to think sharing TV shows not released on DVD via suprnova.org/BitTorrent was OK legally.

Even though it's a TV show, you have NO RIGHT to rebroadcast that episode. Even if it hasn't been released on DVD! This means that if you're using BitTorrent, and you are uploading, then you are breaking US copyright law. Unless what you are transmitting is in the public domain or you have the express written consent of the copyright holder, you have no right to transmit or broadcast that show and the copyright holder (in this case represented by the MPAA) has every right to pursue you and stop you from sharing that media file. Here's Section 106 of Title 17 of the USC:

106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

So, unless you are the copyright holder, you don't get any of these rights. For the most part, this has been completely clearcut all through our history

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[killjoe]

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.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[advocate_one]

I'm confused... just exactly how does fast-forwarding with a TIVO cause the advertising dollar to dry up??? The program still went out, I still watched it... Had I been present at home watching it, I'd have got up to make a coffee or had a p break during the commercials anyway.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[nathanh]

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?

I suspect the answer is "no". They don't make any money when you watch a download. If you pay for it on DVD, or watch a sponsored TV station, then they get money and they're happy.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[jez9999]

Don't you want me to watch the damned show?

Heh, not really, no. That's a bit like turning up to Wal-Mart, doing your shopping, coming to the counter and saying 'oops, I forgot my wallet. What do you mean I can't have this stuff, don't you WANT me to shop here?'

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[shrik3]

So recording an episode on VHS and sending it to a friend is equally illegal? Great. So I've been breaking laws since I was 6 years old, without my knowledge, only by recording cartoons from TV and showing them to my friends (who didn't have cable).

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[aussie_a]

If it is distributed for free, they are not losing profit,

Until the ratings drop because most people are getting it online.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[filenabber]

Out of curiousity - what P2P app were you using to share? Just wondering which one(s) they are monitoring.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[anthony_dipierro]

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.

As soon as Windows/Intel get a decent DRM system built into computers you can be sure this is what they're going to do. In the mean time, it's impossible to track this type of distribution.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[Erasmus Darwin]

"Had I been present at home watching it, I'd have got up to make a coffee or had a p break during the commercials anyway."

Would you have missed every single commercial break? (Sidenote: Frequent urination is a warning sign for diabetes. You might want to talk to a doctor if you're peeing that much.) Would you have been far enough away from the TV that you wouldn't even overhear any of the commercials? If you finish making coffee and/or peeing before the commercial break is over, would you carefully avoid the room with the TV?

Anyway, it's an accepted fact that people will miss some commercials during shows. The problem advertisers have with PVRs is that the audience is missing all of the commercials.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[ticktockticktock]

The IP blockers most likely do give a false sense of security. The people searching for p2p downloaders don't wave signs saying "hey! I am looking for you! My IP is...." They could very well be a normal peer in the swarm that just logs all IP addresses that give valid chunks of a file.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[Issue9mm]

I suspect the bigger differentiating factor is that if you record it to VHS, you likely haven't stripped out the commercials that they paid to have seen.

Most of the downloaded versions I've seen "shared" online have all the commercials stripped.

If it's a re-broadcast of a network show, I honestly don't think that they mind so much IF the commercials are intact.

Of course, that gets into where it's being shared, as the commercials I see on Fox in Memphis are probably not the same commercials someone in San Francisco would see, so that's another issue as well.

-9mm-

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[Linker3000]

Know the feeling - I had a VHS copy of Star Trek First Contact that I made when it was on TV several years ago. I fancied viewing the film on my laptop on a long journey so I downloaded it - quick as a flash I got an email from my ISP forwarding a takedown notice from the studios!

Fair enough I suppose as what I did was technically illegal, but it didn't exactly amount to any financial loss to the studio - and, no I probably wouldn't have considered buying a copy on DVD (I presume it's out on DVD!?).

Trouble is that there's no way to separate the 'innocent' (OK, OK, don't debate that one!) infringers from those who download, duplicate and sell for profit.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[sam_handelman]

I got a letter from the nice men about illegally sharing a few episodes of ER.

I'm not sharing episodes of ER - the files they identified were talks by american dissident and anarcho syndicalist Noam Chomsky.

Definitely in the public domain.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[Snaller]

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.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[91degrees]

No it's not.

If Walmart gave studff away, they'd lose something. (i.e. the goods)

If he downloads a TV show, the producers wouldn't. They haven't lost the advertising revenue because he missed the show. They haven't lost the DVD revenue because it's not available on DVD. They had no way of getting money from the episode he downloaded, so his downloading it didn't cost them anything.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[chainsaw1]

Right, but this is still stupid form the networks POV. It would be easier for the broadcaster to offer it themselves on P2P (or directly) and count the logged tracker hits (or ppl reaching % downloaded=100%)to the ratings. This would also ensure that the commercials are in the shared file.

Yes people could still skip the ads, but they can do that during (semi)live TV / VCR taped shows anyway. If the network has a fat pipe (paid for by the extra ratings) then no one would have a need to share amongst themselves anyway. Just give your buddy the link to the sup3rf@st broadcaster's link.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[7-Vodka]

IF that is the case why don't they make all their shows available for download with commercials included?

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[Snaller]

Good question - mostly because the suits are always behind the times. Remember the VHS - they tried to ban it and sue people because it was "stealing their profits" - then when they lost some young bright spark thought about selling/renting prerecorded movies! And made billions.

There is no reason not to do it, and eventually someone will

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[mcelrath]

It is possible in a statistical sense. There are several firms out there that already track what is traded on p2p networks, for various reasons.

This is no better/worse than the Nielsen ratings, which is also a statistical tracking system...

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[jez9999]

I hate to sound like the RIAA, but I have to disagree about the ad revenue - his missing the show means they DID lose a viewer for the ads, and ultimately ad revenue. Not having watched the ads, he should then have to pay something to watch it. Missing the regular broadcast of the show isn't IMHO an excuse for getting a free lunch.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[anthony_dipierro]

C'mon you know the second these shows get distributed on P2P someone is going to remove the ads and put them up without ads.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[aussie_a]

Yeah, I agree. But it isn't the job of people breaking the law to determine the business model.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[killjoe]

"That's a bit like turning up to Wal-Mart, doing your shopping, coming to the counter and saying 'oops, I forgot my wallet."

No it's not.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[91degrees]

But they'd already lost the ad revenue. There was no way they could get it back. So, unless missing the show is also costing them money, I can;t see what the difference is.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[killjoe]

But I didn't watch the show. I missed it. They never made the money in the first place.

I just want to catch up on what I missed. Normally they replay it on saturday but that saturday they didn't even replay it. If they replayed it I would have watched it on the tv.

So explain to me how they are losing money in this transaction. They are not going to show the episode again, it's not out on DVD, I didn't watch it in the first place. How does it profit them when they prevent me from seeing a past episode?

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[nathanh]

So explain to me how they are losing money in this transaction.

I don't have to explain that. I was simply answering your question "Don't [the producers] want me to watch the damned show?". They don't want you to watch the show unless they make money in the process. They don't make money when you download the show. Sure, they wouldn't have made money anyway but these people aren't logical. This is the same industry where one CEO (Turner?) said that fast-forwarding the commercials is the same thing as stealing. That's not logical. But that is what they think.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[sumdumass]

So, if he had watched the show and mearly wanted to watch it again it would be different? Or somehow alright now? What if he missed parts of the show but saw all the comercials because of phone calls or kids or whatnot?

I'm trying to follow this discusion and so far the prevailing reason he was wrong is because he didn't watch the comercial. Now what if the comercials were still in the show he downloaded?

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[sumdumass]

Well bitorrent was hijacked by p2p users. It was originaly introduced as a legitamit program and now has illegitamit uses. This differs from Kazzza and the like alot.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[sumdumass]

If i remeber right, they don't look to see who watches the comercials. They look for a viewer rating several times a year and that rating dictates how many people will see the comercials and what they can charge for running those comercials.

This number isn't recorded every night but it is updated frequently. Also that number gets rounded off to fit into a catagory so one viewer wouldn't make too much of a difference. BTW, the producers could care less if you bought somethign from the comercials they just want a number saying we reach x amount of people between these ages that typical have these charectoristics.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[sumdumass]

Actually the difference is your ability ot get cought. When doing somethign like recording a how for a friend that doesn't have cable You have a less chance of someone that actually has a stake in the matter finding out. On the internet however the playing field os pretty much level and anyone could find out if they looked hard enough.

It isn't about if they care as much as it is how would they know.

Re:Stargate Atlantis

[sumdumass]

Well it is a matter of them using robots to detect this stuff. I have redone a couple of metalicas hits and set them on p2p with the titles of "me hacking up Thenameofthesong". I got a letter about sharing them. I also got a letter for just uing thier names to songs me or my friends have done that had different titles from other songs in the names. Somethign that amazes me is that if it was ever checked it would have verry little other peopled work in them. I don't think it would have even been a copyright violation. If i ever get the lawsuite letter, i'm gonna fight it tooth and nail.

conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Anubis350]

this comes right after bush gets re-elected.
seriously though, it is kinda interesting that after a couple years of wait and see, they've suddenly decided to file these suits after bush (friend of corporations, etc) is firmly back in power

mod me down as flame-bait if you want, I just find it an interesting point, not conspiracy but it makes sense; they waited until they knew the party that would support them was going to be in power for a while before they moved.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Anonymous Coward]

A Democrat President, with bi-partisan congressional support, passed both the DMCA and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act.

The Ninth Circuit is considered the most liberal in the country, and yet it has been very friendly to the members of the RIAA and MPAA.

Poor government knows no party.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[NotQuiteReal]

Yes, everyone knows, Democrats Don't like corporations and would never stand still to uphold any laws. Sheesh.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Dr Reducto]

Crime is crime. Kerry would support prosecuting violations of the law just as much as Bush would.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[lukewarmfusion]

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.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Lord Kano]

seriously though, it is kinda interesting that after a couple years of wait and see, they've suddenly decided to file these suits after bush (friend of corporations, etc) is firmly back in power

Hollywood was solidly backing Kerry, maybe this is their temper tantrum because "their guy" didn't win.

LK

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[suckmysav]

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

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[MsGeek]

My congresscritter is Howard Berman. He's a Democrat, and 100% owned by the RIAA and MPAA. (Remember the Hack-Back bill?) I have voted against him twice. But yesterday I held my nose, swallowed hard, and voted for him. Did a fat lot of good, considering that the GOP gained seats in both the House and Senate.

Both parties are owned by Big Media. Get used to it.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[TuballoyThunder]

Actually it is not very interesting. One of the biggest advocates of the entertainment industry is Rep Howard Berman (D-CA). Some of the sponsors of the INDUCE Act are Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Paul Sarbanes (D-MD). You can click the names to see the top contributers. It is interesting to note that neither Stabenow or Sarbanes receives much (if any) money from the entertainment industry.

Unless you have been living on Mars for the last eight months, you might have noticed that George Bush is not the darling of the entertainment industry. If you look at the top contributers not one of them are from the entertainment industry. One cannot say the same for John Kerry. The top contributors include Time Warner and Viacom. If you look at the RNC ($2.8M) and the DNC ($5.7M) who do you think is more beholden to the entertainment industry?

I think it is obvious that the actions of the entertainment industry is independent of the occupant of the White House. The Democrats are as friendly to corporations as the Republicans. If you believe otherwise, then you have tasted to much of the Kool-Aid. I hope you voted Nader, because both the Democrats and the Republicans are not for you.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[MikeXpop]

Oh, there's a lot of correlation, just not so much causation

Sorry to pick on you, especially if it was just a slip of the tongue (which it looked like), but I see these two words mixed up more than I'd really like to.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[AhabTheArab]

mod me down as flame-bait if you want

Around here lately, that's like making an anti-microsoft statement and saying "mod me down as flame-bait if you want".

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[indros13]

I think that Democrats are friendlier with the actors and artists than the movie and music distributors. Laws supporting the entertainment "industry" are either pork barrel from the California delegation (bipartisan) or corporate-friendly (Republican). Laws favoring corporate copyright and lawsuits are conservative territory.

Except for laws supporting trial lawyers; those litigious bastards are all Democrats :-)

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[HungWeiLo]

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.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[eril]

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.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Anubis350]

perhaps, but the judges that have upheld said laws/regs have been conservative...

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[suckmysav]

The actors know on what side their bread is buttered. They want what is best for the studios that pay them and the Democrat machine knows that. They will pander to what the Entertainment Industry wants in turn for favourable red-carpet soundbites from the leading faces in the Hollywood star machine.

And you'd better believe that Puff Daddy wants you to pay 10 bucks to see his latest film appearance just as much as the studio execs do.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Jeremy Erwin]

Let's make this clear:

The Democrats created the DMCA.


It's traditional to cite such things. It often makes for a stronger argument, assuming the facts support it.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Public Law 105-304) was sponsored in the House by a Howard Coble, a republican (NC-6th). In the senate, it was sponsored by Orrin Hatch, also a Republican (UT).

The Democrats extended copyrights.

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (Public Law 105-298) was also sponsored by Orrin Hatch. It was named for a Republican congressman. In the House, it was sponsored by, (get this!) Howard Coble of North Carolina.

Yeah yeah, some Democrats are listed as cosponsors. And both bills did garner the votes of both Republicans and Democrats. Details, details.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Nikker]

I think this brings up a good point.

At what point does our way of life change?

So far the **AAs have been suing and cursing but I don't think the number of people that are sharing files has really changed.

How many days. months, years will they wait before they fold? and is this the first steps towards true democracy and freedom where the majority rules?

Will it be the first direct 'war' between corporations vs evreyone else?

All I do know is that some one has to give and just too many people are using and *want* to use P2P for them to just stop.

Well, I live in Canada and for the cold winters and high taxes, I get to sit and watch from here

Wish all you yankes the best of luck and dont worry I'll always have a copy of Slackware in my shared folder for you .... ;)

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Lord Kano]

I think you'll find that while the ones in the public consciousness are overwhelmingly Democrat (excusing say Kelsey Grammer) the backers who put up the money are as Republican as they come.

What like Seven Spielberg? The second richest man in Hollywood and producer of over 100 projects? Man with a personal fortune estimated in the 2 billion dollar range?

You've believed the lie that only Rich people support the GOP. Understand something, rich people are going to stay rich no matter who's in office. Do you think that there is anything Kerry could have done that would have resulted in Bill Gates not being rich anymore? Murdoch and Turner will still be bitter rivals and filthy stinking rich in 4 years. The wealthy pick their affiliations based on social issues.

LK

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Flaming Foobar]

Hollywood was solidly backing Kerry, maybe this is their temper tantrum because "their guy" didn't win.

I thought it was the actors who were backing him, not the studios.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Matt - Duke '05]

Heard of the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act?

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Ernesto Alvarez]

There is one argument for that correlation.
GWB won by a small margin. If the **AA (or anyone else) started to make a mess right before the elections, they might have generated anti-Bush sentiment ("With Dubya, Hollywood sues children. Horror!" or "That $#@$% wants to sue me, I'm not voting for him now"). Now that the election has passed, news like that are a lot less "disruptive" for the men in power.

It probably would have been the same with anyone else in power before the election, MPAA probably decided not to risk making a mess at that time, avoiding the anger of whomever they might affect.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Snaller]

The Ninth Circuit is considered the most liberal in the country,

Not for long.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[stinerman]

So what you're saying is that the Republicans thought of the idea and the Democrats went along with it. Not to mention Clinton failed to veto it.

Are Republicans worse than Democrats? Sure, the same way Microsoft is worse than SCO.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Overand]

Lots of people *want* to smoke marijuana, but that hasn't stopped it from being illegal in most of the world. Almost as many people smoke marijuana as use the internet (according to some survey I can't remember the location of, maybe smokedot or cannabisnews), so one could say that as many people use and *like* P2P apps as use and *like* marijuana, but that hasn't changed the laws yet.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

[Jeremy Erwin]

No, I'm simply suggesting that those adhering to single-issue politics actually take the time to research their positions. The DMCA passed the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities. Not that Clinton would care to veto it-- the law itself implements two treaties: WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Both were signed by Clinton and subsequently ratified by the Senate.

I would like to think that the implementing legislation needn't be as harsh as the DMCA turned out to be. In typical slashdot fashion, my naivety is reinforced by the fact that I have not read the treaties.

I have briefly scanned the text, though, and discovered this gem:

The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death.

Agreed statements Concerning the WIPO Copyright Treaty, Article 7

The DMCA is not an argument for geeks to vote Republican. It's an argument for geeks to vote for candidates that support some sanity in Copyright law. In some cases, those candidates may even be Democrats.

In 2003, Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) and John Doolittle (R-Calif.) introduced HR 107: Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2003. Perhaps you might donate to their campaigns, assuming, of course, that the bill met with your satisfaction. I think the bill died in committee, though.

What's new

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What's new

[tepples]

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.

So what happens when a title is not available for sale in your region?

Not so long ago, the EFF suggested just this.

[turnstyle]

It wasn't all that long ago that the EFF suggested that the entertainment industry should be suing infringers.

Re:Not so long ago, the EFF suggested just this.

[antiMStroll]

More accurately, it wasn't all that long ago that Declan McCullagh suggested that something an the EFF lawyer said suggested the industry should be suing infringers.

Re:Not so long ago, the EFF suggested just this.

[Anthony Boyd]

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.

Re:Not so long ago, the EFF suggested just this.

[cheekyboy]

I think they meant people who sell DVDs for $10/pop at markets and street corners and the mafias who setup 100 burners running 24/7 for their opperations, not POOR people who cant afford a beer, but barely a net connection.

Though id class the corporate bosses on par to the mafia bosses as they use extreme profit tricks and monopoly fun to get themselves super rich like the mafia does.

Re:Not so long ago, the EFF suggested just this.

[c0p0n]

... I currently use Kazaa to share out a handful of audio sermons from my church's pastor ...

You're tricking a bit the kazaa credit system, eeh? Cool way of having a gig of mp3 available that you know nobody is gonna download.

Re:Not so long ago, the EFF suggested just this.

[ArsenneLupin]

You insensitive bastard! How dare you contaminate the networks with non-pr0n material such as this.

At least he could spice up his mp3 collection by adding the private conversations of the pastor with his choir boys...

Please

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhh.. don't say anything about Usenet

Re:Please

[drseuss9311]

about what?

Re:Please

[threedays]

NARC! Way to narq narqy mcnarq pants.

What ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

NOOOO!!!! I havent finished downloading all the episodes for my "Doctor Who" collection..

Re:What ?!

[michaeldot]

Now that you mention it, if filesharing had been around in the 60s and 70s, all those classic episodes that the BBC deleted because it wanted the shelf space would have been preserved.

And in more modern times, given the travesty performed by Directors tinkering with their films (that means you GL), maybe it should be allowed for filesharers to preserve culture for future generations...

That reminds me.

[Sheetrock]

The Spiderman 2 DVD comes out this month as well as the final extended cut in the LOTR series. Guess I'll be in line with the rest of you to fund these lawsuits.

May I plug i2hub....

[Dr Reducto]

If you are at a school that is an Internet 2 node,get on i2hub. It's only open to schools on I2, so the MPAA cannot get on to see what's going on. Additionally, d/l speeds are icredible, at about 300-400KB/sec.

I have fully moved to private networks like this, and my University's DC++ hub. I was shocked when i saw all these people at school using public networks like Kazaa (corrupted now) and Ares and BT.

Re:May I plug i2hub....

[Erwos]

I guess the problem is that the RIAA/MPAA only has to compromise _one_ computer on the I2 network to be able to do some sniffing and start filing lawsuits. AFAIK, DirectConnect doesn't provide you any real safety via encryption or some such.

-Erwos

Re:May I plug i2hub....

[zeromemory]

It's only open to schools on I2, so the MPAA cannot get on to see what's going on.

So you think the MPAA can't get (read: force/bribe) a school into letting them connect a server to the Internet2?

It's not like they haven't done anything similar in the past. If you don't believe me, see what happened to the UCLA DirectConnect hub that was supposedly limited to college students...

Re:May I plug i2hub....

[Dr Reducto]

But that's a lot of work to do considering the sheer number of people on BT.

It's like the old joke about when you and a friend are being chased by a cheetah. You don't need to outrun the cheetah, you only need to outrun your friend.

Re:May I plug i2hub....

[Lehk228]

they already have, there have been plenty of DMCA takedown notices at our school. good to see that places of higher education are uncorrupted by corporate interests.

Re:May I plug i2hub....

[Erwos]

I generally agree that BitTorrent/suprnova.org is the easier target, but if they were trying to target college students in particular for whatever reason, you could get excellent results by smacking down i2hub.

We had this discussion's on UMCP's hub - it's not safe, but it's probably better than anything else out there if you don't want to get sued (short of just sharing with your friends via CD, perhaps).

-Erwos

Re:May I plug i2hub....

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, except you can buy access for $20 off their website. If you think it's "safe" you're naive. As much as I'd like i2hub to be a wonderful thing, it's gotten too big for it's own good in it's current form.

Re:May I plug i2hub....

[Capt'n Hector]

What the hell? Your university pays for Internet2 for RESEARCH and EDUCATION, not for escaping the MP/RIAA. Those had better not be my tax dollars you're wasting.

Re:May I plug i2hub....

[gl4ss]

the point in private networks is just that.. that they're private.

wouldn't be much 'private' if everyone was using them now wouldn't they?

Re:May I plug i2hub....

[zeromemory]

Most universities just happen to route inter-university communications over the Internet2. Consequently, the Internet2 hub, a network for university students' file-swapping, is routed over the Internet2 and gets great speeds for it.

Sure, the i2hub users are probably not using the Internet2 for research or education, but it's not like the users are circumventing any systems to use the Internet2 - university networks are just routed that way. If you're really concerned about i2hub users wasting your valuable tax dollars, perhaps you should contact the appropriate people and convince them to implement systems to route P2P traffic over the regular Internet.

Besides, it might actually be CHEAPER for all this data to go over the Internet2...

Re:May I plug i2hub....

[cheekyboy]

hes probably using a mac which has a horrid tcp/ip stack and a slow-ass finder interface which slows stuff down.

I remember in the 90s i could barely get past 70kb/sec on OS9, but if I ran linux on it, it peekd at 980kb/sec.

Recently A tibook I used could barely do 2500kb/sec to a linux server, where my xbox and pc could easily do 9000-12000 kb/sec without dropping out on a LAN.

Re:May I plug i2hub....

[toddestan]

I just tried i2hub, and it won't let you connect unless you're on internet2.

Part of the problem might be the schools LAN too.

Re:May I plug i2hub....

[Animaether]

Theheck?

The appropriate people are the ones breaking the law. Not the ones making it possible to.
This is the very base reasoning behind saying that P2P apps aren't illegal, the users 'abusing' them are the ones comitting illegal acts.

You can't apply this reasoning at will where it best suits your purposes/beliefs.

Re:May I plug i2hub....

[Politburo]

Those had better not be my tax dollars you're wasting.

Oh, shut up.

Everyone whines about "my tax dollars", as if 100% of your taxes were directed to [project you hate].

Guess what, they're not. It's everyone's tax dollars that are being wasted on pork projects. Quit taking it so personally.

So let's say a half cent of your taxes go to some pork project. Killing that project won't save you anything in taxes. What needs to change is the whole culture. Targetting individual pork projects won't fix the problem, the money will just get spent on different pork.

Funny thing is..

[SocialEngineer]

I was told I was actually a target, by our dean of men here at my college. I have no idea why - I wasn't downloading or sharing any movies, nor could I even CONNECT to p2p networks because of the filtering systems in place (I use p2p to share security docs and my own music I have written). Yup. He said the MPAA had contacted the school and was prepared to sue if it was in necessary, or something like that. I guess I'll find out tomorrow if he was full of crap or not, won't I? :)

Re:Funny thing is..

[imemyself]

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.

Re:Funny thing is..

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I'll find out tomorrow if he was full of crap or not, won't I?

I guess he doesn't flush the toilet.

Re:Funny thing is..

[ScrewMaster]

The money they might or might not get is completely irrelevant: even if they got $50,000 from each "infringer" it wouldn't even begin to cover their legal costs and court costs (assuming they ever actually get to court: if this is an RIAA-style "lawsuit" the idea is just to terrorize people, not make money.) This is all about PR (if you can call it that) not about making money from infringers. It's about getting infringers to stop stealing (and I use the term loosely) from the studios, that's it. They can't turn back the clock, P2P is here to stay, but they can try to scare us into not using it.

Re:Funny thing is..

[EvilBuu]

My school got a letter (forwarded to me) that I was illegaly distributing some file named "Hostage_HFS.mov", which I couldn't even identify. Turns out it was one of those BMW shorts directed by various people, this one was John Woo I think, which were are probably still are freely available on the BMW website. I told both the school admin and the MPAA this and asked what they were doing sending me stupid letters, but never again heard so much as a peep.

Unfortunately I'm probably still on some watch-list.

Re:Funny thing is..

[cheekyboy]

make 100 random filenames with static content, or make a nice video that says, "FUK U MPAA" and just copy that one video as the 100 filenames using the top100 movies, and share em, then ignore the letters till you get to court order, then go in there plead incocent with proof and ask for $1m damages :)

Re:Funny thing is..

[karnal]

I've thought about this, but the whole problem with this tactic is that:

1. Since you've probably used P2P before, there probably has been some content that you've "shared" that was copywrighted.

2. These businesses aren't stupid, and if they pulled me into a lawsuit over the made-up files, I'm sure they'd have some ammo on me of the legitimate files I shared that were copyrighted.

So, while I thought about joining in this tactic, I'm actually thinking I'm better off just using Netflix.

Re:Funny thing is..

[91degrees]

These people are legal professionals. I suspect such a naive tactic would work for reasons that mere mortals liek us could not possibly understand.

Re:Funny thing is..

[Macgyver7017]

I'm a system administrator at a small college. While I was in Mexico for a week, with my computer off our network manager recieved a letter that my ip (static) had been sharing the movie "elf".

After some googleing I found that many other schools had recieved similar letters that were bogus. Either referring to ip addresses in ranges that had NEVER been assigned, or other circumstances that made it clear the letters were bogus. Our legal dept says we cant do anything except shut down the machines listsed in these letters because to do otherwise exposes the institution to legal liability.

Who gives people like the MPAA the ability to send out indiscriminate claims of illegal file sharing without reproach?

It's not legal in any case

[Dancin_Santa]

'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.

Re:It's not legal in any case

[Cosslax]

I asked someone at an AMC theatre why the cost of the tickets went up so much in the past few years. Their answer? "Because Regal's ticket prices went up." Are ticket prices going up because of theatres or because of Hollywood? Doesn't Hollywood just rent/sell the tapes to theatres and they can charge as much or as little as they want, and any money they make over the cost of the reels is theirs? Rising ticket prices are probably why we see so many massive multiplexes coming up; the theatres are making an assload of money off it. Granted this is all speculation, but hey.

Re:It's not legal in any case

[Ieshan]

Well, yeah, but what film do you want to see for as cheap as you want to see it?

Many of the films you probably want to see in a theater for their special effects and panoramic vistas and other theater-friendly things cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. On top of that, the actors demand insane fees.

You're right though, movie ticket prices *are* insane, and the best solution that I've found is to wait a month or so before it opens on one of our budget theaters. Also, artsy theaters with independant movies tend to be cheaper and nicer. Try those?

Re:It's not legal in any case

[antiMStroll]

People probably don't feel bad sharing because they don't consider bought legislation to hold as much moral weight.

Re:It's not legal in any case

[sootman]

I'm getting off the topic of sharing, but I'm less and less happy with theaters every time I go. Not only are the ticket prices going up, but they show 10 minutes (I shit you not--I timed it last time) of fucking ADS--not trailers, but fucking Coke ads*, Army ads, movietickets.com ads, a candy ad**, and I forget what else. And being a TiVo owner, my tolerance for ads has dropped dramatically as well.

Add to that the cell phones and crying babies and now, half the time I go out, I leave thinking "Fuck this, I'll just wait another year and rent it." I only go to movies now that I really, really want to see, so I'm down to about once a month, from an old average of 2-3x a month.

* not just "buy a coke in the lobby" ads, but these stupid 2-minute-long film-student "movie"/ads.

** for some new Hershey product that you couldn't even get in the lobby.

Re:It's not legal in any case

[dark_requiem]

I think just about everyone here understands that it is illegal to "share" copyrighted movies, music, etc without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, the issue that needs to be addressed is the MORALITY of these actions. Morality does not necessarily define legality. There are lots of people going around saying "Well, these companies are rich, and they rip off artists, and they won't miss it." They do NOT rip off artists, because the artists sign contracts agreeing to the terms they get. As to the "they're rich, won't miss it" argument, well I'm sure there's a bum you drive past on your way to work who thinks the same thing about YOUR money and YOUR posessions. Compared to him, you are filthy stinking wealthy. Does that give him some kind of claim to your property? No? Then you have no claim to the property of these companies, so stop trying to justify your theft. At least a guy who robs a convenience store doesn't pretend he's not doing anything wrong. If you're going to rob these companies, at least have the balls to come right out and admit that you're a theif and a criminal, and stop hiding behind the excuse of being the little guy.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

USENET

[Longtime Lurker]

This has always made me wonder. Why are they targetting just p2p and not USENET? I know you can pull down a lot of files from USENET with the benefit of a centralized server so you don't have to wait for a ton of people to jump on to get your bandwidth capped.

I always wondered why USENET is not targetted.

Re:USENET

[imemyself]

Usenet can kind of be a pain to search sometimes, and a lot of it is spread out on a lot of different newsgroups. There's also probably even more viruses and false stuff on usenet than P2P networks(atleast Ed2k).

Re:USENET

[marktaw.com]

http://www.newzbin.com/ - Search on Newzbin, download a file, plug it in to your usenet reader, poof.

But SHHHHHH you don't want them sueing usenet useres too.

Not that they will (not high profile enough), but let us enjoy it while it exists.

Re:USENET

[jonwil]

One thing to remember is that most ISP and free newsservers dont have anywhere near decent binary group stuff and that if you really want binaries you either need to find a newsserver that you probobly dont have permission to access but that you can access anyway because its beeen made public or you need to pay for usenet.

For those of us with DVD burners it's REALLY simpl

[ShatteredDream]

Rent a DVD from blockbuster
Play it with VideoLan client
Open up dvd smartripper
Rip the DVD
Run the ripped files through DVD2One
Burn to a DVD

Who the hell cares

[suckmysav]

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.

Re:Who the hell cares

[Kenja]

"the stuff that comes out of the "Entertainment Industry" is 99% A-Grade crapola"

Then why are people breaking the law by downloading the stuff?

Re:Who the hell cares

[suckmysav]

For the same reason that Usher sells records and Jennifer Lopez is a "star" I guess.

People are just goddam stupid.

Re:Who the hell cares

[Knnniggit]

Wow. I was under the impression I *enjoyed* movies. My bad...

Re:Who the hell cares

[Lord_Dweomer]

Wow, how in the hell did this elitist crap get modded up +4 insightful? Mods, you've been trolled HARD.

That's really fantastic that you don't like what they are making. You get a cookie for "going against the man".

Now get off your bloody high horse and realize that not everybody has the same elitist tastes as you do and that to the vast majority of people, the "Entertainment Industry" actually makes some things they enjoy.

Who cares what these numbnuts do? Well, apparently you do. If you didn't care you would just enjoy watching what you watch, and let people enjoy their own entertainment without judging them for it. I doubt these people are sitting at home getting all pissed off while they watch the latest Hollywood release thinking "the sooner suckmysav stops watching that indie crap the better"

Re:Who the hell cares

[suckmysav]

If you have enjoyed a movie with Jennifer Lopez in it then it is indeed "your bad"

Re:Who the hell cares

[antiMStroll]

That's exactly the point, file sharing allows me to bypass the locked down North American market and find great, undistributed movies from Japan and Korea. I use P2P precisely because Hollywood's output is 99% crap.

Re:Who the hell cares

[suckmysav]

> this elitist crap

Non sequiter;

elitist:
n : someone who believes in
rule by an elite group

Hmmm, I don't believe I have been advocating "rule by an elite group" at all. No, I most certainly haven't.

What you are doing here is typical of your average liberal "thinker". You are confusing being "elite" with being an "elitist", and I have a free clue for you in that regard. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being an "elite" person. Becoming "elite" is something that worthwhile people should aspire to, really.

Aspiring to be a dumbed down cretin who is addicted to the cathode ray teat and no-talent rap artists is not such an admirable thing I'm afraid.

To your average PC liberal, anybody who is more skilled or accomplished than the foolish rabble that make up the majority of their ranks should be shouted down as being "elitist" and (were you to actually follow their shouted directions) henceforth marginalised by society.

Just because bottom dwelling liberal cry babies have misappropriated the word "elitist" and have tried to pretend that it means "anybody who is not a card carrying member of the pop culture swilling, dumbed down mindless majority" doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

You clueless, politically correct buffoons did the same thing with the word "discriminate". Were I to believe you and your liberal cronies I would think that to discriminate at all is a horribly bad thing and worthy of nothing less than a public hanging at noon.

The fact is that every time you choose Coke over Pepsi, you are discriminating

OMG! The horror, the horror!

Just because you think that 50 Cent is a talented musician and that Lucy Liu resides at the pinnacle of the acting profession doesn't mean I can't look down on you with scorn and heap derision upon your sorry arse if I feel like it.

I suggest you learn to deal with it.

So, how's that for trolling, eh? I thought I did a pretty good job actually.

Re:Who the hell cares

[Lord_Dweomer]

Jesus christ, do you actually believe the dribbel your spouting?

This isn't about semantics, this is about you being a dick who can't understand that different people have different tastes, and then somehow thinking that your tastes are superior to everybody elses.

YOU'RE WRONG. There is no ultimate way to decide if something is good or bad. Yes, there might be a general consensus among people, but it is all opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an opinion, and I can't fault you for having one. What I CAN fault you for is judging other people based on their personal tastes.

Grow the hell up and realize that you are not cool just because you like different things than most people out there. I don't know whats more pathetic, the fact that you actually believe what you're saying, or the fact that at one point your original post was up to +5 insightful indicating that other people shared the same short-sightedness.

Re:Who the hell cares

[suckmysav]

> Jesus christ Sorry, I'm only Jesus Christ on sundays. > do you actually believe the dribbel your spouting? I thought I was trolling actually. I will try harder next time.

Re:Who the hell cares

[chris411]

You're absolutely right! I'm going to download a book on Shareaza RIGHT NOW!

Re:Who the hell cares

[TheoMurpse]

God i love pointing out hypocrisy:

"What I CAN fault you for is judging other people based on their personal tastes."

which was preceded by
"this is about you being a dick who can't understand that different people have different tastes, and then somehow thinking that your tastes are superior to everybody elses."

pot? kettle? black?

this is why defending a 'there is no absolute truth' viewpoint is impossible

Re:Who the hell cares

[Lord_Dweomer]

You fail to make a valid point. I was saying everybody is entitled to their own tastes, just not thinking their tastes are better than someone elses, because taste is personal.

You are not better than someone just because you like different things, you're just different.

Double Standard

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Double Standard

[antiMStroll]

Ooo-whee, such an inaccurate semi-coherent AC post rated to 3 already can only mean one thing. Everyone drop by and bid a hi-diddlie-ho (TM) to the MPAA astroturfers.

Re:Double Standard

[Joe Tie.]

How is this not a double standard?

Because it was two different people saying it?

Re:Double Standard

[2TecTom]

First off it's not "stealing", it's copyright infringement.

Secondly, much of what is copied would be public domain if copyright law had not changed.

Third, the public domain benefits us all, current laws hurt by diminishing our common culture.

Fourth, Mom was right, sharing is a good thing.

Fifth and finally, movies and music are way overpriced and these industries live far too well already.

Re:Double Standard

[anthony_dipierro]

While I don't think the word "stealing" should be used in either case, spam clearly is harassment, and I support at least civil laws against harassment. Distributing something which happened to written by someone else is completely different though. It's copyright infringement, not harassment, and I don't support laws against people who infringe copyright for non-profit purposes - civil or criminal.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:
"The movie industry has also tried to battle piracy by running ads in movie theaters and elsewhere designed to dissuade people from file-sharing films by stressing the risks of identity theft and liability."

How the hell is identity theft involved?

Re:Why only now?

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Re:Why only now?

[metlin]

It's not _exactly_ the first time.

The MPAA has been doing this for quite a while.

I remember when they sent a C&D letter to Pirate Bay, a filesharing site in Sweden for putting up the sound-track of Shrek on Torrent.

Ofcourse, the response was even better - classic Fuck You.

And I'm sure we all remember the fiasco of movie premiers being up on filesharing networks, and how the MPAA raised a ruckus.

Definitely not the first time, I guess they're just going to intensify their efforts more.

I'ts official

[Lehk228]

I will never pay for an MPAA movie in theater or on DVD again.

Re:I'ts official

[Lehk228]

actually more along the lines of "I won't pay for something from someone i don't like, and instead will shop elsewhere", purchasing only independantly released DVD'd and only seeing indie films in theater

but then again you are a fucktard who cannot comprehend the idea that not everyone is addicted to the next piece of trash from hollywood

Re:I'ts official

[tuxter]

So what if you like a movie released by them, are you not going to see it, or are you going to illegally copy it and watch it because you disagree with their business model? It always amazes me that if you have an opinion that is in any way different to the slashdot hordes you get flamed/modded down. And if you roll with the masses you get modded +3 funny because you have such an astounding grip of the english language that "fucktard" makes you giggle like a pre-pubescant schoolchild. Which you possibly are.

Re:I'ts official

[Lehk228]

are you not going to see it,

ding ding ding we have a winner

Yawn...

[Aaron England]

Dear MPAA, My ipaddress is 199.2.120.89. My slashdot username is my real name. I download most of my movies off suprnova.org. Oh yea, and I'm not afraid.

Re:Yawn...

[dukeisgod]

The popups are right "Warning, you are broadcasting your IP address over the internet..."

Re:Yawn...

[dtfinch]

Dear MPAA, and I once downloaded Star Trek: First Contact despite already having it on tape (still have the tape, good tape), and recently downloaded Fahrenheit 9/11 because it seems the producer wanted me to. My family probably owns about 30 DVD's and 50 tapes, all purchased, but I'm sure you don't care about those little details, just like the RIAA wouldn't care about our 40 or so purchased CD's. And I've been really bad about leeching. I know I should have done my part but my upload rate is capped very low.

Oh, I almost forgot. My local IP address is 192.168.0.100...

Re:Yawn...

[Gannoc]

Oh, I almost forgot. My local IP address is 192.168.0.100...

YOU MOTHER FUCKER, THAT'S MY IP ADDRESS!

You're trying to frame me!

Re:Yawn...

[Elliot Anderson]

Dear Aaron,

Your notice of cease and desist is in the mail.

Yours Sincerely, MPAA

Re:Yawn...

[krumms]

Dear MPAA, My ipaddress is 199.2.120.89. My slashdot username is my real name. I download most of my movies off suprnova.org. Oh yea, and I'm not afraid.

Please, stop being so fucking arrogant. You're not invincible. You're not invisible. You're not safe (unless you happen to be living abroad - in which case, what are you bragging about?).

Excuse the bluntness, but jesus christ. People's lives have been ruined by this sort of shit and you're dancing around like you're some sort of special exception?

Good for you for not being caught yet, but if/when you do you won't have my sympathy.

Re:Yawn...

[pyrrhonist]

Dear MPAA, My ipaddress is 199.2.120.89. My slashdot username is my real name. I download most of my movies off suprnova.org. Oh yea, and I'm not afraid.

Dear Mr. England,

Thank you for providing us with your machine information. We have fixed the situation to better serve your secure viewing needs:

$ nmap -P0 -sT 199.2.120.89

Starting nmap 3.70 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap ) at 2004-11-03 22:47 Eastern Standard Time
Interesting ports on 199.2.120.89:
PORT STATE SERVICE
22/tcp open ssh

Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 1.732 seconds

$ supersshnuke --root-shell 199.2.120.89

Contacting 199.2.120.89... Connected!
Detecting SSH version... Done!
SSH on this machine is: older than dirt
Attempting sploit... PWNED!
Dropping you into a root shell...

# wget -q http://mpaa.org/rootkit/linux/suite-6.22.sh
# sh suite-6.22.sh
MPAA Customer Compliance Suite V6.22
Downloading MCCS Components... 100%
Installing MCCS... 100%
Configuring MCCS... 100%
Starting MCCS...
Done!
# tail /var/log/messages
Nov 3 22:59:50 localhost mccs: blocked evil site "suprnova.org"
Nov 3 22:59:56 localhost mccs: killed evil p2p application "edonkey"
Nov 3 22:59:57 localhost mccs: killed evil p2p application "bitorrent"
Nov 3 22:59:58 localhost mccs: killed evil p2p application "irc"
Nov 3 23:00:10 localhost mccs: DRM compliance scan started...
Nov 3 23:02:12 localhost mccs: deleting non-compliant file, "speed-movie.mp4"
Nov 3 23:02:13 localhost mccs: deleting non-compliant file, "lordofrings.divx"
Nov 3 23:02:14 localhost mccs: deleting MPAA embarrassment, "free-willy.mp4"
Nov 3 23:02:15 localhost mccs: deleting non-compliant file, "deep-throat.mp4"

Your computer is now safe from non-compliance. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,
Mortimer Snerd
MPAA Compliance Officer

Re:Yawn...

[darnok]

> Excuse the bluntness, but jesus christ. People's
> lives have been ruined by this sort of shit and
> you're dancing around like you're some sort of
> special exception?

No, people's lives have been "ruined" because they shared movies, which violates existing law in many countries, and they got caught doing it. Their lives would not have been "ruined" if they hadn't done so.

Yes, it really is that simple.

There's many ways of changing these laws if you feel they're wrong; unfortunately, many of the traditional ways (e.g. challenge in court) are impractical due to the sheer size and financial holdings of those companies you'd be taking on.

The grandparent poster is using another well-proven method, known as "civil disobedience". The theory is, if enough people disobey a law, it becomes unenforceable and is eventually nuked out of existence.

I admire his bravery for taking a stance on what he believes; maybe sooner or later he or someone else will organize a large scale "Copy a CD or movie today" day, get it well-publicised and that'll take things to the next level.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure is going to suck when they try to take my neighbors to court. Someone doesn't know about unsecured wireless modems.

Now that we have proven...

[IBitOBear]

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.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

The pendulum analogy is flawed. It assumes that there is some natural universal law that dictates that once things reach their limit, it is inevitable that it swing back the other way. This is indeed true when applied to certain situations, but nothing says that it applies to every situation, or even to this one.

The MPAA has the financial resources and the political might to possibly "tie" that pendulum down as soon as it swings far enough their way. If you help swing it, are you so certain that they won't nail it in place at the edge of its arc?

Re:Now that we have proven...

[suckmysav]

"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."

Amen to that brother! I was rooting for Shrub to win the election for that very reason! He is pretty much despised (and rightly so) down here in Australia, and you'd better believe that the people I told that to reacted with shock and disbelief.

The sooner the U.S. destroys itself, the sooner the rest of us can carry on our lives without being subjected to every base pop media fad to emerge from the rancid American slum-culture de jour.

Just why a middle class Australian would want to emulate the lifestyle of a crack addicted black urban slum dweller eludes me.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[zors]

Please. There is no country in the world where its >legal to bootleg movies.

You don't have the right to the latest movies. If you think they're not worth paying for or waiting for them to come out on video, then dont watch them. Three minute songs that are half samples anyways are one thing, but hours and hours of film and TV? Be honest people.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[antiMStroll]

Usually when a system swings so far to one extreme it can't return, it's called broken.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[krymsin01]

It'll be legal on my floating island, and I'll call it Piratopia. BOW DOWN!

Re:Now that we have proven...

[HybridJeff]

Three minute songs that are half samples anyways are one thing, but hours and hours of film and TV?

TV/movies/books/music/wahtever. If you can justify pirating one of them, you can justify pirating any of them. They're all morally equal in my book.

Oh, I almost forgot games, PC, xbox, etc. They're good too. ITs all just a risk/reward calculation. What are the chances of getting cought, and identified through my isp, and prosecuted, and convicted? (not very high, and even less here in Canada). As long as companies and the government keep Mickeymousing copyright, 10 years, 30 years, 50 years, copywrite infringement will remain completly moral. If we break the system by disregarding its rules, eventually a better, fairer one will take its place.

That aside, I do pay for some copywritten works. The producers just have to give me some reason to purchase instead of pirate (and a shiney box usually isnt enough).

Re:Now that we have proven...

[HybridJeff]

YOU DO NOT DESERVE THE FRUIT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LABOR

You know what? You're absolutly right. Of course we dont deserve the right to other people labor. But people dont deserve most of what they get in life. Be it good or bad, lifes not fair that way. But that doesnt mean that its wrong to take advantage of the situation and get ahead while you can. If ive got a means to gain somthing, be it knowledge, entertainment, or anythign else, if it doesnt take away from or harm someone esle, im going to go for it. Nerds in their rooms using bit torrent will NOT bring the industry to its knees. It will just anger them, make them more strict and less likely to listen to reason.

On that point I'd like to point somthign out. Nerds sitting in their rooms have made a difference. Ever heard of iTunes, movielink, or netflicks? It would be impossible to download movies or music online legally if people hadn't pirated them first. We'd still be stuck having to go to the store and purchase or rent hard copies of evreything if hollywood and the music industry hadn't had their hands forced.

And participate in our government. people who disagree with the system should become consumer rights advocates. raise money, hire lobbyists, support candidates, make tv commercials. co-opt the current political parties. work the system

I never suggested not working the system. But working the system doesnt mean you cant also work outside of the system. Not all people can afford to put out TV commercials for propaganda, hire lobbyists, or switch careers. That doesnt mean they should be unable to play a part. Part of the process in changing society is doing what you feel is right, and then working to make it legal. Unjust laws should not be followed, they should be broken, and shown to be the mistakes that they are.

Anyways, im tired and im going to bed. I doubt that I will be able to bring you over to my way of thinking (and tahts not really the goal anywyas), or you me. If anyone continues this line of discussion further, I'll take a look and comment on it tommorow.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[phaze3000]

YOU DO NOT DESERVE THE FRUIT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LABOR.

You are quite right. Movie stars work damn hard for a living, often having to work with only two or three months off a year. In compensation all they recieve is $10 million or more. Per picture.

Movie studios expend huge sums of money making films and recieve only only a few thousand million dollars in revenue for their effort!

You pirates should be ashamed of yourselves, you're taking from some of the most under-privileged people in the world, just so you can be entertained for an hour or two.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[goatan]

YOU DO NOT DESERVE THE FRUIT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LABOR.

I think others deserve (if they want it) the fruits of my labours.

Nerds in their rooms using bit torrent will NOT bring the industry to its knees. It will just anger them, make them more strict and less likely to listen to reason

It's beyond nerds in there bedroom as the previous lawsuit show a lot of people from children to grandparents use P2P, when you punish a potential customer it is they who get angry and stop buying the companies products. Most people in my work who have a computer and internet have used P2P a lot of them for music that is unavailable any more, the rest to see if they like the music then they go and buy it. P2P is allowing unknown or no longer available artists to get heard whilst heavily advertised rubbish is dismissed. P2P is performing the job that radio used to specifically "pirate"* radio, anyone who really likes the music or film is not going put up with the quality of the product you get through P2P. It's just like how my parent's generation ended buying the music they tapped of the radio even if it was 20 years afterwards in some cases.

so called because they where illegal broadcasts usually done by a ship on the seas.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[Stickster]

You are quite right. Movie stars work damn hard for a living, often having to work with only two or three months off a year. In compensation all they recieve is $10 million or more. Per picture.

I can't believe you haven't thought this through more clearly. With this attitude, I can't imagine you're employed full-time, much less supporting a family, as I am.

Movie stars are not the only people who are employed when it comes to making a movie. What about the literally hundreds or even thousands of craftspeople and crew? Gaffers, set decorators, costumers, model makers, lighting and electrical workers, construction, and so on? They are not making $10 million per film. A lot of these people are just eking out a living. Illegal downloading deprives a movie studio of income (whether you think they "earned" it or not). The less they make, the less likely they are to make more movies -- or the more likely they are to make fewer movies, to be a bit more exact. The fewer movies they make, the more crew and craftspeople will be unemployed. Now the government can support them with unemployment checks.

Hooray! You've really bucked the system there!

Movie stars get paid what the market will bear, just like I do for my job. If you want movie stars to get paid less, don't go see blockbuster films where the stars are getting paid millions for their performance. See independents or low-budget major studio films instead. But don't put crew and craftspeople out of work, simply because you lack the common sense to realize you're doing it. That's inexcusable.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[harrkev]

You know what? You're absolutly right. Of course we dont deserve the right to other people labor. But people dont deserve most of what they get in life. Be it good or bad, lifes not fair that way. But that doesnt mean that its wrong to take advantage of the situation and get ahead while you can. If ive got a means to gain somthing, be it knowledge, entertainment, or anythign else, if it doesnt take away from or harm someone esle, im going to go for it.

But the point is that people ARE being harmed. If you spent your hard-earned money to make the next indie film, and sales were dissapointing, but people were pirating like crazy, then you would be mad as hell, and rightfully so! People would be enjoying the movie that you poured yourself into, but you would have no help paying off the 3rd mortgage that you had to take out in order to finance the film.

A lot of people seem to have a "Robin Hood" mentality. It is OK to steal from the rich (big comanies) and give to the poor (themselves). As long as it is a faceless organization with a four-letter-acronym, then they do not care.

I think that the DMCA is the biggest load of malarky that I have seen in a long time, but can you blame the RIAA/MPAA?

Let me throw out a scenario from an alternate reality. It is far-fetched, but stick with me here:

The world: very much like our own, but all citizens were honest. There is no such thing as piracy, and the word "piracy" does not even exist. Everybody pays for everything that they use. Now, the MPAA/RIAA does not even need more than a token lawyer. There is no DMCA, because it would solve a problem that nobody even thought of. There is no CSS on a DVD player, because it is not needed. Playing a DVD on Linux is trivial, and the player is included in every distro (there is no "we can't give you this RPM in America" bull). You can use Alcohol 120% all you want, because the game companies know that you will use it for convenience, not piracy, and they do not care. P2P can be used freely because it is used for legal purposes. You can copy MP3s on and off of you iPod all you want! There is to DRM on any software or media. All of your music can be played on your PC without having to buy dry-erase markers! A DVD can be copies to a VHS tape, because it is fair use, and is only a media change. The word "Macrovision" does not even exist. Windows would NOT even have WPA, and games would not need a "play disc," but would instead run right off of the hard drive.

This sounds like geek utopia. And I would rather be part of the solution than part of the problem. So, if I want to watch a movie at home, I rent or buy it. I do not download games unless they are free/shareware. If I wanted Doom 3, I would shell out the $50 that they ask for it.

I do agree that the MPAA/RIAA have used lawyers when the SHOULD have been using geeks. The recording studios are like dinosaurs: they should be able to see the changing environment and either adapt or die. They should have opened up the first on-line music distribution well before Napster came out. Their bad. But two wrongs do NOT make a right - and never will.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[stanmann]

RIGHT, "crew and craftspeople" don't lose their jobs due to piracy, In fact, they work just about year round and they certainly don't make subsistence income.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[phaze3000]

I can't believe you haven't thought this through more clearly. With this attitude, I can't imagine you're employed full-time, much less supporting a family, as I am.

Actually, I currently have one full-time job and also run my own business in the evenings/weekends. But that's quite enough attention paid to the personal insults.

My post was, in a rather tounge-in-cheek way, pointing out the huge unfairness within the movie system. If a film were to make $10 million instead of $100 million, then I would hope that the stupidly huge salaries that many of the actors earn, even those with little or no talent (*cough*Nicolas Cage*cough*).

I'd also take issue with your assertion that 'Illegal downloading deprives a movie studio of income'. I download plenty of films. I also watch plenty at the cinema, and buy plenty of DVDs.

Things really aren't as clear cut as you like to make them out to be.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[Charcharodon]

We wonder that as well. Personally I think we need to bring back the whole "punch them in the face when they are being stupid" method of child rearing. It would stop this nonsense cold by age 12.

My "hard core" hick cousin, he's 19 knows everything. We'll see how "hard" he is when he meets some of the real city kids when he joins the Army next week.

It's like "look dude you're white and a hick to boot"
"Naw dauwg I'm hard core from the street East syide"
"No dude you live off of Rural Route 5 with your parents. The nearest house is two miles away, you're a red neck, get over it"
"Man don't make me get my gat and pop a cap in yo asss"
"That isn't a gat dude, it's a camoflauge painted hunting shotgun, and you keep it in the gun rack in your window"
"Don't be dissin my ride yo"
"Blue neon lights you bought from Walmart don't change the fact that it's a beater pickup truck.
"What ever dauwg"

Re:Now that we have proven...

[zaffir]

But the point is that people ARE being harmed. If you spent your hard-earned money to make the next indie film, and sales were dissapointing, but people were pirating like crazy, then you would be mad as hell, and rightfully so! People would be enjoying the movie that you poured yourself into, but you would have no help paying off the 3rd mortgage that you had to take out in order to finance the film.

If enough people for you to have made your money back and then some were pirating your movie, you aren't in bad shape. Far more people pay to see a movie than pirate it. Especially those who are into the indie movie scene. They believe in supporting artists. And even if some indie filmmaker was being pirated into the ground, he would probably be thrilled that this many people are just watching his film.

You can use Alcohol 120% all you want, because the game companies know that you will use it for convenience, not piracy, and they do not care.

Actually many new games detect that Alcohol is installed and refuse to play, even if it isn't running. I copy all of my games to my hard drive for convenience - lugging a binder full of CDs to lan parties bites. I refuse to buy a game that won't play with Alcohol. Of course i wouldn't even need to worry about scratched CDs and using up HD space if the cd checks weren't in the games.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[twosmokes]

Who modded this insightful?

Culture isn't exported as much as it's imported. There has to be a market for the "crack addicted black urban slum dweller" lifestyle. If that's what middle class Australia is all about, I'm sorry, but don't blame that on America.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[Zixia]

Of course we dont deserve the right to other people labor. But people dont deserve most of what they get in life. Be it good or bad, lifes not fair that way. But that doesnt mean that its wrong to take advantage of the situation and get ahead while you can.

Maybe not absolutely wrong, but it is morally dubious, certainly. None of us lives an entirely isolated existance, and are connected to a society in one way or another. In order for this society, which brings us such entertainment in the form of films, to continue to thrive a governing body has laid down a set of rules, or laws, for the people, as a whole, to follow.

So, no, it may not be 'wrong' to infringe the copyright of film studios in some sense, but it is certainly anti-social.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[cayenne8]

"Actually many new games detect that Alcohol is installed and refuse to play, even if it isn't running. I copy all of my games to my hard drive for convenience - lugging a binder full of CDs to lan parties bites."

Can you elaborate on this 'Alcohol' used with computer games? I thought the first poster was talking about drinking something like grain alcohol while playing, but, I'm guessing this is actually a program that lets you do something with computer games? Do you have links or info on what this is and what it does?

Re:Now that we have proven...

[dark_requiem]

Oh come on, "subjected"? Is this "A Clockwork Orange"? Is someone tying you down and making you listen to Brittany Spears? No? Then quit whining and don't listen/watch/buy what you don't like. You DO have a free will of your own, even if your will is merely to emulate America's crap-pop, you still chose it. And btw, how does this have anything to do with the MPAA's attempt to defend its legitimately owned property? If someone steals from you, you expect just compensation, right? So do they, and rightly so. They CREATED this content, they own it, and "sharing" it is theft. Copying a DVD onto a video tape to watch at a friend's house because they don't have a DVD player is fair use. Copying it to tape and giving it to a friend for his personal use, while you retain the original DVD for your personal use, is theft and copyright infringement. If you do this, the MPAA is right to sue you (if they can find you), and I for one applaud their actions as a defense of basic property rights.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[zaffir]

Alcohol

Basically it's a CD/DVD drive emulator along the lines of Daemon Tools. You rip your game CD to an image format - Alcohol supports iso, bin&cue, clone cd images, and many more. Then you can "mount" the CD in a virutal drive, and the game thinks its in a physical drive, when really it's just being read off of your hard drive.

Most of my games that require the CD to be in the drive think that it is with Alcohol running. It even has settings for copying PlayStation 2 DVDs (although you'll still need a mod chip to run them).

It'll also burn CDs from images.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[crotherm]

Just why a middle class Australian would want to emulate the lifestyle of a crack addicted black urban slum dweller eludes me.

Actually they don't. That was the whole point of the election. More people think that morals are more important than Bush's unnecessary wars or the massive deficit. Those same people probably have kids who are as red voting as them.

While I do see that morals are important, I don't think they are as important as the other topics. Besides, to me, moral issues are personal, not political.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[Kootaphor]

*black American person taking a deep breath*

Easy on the oversimplification there, suck. The U.S.A. is a nation under siege, no doubt. But please point the blame in the right direction, and I'd appreciate if you'd watch the racial implications. Sort of a hot button topic over here, ya know.

A lot of what you refer to, yeah, we hate it as much as you do. But not all Americans are pop-culture stupid, and not all blacks are crack addicted urban slum dwellers. I know you never said it, but that's what it sort of looks like.

On one hand, I'm very much a hip-hop fan--"black" culture is rapidly becoming the dominant culture in the United States. In many ways, this is very cool--the unfortunate legacy of brown people subjugation here has made for some beautiful and valuable cultural contributions.

In many other ways, this sucks--I'm as annoyed as you (probably moreso) with seeing nothing but gold chain wearing booty-smacking foul mouthed loud people (who happen to be brown like me)on TV all the time. Because the problem is that you're getting a minority of the minority.

People in TV think that kids want to see goofy black people on MTV, that's what you get; magnified by a degree for sake of making it popular. Yeah, what you see on TV is sort of like black culture here--and in many ways not...it's just that the ways that its NOT don't really make it to the TV screen.

jrm4.com

Re:Now that we have proven...

[grimwell]

YOU DO NOT DESERVE THE FRUIT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LABOR.

Ahhh, but we do deserve the fruit of other people's creative work. "We the people" aka US Gov't are the ones that grant copyrights(within the USA) and enforce them.

Copyright was established to promote the Arts&Sciences.(Notice I didn't say to make a profit off of creative endeavors) The idea was to give the author/inventor a limited monopoly for a limit time period, after which the work(e.g. play) would enter the PUBLIC DOMAIN. I believe the original copyright term was 7 years with an option to renew for another 7 years, after that it was in the public domain.

Once in the public domain everyone could freely enjoy the work(and build upon it).

So it boils down to copyright is a social contract between artist/scientists and the general public. We the people are saying to encourge the creation of new works we'll let you control the publishing of said work for a limited time, after which it is free for us to do with as we please. i.e. it becomes part of our shared culture.

The problem is Congress has taken the phrase "for a limited time" to mean author's lifetime plus 75 years(and I think 125 years if the work "belongs" to a corporation). Which means currently for example music from the 60s won't start entering the public domain until 2085. This is preverse and does nothing to promote the Arts&Sciences!

Basically what you and Congress are saying it is that improving culture,arts & science(aka giving back to society) isn't as important as making a buck.

What a wonderfully selfish, love-less world you are building for future generations. My hat's off to ya.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[Carnildo]

Please. There is no country in the world where its >legal to bootleg movies.

Not quite true. Iran doesn't recognize copyright, so bootleg movies are perfectly legal there.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[HybridJeff]

I agree with you on all but two points.

But the point is that people ARE being harmed.

Prove it. Since I've started downloading copywritten content, Ive bought more movies, games and music tha n ever before in my life.

This sounds like geek utopia. And I would rather be part of the solution than part of the problem. So, if I want to watch a movie at home, I rent or buy it. I do not download games unless they are free/shareware. If I wanted Doom 3, I would shell out the $50 that they ask for it.

I do rent and buy movies, but I also download them. But I dont believe that doing so will in any way help to fix the problem and lead us into that "geek utopia" you described (which would definatly be a good thing).

I do agree that the MPAA/RIAA have used lawyers when the SHOULD have been using geeks. The recording studios are like dinosaurs: they should be able to see the changing environment and either adapt or die. They should have opened up the first on-line music distribution well before Napster came out. Their bad. But two wrongs do NOT make a right - and never will.

That all maske sense, except for one tiny thing you're overlooking. Where are the two wrongs? All I see is the movie companies being greedy (which is their perrogative, I dont blame them for wanting to make more and more money) and people looking for ways to save money and add convienence. The result is the system we have now, which isnt going to change no matter how many people they sue. If the movie companies continue to produce less and less worthwile content, I will continue to pirate more and more, conversly, if they make it more worthwhile to purchase their product, I'll spend more and more of my money on it. This is how capitalism works, It is completly give and take, risk and reward, plus and minus. I for one will continue to deal with the existing system as it is, while also working to improve it at the same time.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[HybridJeff]

So, no, it may not be 'wrong' to infringe the copyright of film studios in some sense, but it is certainly anti-social.

I'll agree with you there. Downloading a movie and watching it at home is definatly less social than going out to a movie with someone.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[Matt_Joyce]

'brown people', is that the current PC term or your own preference ?

In england when I grew up, 'brown' would be not ok, 'coloured' would have been ok though.
'coloured' does sound a bit past tense though, like something happend. pretty daft.

Here in Australia, the indiginous people are often called Black Fellas, i don't know if it causes offence though.

Re:Now that we have proven...

[Kootaphor]

Hehe, that was my own little usage. There was a big push for "African-American" a few years ago, and it's still used in a lot of formal situations --but I think pretty much everyone now thinks that's both unwieldy and sort of inaccurate (What about white South-Africans? People with Arab backgrounds?)

"Black" is pretty much the standard--in fact, here-- "brown" is often used for and by the Latino/Hispanic/ (people who speak Spanish but aren't from Spain, basically) community. (which further illustrates the silliness of "race," since Hispanic people do come in all colors,even moreso than us "descendants of African slaves." )

"Colored" also sounds very old-school here, but some people do use "People of Color." Like you'd call a tall person a "Person of Height." HA.

it's all silly, what can ya do....

Not.

[RealProgrammer]

No one waits to see who will be President to file copyright infringement lawsuits. The President has no affect whatsoever on the outcome of civil lawsuits to which the Executive Branch of the U.S. Goverment is not a party.

Maybe you're confused about the shameful treatment of the DOJ/Microsoft case?

Wont...

[dark-br]

mount /mnt/cdrom; cp -r VIDEO_TS /temp; eject (put in blank dvd9 media; dvdgrowisofs -Z dvd-video /temp/VIDEO_TS be *much* easyer?

Wooooohooooo

[IamGarageGuy 2]

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.

Re:Wooooohooooo

[Txiasaeia]

Looks like another Canadian who's sore that Bush won ;) You wouldn't believe how many of my collagues up here are bitching about the election - and we don't even live in the US!

Ahem. You do know that the CRIA took a page from the RIAA's book when they took filesharers to court (or attempted to), right? What's to stop the movie industry from doing the same thing in a year or so?

I love my DVD collection. I would rather have films than music any day of the week. Having said that, the only films I download are ones that I a) can't get at blockbuster or b) haven't seen and am considering purchasing. For instance, about a year ago I downloaded Throne of Blood to check it out, seeing as how the DVD is up around $50 (criterion). Absolutely loved the film & am buying it as soon as I can find a retailer in Canada who will sell it to me. I download 'em, watch 'em once and more often than not delete them just before I go out and buy them. If this is wrong in any way, shape or form, well, sit me in front of a jury and let me explain myself to *them*.

Re:Wooooohooooo

[bigberk]

Glad I live in Canada and not some oppressed nation

You're being overconfident. Both the Liberals and the NDP support ratification of WIPO which formed the DMCA in the US. If you think your politicians in Canada are protecting your right to fair use of media, you're wrong. Why not head on over to the digital-copyright forums and get involved; fight for your right to fair use of digital media.

Re:Wooooohooooo

[ssand]

Apparently you haven't tried walking out of Best Buy with a shopping cart full of dvds ...

Re:Wooooohooooo

[Devalia]

Its now a £80 fine in the UK for shoplifting/burgarly up to £200 -- cant really see how the same fine wouldnt apply to movies making the total risk much lower.

Really crap law tbh, burglary is now no worse than parking on a yellow line or speeding

Takes one to know one...

[petra13]

Ok, in all fairness I haven't verified whether or not this is true (feel free to correct me)- but supposedly the reason the movie industry established itself in California in the first place was because people who wanted to make movies were having patent issues with Thomas Edison. They went out west where enforcing patent law wasn't a big deal and screwed Edison out of a profit.

So now the RIAA are going to go after people for violating copyright law and screwing them out of their profit. *Sigh* Not that it's the same people in charge now... but still. Anyone want to vote hypocritical bastards?

Re:Takes one to know one...

[drseuss9311]

oh, mod this upward please... short and sweet, right to the point!

Re:Takes one to know one...

[michaeldot]

I'd always thought they set up shop in California for the same reason they didn't go to Seattle: more rain free days than any other part of the country.

Re:Takes one to know one...

[davmoo]

How are they any more hypocritical than the average slashdotter who wants to see anyone who violates the GPL with their head on a pike, yet sees nothing wrong with someone violating the copyright on music or movies?

Re:Takes one to know one...

[davmoo]

And for the millionth time, I know that. And it is also totally irrelevant to my argument.

The GPL is a license that describes your rights to use and copy the material it is on.

A copyright also is a license that describes your rights to use and copy the material it is on.

If we want others to respect the GPL, then we must also respect their copyrights...even if we don't agree with them. The laws that we use to argue that the GPL is valid are the very same laws that make copyright valid. If copyright is invalid, then the GPL is equally invalid.

If we don't like current copyright law, then we need to work to change it. But at no time do we have the right to ignore it because we don't like it. And the fact that copyright and GPL are 180 degrees opposed does ot change that.

Re:Takes one to know one...

[brarrr]

they went out to hollywood not because patent law wasn't a big thing... but because it was close to mexico and they could just pop away if trouble was a coming. pretty interesting story.

same with the original on site production offices - they were 'permanent' little bungaloes that were somewhat in the spanish mission style - there are tons around socal, and a few up the west coast. little buildings made in the 20s that have now been converted to houses, restaurants, etc.

oh well, no omre to see here

Re:Takes one to know one...

[Mr.Progressive]

Lawrence Lessig wrote about that in his book Free Culture (freely available online). He talks about it on Page 67 and shows his references on Page 317

Re:Takes one to know one...

[deblau]

Which would be really ironic, because Edison screwed Georges Melies out of a huge profit from Le Voyage dans la Lune , which is one of the seminal sci-fi / fantasy movies of the early 20th century.

Re:Takes one to know one...

[LegionX]

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?

Re:Takes one to know one...

[anthony_dipierro]

Screwing someone over and defending yourself from getting screwed over isn't hypocrisy, it's the American way.

Seriously, it'd only be hypocrisy if they said Edison was wrong because there shouldn't be IP laws and then said copyright violaters were wrong because there should be IP laws. It's not even hypocrisy to utilize a law you don't believe in. That would kind of defeat the whole purpose of the FSF and GPL, now wouldn't it?

Re:Takes one to know one...

[antiMStroll]

Your country must use "irrelevant" in a way unfamiliar to me. Where I live, in a discussion about file sharing, saying one thing enforces sharing and another prevents it is dead on topic. Same with "copyright", in my land it's not a license, it's a law, a legal right. The GPL(icense)'s power rests on copyright because it's forced to, it cleverly uses copyright, through promoting cooperation with the promise of getting more than you give, to circumvent those who would lock down the expression of ideas. In a world without copyright it's true the GPL wouldn't be possible, but in this context it wouldn't be necessary. All expressions of ideas would be naturally shared freely.

Your final line really is irrelevant though, since your grandparent post said nothing about strict adherence because it's the law. Nor is it one I agree with when the law in question is so obviously bought by special interests and counter to the intent of the country's founders.

Why isn't anyone surprised?

[binderhead126]

This was obviously going to happen at some point. It may be somewhat easier for them to crack down on because movie piracy isn't as mainstream as music sharing. My MOM knew how to use Kazaa, but never will be able to figure out IRC or BitTorrent. The mainstream "average joe" may not have a high speed connection or a DVD burner to make it worth his time. However, since the idea behind BitTorrent is that everyone shares with everyone, it may be more widespread than I think. Downloading movies hasn't become "mainstream" in my definition. Many people I asked recently had no idea that movies could be downloaded or what BitTorrent was. I think it is more isolated. Maybe not. Next will be the TV networks, cracking down on those crazy idiots who download entire seasons form unsecure BitTorrent networks, and then sell them on eBay USING THEIR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS, sometimes before the season has even ended! Why dont they just have their paychecks directly deposited into the coffers of the networks, because they will get sued sooner or later. So much for something for nothing...

Re:Why isn't anyone surprised?

[mark-t]

That's only because nobody has yet made a nice and easy interface for those systems that would enable even a person with no prior training to quickly and easily find something they might want and download it.

Hopefully their searching methods have improved.

[MoneyT]

A few years ago, I recieved a letter requesting that I stop sharing a movie or be sued. Problem was, I didn't have the movie, nor was I running the service which they claimed it was being shared on (eDonkey)

Cease and Desist!

[tsm_sf]

Interesting... my ISP just forwarded a C&D email from the MPAA aimed at my IP address. I'll be curious (an understatement!) to see if they are successful in getting my snail mail address out of my ISP after the Verison decision.

I /had/ a wireless router running to provide access to anyone in range (it'll be back up after I get around to blocking off everything but 80 and 25, i guess), but I'm assuming that the whole "common carrier" exemption to network traffic only applies to corporations large enough to buy their own congressman.

So... is this the end of offering open access to your neighborhood? I have no interest in monitoring traffic over my network, but it looks like the buck stops at the little guy (as usual).

Re:Cease and Desist!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure your ISPs ToS allowed an open connection to anyone and everyone in your neighborhood?

Re:Cease and Desist!

[tsm_sf]

Yeah, they don't care. They actually offer a service where I can resell bandwidth like this, but don't mind if I give it away.

Re:Cease and Desist!

[tsm_sf]

I was just dashing off a quick note, not trying to be all-inclusive.

Been thinking about this a bit, and it really is an all-or-nothing issue. If I'm responsible for all traffic on my network then I'm just as open to Terra/kiddie-porn stuff coming in over the web as I am to filesharing issues.

I guess I'd like to see some boilerplate agreement I could put up on a website & then have my SSID be the URL (tinyurl.com ?). Anyone know if that'd Cover My Ass?

Good thing the world doesn't have any real problems these jerks could be applying themselves to.

What exactly is the objection?

[cait56]

Just a thought for consideration.

Perhaps the RIAA's actions are objectionable not because they are protecting Intellectual Property rights, but because they are using illegal search techniques and shotgun accusation techniques in a clumbsy attempt to do so.

I for one would have no objection to the MPAA suing people whom they have determined are offering copyrighted material for download based upon public web pages or other public directories. And where they have actually downloaded enough of the file to verify that it is indeed the copyrighted material and not just a matching file name.

Re:What exactly is the objection?

[DarkKnightRadick]

I completely agree. If the MPAA can use such tactics, I would have no objections to them suing people infringing on their IP. I am trying to go legit myslef, but it's hard w/o a job.

Re:What exactly is the objection?

[Malek the Damned]

One of the companies my place of work provides connectivity for got a C&D from the MPAA (i think, might have been the production company) for downloading and re-sharing "Season 3 of Charmed" on eDonkey.

It was, in fact, the first ISO of Debian Sarge, it was just misnamed on the network. so it's obvious they're just doing the whole "scattershot" approach to this: search, get IP's, send letter, repeat.

Managed to be amusing and worrysome at the same time.

Re:What exactly is the objection?

[cheekyboy]

Someone make a php script to generate *ALL* movies ever made into a fake directory listing and share that. Give it out to 1000000 people and watch them send $10000000 worth of letters

Re:What exactly is the objection?

[Hobbex]

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.

Re:What exactly is the objection?

[farnz]

Provided your concept of public directory includes the search facilities provided by P2P clients, I'm in agreement.

So long as all these copyright owners check for infringement before they send a C&D or sue, and don't do anything illegal to discover whether you are sharing copyrighted material, they can sue any infringer they like in my opinion. If that means that they run P2P clients and use the built-in search mechanism to find infringers, I'm happy. I'm only unhappy if they do one of the two following things:

1. Attempt to crack into my machine to see if I've got potentially infringing content that I could share. This should be obvious; if I'm not making it publically available, I'm not infringing.
2. Claim that a file is infringing before checking it. I should be able to put OpenOffice exes up for download as "Office.exe" without getting accused of piracy; I should be able to put up a file called "StarTrek.mpg" (a film of stars moving across the night sky) without getting accused of anything other than trademark infringement.

Re:What exactly is the objection?

[cait56]

That's why I've also had problems with the RIAA going after downloaders, rathr than concentrating on those that made the material available.

For one thing it is next to impossible to prove intent to defraud when someone downloads. Their intended use could qualify as "fair use", or they might not realize what they are downloading.

Most women wearing certain types of attire and standing on street corners are indeed engaging in prostitution, but that doesn't mean we allow the police to simply assume they are. The RIAA and MPAA should have to follow the same sort of rules, which means they should concentrate on those providing the files rather than on those downloading them.

Particularly with movies, the decision to offer multiple copyrighted movies for others to download is hardly something somebody could do without intent.

Re:What exactly is the objection?

[Malek the Damned]

Yup. And make *insert network you're flooding with this crap* completely useless in the process, because there's now 1,000,000 false-named files on it.

Perraps more than a cursory mental examination of the problem next time, hmmm?

Re:Why only now?

[Eric Giguere]

Probably because hard disks capacities are so large and DVD burners are now pretty much standard equipment on PCs. There must be a corresponding increase in movie pirating, critical mass must have been reached.

Me, I wish they had a "burn on demand" (BOD) model where you pay a minimal fee (think rental cost, ideally cheaper) and get to burn a movie on DVD. No case, no extras, just the movie.... I guess video-on-demand is almost the same...

Speaking of lawyers: Vioxx is Prozac for lawyers

Foresight is a gift

[RyoShin]

It's a good thing I've gone legit. While I might have MP3s that are considered illegal, I'm working hard at replacing those with positively legitimite ones, by actually buying the CDs.

I used to be big into downloading possibly infringing movies, mp3s, etc., but I've wisened up to the fact that, even though they may charge horrible prices, I might still be stealing. It also helped that I have a semi-steady paycheck now, so I can afford to get the legit copies/versions of what I might have had.

I could still use the filesharing programs to download a movie/song to try it out. There's not a good rental place in the area, and you can't rent CDs anyway. I don't want to buy a $16 CD because I liked one song. I'd prefer to hear the full thing first.

Re:Foresight is a gift

[__int64]

"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.

Re:Foresight is a gift

[Vskye]

Really, the whole idea in my mindset is to actually sample a entire cd prior to purchasing. Let's face it, some of the cd's coming out today suck, minus two or three tracks, which doesn't justify the cost. Movies OTOH, I can just rent, if I like it.. I'll buy it. Same goes with a cd.

Hey MRI, put out the "Roger Waters Live from Berlin" on dvd and I'll believe. ;)

Re:Well

[name773]

they must steal your identity as part of the payment for piracy

Movie-goers Sue Movie Industry

[Anonymous Coward]

For making nothing but shit, year after year.

Introducing the new superbowl ad!

[Anonymous Coward]

Green day song playing.....

We have been sued by the Motion Picture Industry, and we are here to anoounce in front of ONE Hundred Million people. That we are still going to download movies off the internet.

Introducing the iFlixs Movie Store.

A promotion for Pepsi? .af [applefans (at) spymac(dot) com]

Amen...

[Seabass55]

I simply quit going to theaters. It seems like movie ticket costs have gone up and up and up over the past 10 years yet the quality of movie theaters has stayed the same. There are too many things to even list that piss me off in theaters.

Re:Amen...

[pawnIII]

I guess I must be lucky. Cause ticket prices have remained pretty much the same. Only really seen a few movies at the theaters in the last few years though(Spiderman 2, LOTR:ROTK, Team America). All for $5, cause I go to the during Saturday afternoon.

Personally, I hope the entertainment industry, instead of raising prices. Stops paying actors/musicians/athletes so much.

The biggest laugh of the week came from Sprewell complaining that he couldn't feed his family on a $10 million/year salary. Seriously, I know these people only have about 10-15 years at most, but its straight up nutz that players are complaining about being paid $10 million a year.

You're absolutely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor government knows no party.

This is incorrect. Poor government is on a first name basis with at least two parties.

Re:USENET (not centralized)

[IBitOBear]

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.

or Perhaps more likely

[PetoskeyGuy]

Shortly after Verizon announces Fiber to the Home

The incredible huge File Sizes is really the only thing that have stopped movies from being copied as commonly as MP3/audio. Broadband is just getting fast enough and common enough that that you can download full DVD length movies in a day or less.

I wonder if the new even more republican congress that just squeaked in will have any more nuts like Orin Hatch.

Inflation

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually if you look at inflation films have barely kept pace. Remember the old quote from Hardware Wars? The one about kissing three bucks good bye? Well that was over twenty five years ago. Gas was around $.75 a gallon and dinner out for two would run around $10. You could rent an apartment in LA for a couple of hundred and a small two bedroom house with a pool for around $450, I looked at several in the early 80s for that much. Now gas is $220, dinner out will easily set you back $25 or $30, or much more, and a cheap house in LA will run $1,200 to $1,500 if you can find it. At the same time film budgets have gone from moderately high budgets of 8 or 9 mill, the budgets of Star Wars and Alien, to 80 to 250 mill. Given the fact the budgets alone have increased 10x to 30X one would expect a greater increase than 3x. The increase does reflect inflation. The only reason costs haven't gone up more is new markets. A growing foreign market and video and cable sales have offset the increased budgets. If piracy becomes a serious issue that offset will be largely gone and films will no longer be profitable. Translated few will be made. Or costs will go up.

Also as a side note to the victimless crime defense for downloading, wages haven't really gone up in the film industry since the late 1980s. Union rates have increased some but nonunion rates have been flat. At the same time inflation has gone up considerably. I've seen rent alone double in that time. People are desperately trying to make a living and downloading isn't helping. It's just becoming another reason to go out of country as profits drop and margins tighten. It hurts people.

Re:Inflation

[cheekyboy]

If big actors like Tom Cruise didnt demand $25m per movie, then overall movies would be cheaper as all the other sub actors / contractors wouldnt ask for so much either. Is any actor really worth >$5000/day ? If they just asked for $2m and 2% of royalities that would be fairer.

Inflation is the govts fault for 'inflating' the money supply (check the feds m1/m2/m3 supplies) by lending out so much money for home loans and CCs. If every year you get a 5% increase in cash circulation then you have more $$$ looking for fewer goods which equals higher prices to counteract the imbalance. 5% inflation is the same as 5% hidden tax, except theres no way OUT of it for the average 9-5joe6pack.

So, you would agree to this statement:

[NotQuiteReal]

The definition of stealing is when industry ______ charges more than I would care to pay for service/good ______.

Logially, this must follow from your complaint, right?

Tomorrow ...

[Bryan_W]

From the poster:

"first suits could be filed as early as tomorrow."

Then tonight, we download!

Re:Why only now?

[tepples]

I wish they had a "burn on demand" (BOD) model where you pay a minimal fee (think rental cost, ideally cheaper) and get to burn a movie on DVD.

No. Consumer DVD burners cannot burn the CSS key data required by the studios.

3 BILLION dollars!!

[superstick58]

This may be an old question, but I'm curious were they get their estimates from for monetary losses. I sure hope they don't try to quantize the number of downloads and use that. I know for a fact that I would buy any movie I really liked and would not be satisfied with any downloaded movie. Therefore, the downloads are mearly a sample for me because I have nothing better to do with my time I guess.

On a couple of occasions, I liked the movie so much from downloading that I went out and bought it. Equilibrium is a good example. I couldn't watch it in theaters because it wasn't playing anywere. I just happened across the file and liked it a lot so went out and bought the DVD.

I guess it's my thought that the amount of times a movie is downloaded does not represent the number of sales that would have occured had that download not been available.

Re:3 BILLION dollars!!

[superstick58]

I guess I didn't RTFA close enough. They didn't state a cost for online sharing. I'm still curious though if the losses can be quantified.

TV Episodes Violation

[a3217055]

I actually got a letter from my ISP for p2ping a episode of a tv show. Now this is getting extreme.

Freeway Blogging on Movie Theaters?

[Cryofan]

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.

More on Freeway Blogging.

Re:Freeway Blogging on Movie Theaters?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Translation

[Microlith]

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.

RIAA getting old

[Man in Spandex]

This kind of news is getting old
"Sue this, Sue that" and we always get away with it. Why would people still be surprised by these turns of events?

Bring back some of that /. pr0n like suicidegirl =)

Re:For those of us with DVD burners it's REALLY si

[michaeldot]

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..

The lawsuits will probably be targeting the "0-day releases."

I've been guilty of downloading things like this, but mainly because I'm in Australia and some films aren't released for a month or two after the US/UK release date.

When there's a buzz created by the global internet, it feels like we're being treated poorly by being made to wait so long.

Re:Why only now?

[Eric Giguere]

No. Consumer DVD burners cannot burn the CSS key data required by the studios.

Yeah, but I wish you could. Or somebody could. I mean, when you go to BlockBuster and they're out of the movie you want, why can't they just burn a new copy on the spot for you to rent?

Eric
How to Detect Firefox

Make it truly official...

[vwjeff]

I will never pay for an MPAA movie in theater or on DVD again.

If you really want to be official don't ever watch an MPAA movie again.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's one solution

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone takes your stance it will cure the problem. No films will be made or records released. The good movie and record fairies don't make them. People and money make them. If there's no money to pay the people to work on them, let alone the expenses involved, there won't be any made. All those people will simply find other careers. In the meantime you'll be without those forms of entertainment.

Re:It's one solution

[anthony_dipierro]

No films will be made or records released.

You misread him. No MPAA films will be made.

Which networks are they targetting?

[georgevulov]

Does anyone know which networks the RIAA and MPAA are generally monitoring so I know to stay away? I DC++ is a pretty safe bet, but what networks are "lawsuit-safe"?

Re:Let me once again proclaim...

[mikeb39]

Offtopic? Allow me to clarify... Once again, Canada is immune to this insanity. How long that holds out for though...

Whew, I was worried for a minute there!

[GuyMannDude]

The RIAA has been doing this for so long, why is the MPAA only doing this now, I wonder?

Hey, who cares? No self-respecting geek clutters up their hard drives with the drivel that the MPAA members produce. Now if the Porn Industry Movie Producers (PIMP) start cracking down on sharing Miko Lee and Jenna Jameson flicks, then us geeks are really going to be in trouble.

Re:Whew, I was worried for a minute there!

[Hockney Twang]

I think it's worth noting that porn in general, and online porn specifically, makes a *lot* of money. And it's been available online, for free, over p2p, on webpages, in your email, Usenet, every way you can imagine to give away porn, it's being given away. And porn is intellectual property too. Somehow all this free porn floating around has never ever affected the porn industry's bottom line, except to increase their income. In many cases, you have to go out of your way not to get free porn from the internet, yet people still make money selling it. This is how it could be for (mainstream)movies and music, too. The industry just doesn't want to admit it.

P2P networks?

[jmcmunn]

Does anyone really try to download movies over Kazaa or whatever the current popular client is?

I remember years ago when it was hard to find quality movies on Morpheus. They all turned out to be some home made porn crap or something cleverly titled "The Matrix" or some damn thing.

I would have to guess that P2P networks are not the prime way of distributing the quality copies around the Net. I would guess torrents are the current popular trend. They seem to have a torrent for everything these days. It is excelent to catch the latest episode of Enterprise when I forget to record it on my ReplayTV or something though. Thank god for the internet.

I'll still see plenty of movies

[KalvinB]

distributing copyrighted material without permission is illegal. You know the law. Don't be so shocked and horrified that companies start making use of it. Companies have grinned and beared it for quite awhile.

Nobody cares if you copy movies and share amongst friends. But when your "friends" are anyone who happens by, no duh you're going to get in trouble. If you and a few friends swipe a bit of candy from the Brach's candy bin, chances are the store isn't going to give a shit. But if you advertise "free candy" and help the neighborhood out to "free" candy, you can expect to escorted somewhere by security.

I don't fear loaning movies/music to actual friends in private. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for that. When you do it publically and to a large audience, what do you expect to happen?

I see and buy lots of movies. I know the value of old films so I rarely pay more than $15 for a DVD. I only pay more if it's a really really good movie that recently came out. And you can always buy used or rent. There is no justification for piracy of mainstream movies which is what the MPAA is going after. There are plenty of legal options available to you regardless of your budget.

Ben

Re:USENET (not centralized)

[acceleriter]

If *you* had to "go after" USENET where would *YOU* start?

I'd go after a "premium" news service provider, using the argument that they knew and profited from the fact that most of the traffic they carry is copyright infringement. Mainstream ISPs already severely limit what binary groups they carry and impose bandwidth/transfer caps on their NNTP servers.

USENET could, in fact, be one of the targets of the currently stalled INDUCE Act and its spawn.

No, it wouldn't kill USENET, but it sure would put a dent in its usability in the part of the world that honors U.S. copyrights.

For those of you just joining ...

[Catamaran]

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.

Thats just freakin GREAT...

[TiggertheMad]

I mean, damn, what am I going to pirate now? I'm running out of things that people aren't filing lawsuits over. *sigh*

Well, if anyone needs 'cracked' copys of homosexual furry fiction, I'll have a torrent up shortly...

Re:Why only now?

[Insipid Trunculance]

Thank you MPAA for telling me abt that fabulous site.

no.....

[eobanb]

Uh, no. I am a regular user of i2hub, and though I am at a school that is part of Internet2/Abilene, (Indiana University), such speeds definitely do NOT translate to the residence halls, nor does i2hub exclude schools that are not on Internet2. "i2hub" is just a name.

Everyone seems to love to say, "we're so cool cuz we're on internet2, omg wtf lol!" Just do some research before saying stuff like this. It seems to me that i2hub only allows hosts with a .edu TLD, or maybe has some sort of list of schools to allow.

The other thing I should mention is that the DC protocol is truly terrible. There are a huge number of things wrong with it (no unique node identification system, no multi-source downloads, no nick registration, bulky connection negotiation protocol, slow file hashing, no unicode support, etc.) and it doesn't seem like they'll be fixed at the moment.

However, for those of you screaming that i2hub isn't free, actually, it is free, and it's open to many operating systems; I'm on Mac OS X, for example, and use a client called Direct Connect.

You might want to try it out--for a little while. All told, there is a huge selection, but it's slow and shitty, the people are complete idiots ("ppl, how do u ply a divx!?"), and I've found Gnutella to be far more useful for obtaining music, and BitTorrent for movies.

Re:no.....

[Zardus]

I dunno what I2Hub you're using, but my experience has been much better. Get a better client than the regular DC++ (ie, StrongDC or ZDC), which supports multiple sources, has much better performing hashing, and runs better in general.

The speed really depends on your school. Lots of schools are now capping I2 traffic to the residence halls, so if you're in one of those schools or downloading from one of those schools, you're not gonna get good speeds. Generally, from places like UCLA, CMU, and UMASS, I get speeds anywhere from 200kb/s to 700kb/s for my (fully legal, of course) downloads. From places like RIT, its like 2kb/s.

As for the intelligence of the people there, some people are dumb, it happens. There are quite a few morons on Gnutella as well, but there's no chatroom so they don't show. No one's forcing you to read the chatroom of I2hub, anyways.

I've found that I2Hub has better/more available music on than Gnutella, but I'll definitely agree that BitTorrent (ie, suprnova) are much much better for movies and games. Of course, uhh, I never download any of that....

Re:no.....

[Dr Reducto]

Are you kidding? i2hub destoys anything BT has Movie-wise. Espescially considering how upload isn't a problem, and people share everything they have. And there's a guy with 200GB of movies on campus. And yes, downloading from UMASS or most other scools (depends on the school/time of day) is only limited by the fact that I only have a 10BaseT drop.

Coincidence? I think not!

[rueger]

Am I the only one who is spooked by the number of posts here that claim that gee whiz, "we got a letter from the MPAA or RIAA, or just plain got scared of getting arrested, and now we have completely stopped filesharing"? And don't we feel so much cleaner?

10719431
10719438
10719453
10719470
10719614
10719618
10719643

Re:Coincidence? I think not!

[killjoe]

The answer is simple. Only share porn. They don't seem to mind at all.

Re:Coincidence? I think not!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The answer is simple. Only share porn. They don't seem to mind at all.

I think I've heard one or two complaints from the porn industry, but over all I think you are completely correct.

And I think I know why.

Royalties. There are none.

Very few, if any, porn contracts include royalties for anyone - performers, cameramen, "director," etc. They all get paid as a work for hire. The publisher then makes a run of DVDs and sells most, if not all, in one big transaction to a distributor who parcels them out to the buying public through various parallel channels.

By the time the end product has made it into a large enough number of hands so as to inevitably end up shared on the net, everybody has already been paid.

I think that bears repeating - by the time any widespreading "pirating" can get into gear, everybody involved has been compensated for their work, so they really don't care.

I think that if the music and mainstream movie industries could come up with a similar business model, the entire problem of "piracy" would disappear overnight, essentialy redefined out of existence.

Re:Coincidence? I think not!

[bmantz65]

I'm glad you're /.'s resident porn industry business insider.

Re:Coincidence? I think not!

[sgtrock]

You guys all missed the point of the parent's post. Look at the slashdot ID numbers! They are all close together. It's an astroturf campaign, that's all.

Re:Coincidence? I think not!

[hyphz]

> Not really the same as music or "legit" movies.

Really? I can only think of a few movies that get watched over and over again for long periods: kid's movies and the occasional super classic. Most other things fade in and out of fashion just like everything else.

But I think it's more likely that the porn industry does it because porn sells so easily. The best bit is that it doesn't need to advertise - people who want porn, don't have to be told to want it, and when they go to the porn store they just look through what's on the shelves. Now, I can't personally see why music could also wind up working that way, but there probably is a reason.

Remember when the MPAA were the good guys?

[jgalun]

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.

Re:Remember when the MPAA were the good guys?

[AaronLawrence]

Actually offering to sell what I "pirate" would be good. I suppose I'm in the minority, but I would rather buy, it's just that there is a lot of music that is kind of difficult to buy in physical form - and impossible in digital form because nobody supports my country.

Re:Remember when the MPAA were the good guys?

[EvilNTUser]

"Stop pretending that the companies can offer you something to stop you from pirating their products."

Dirac/Vorbis-encoded ogg-files for the price of a movie ticket.

Re:Remember when the MPAA were the good guys?

[vorpal22]

I, personally, don't pirate because of my desire to save money. I pirate because I am viciously opposed to the tactics of the RIAA and MPAA: price fixing, suing their customer base, standing in the way of P2P technology, buying politicians, etc...

I cannot, in good faith, give money to their organizations, and I feel absolutely no shame in stealing from them, given how they're nothing but a bunch of management swine who price fix and steal from those that work for them.

I think a company that's largely honest breeds honest customers. I, for instance, would never pay for a piece of Microsoft software on purpose. In good faith, I could not do so, because their new licensing schemes, etc... make me feel sick, and I do not want to show my support for such things. You might tell me not to use MS products then, but the reality of the situation is that in many cases, you *need* Office to get by. OpenOffice might be decent, but at least on OS X, it's ugly as sin and I'm not convinced that it's fully interoperable with MS Office.

On the other hand, I feel compelled to pay for my Apple software, because I believe that it's reasonably cheap and that Apple cares about their customer base. I feel the same way about the independent artists I listen to, and usually buy their CDs. I'm all for supporting the little guy and very much want to do so; I just feel no qualms stealing from a filthy rich megacorporation who doesn't care about me in the slightest.

Re:Remember when the MPAA were the good guys?

[hyphz]

> 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 RIAA and MPAA aren't opposing modern technology. They're opposing modern technology *that might screw up their distribution system*.

iTunes, etc are just selling the same songs that the RIAA do. If you write a song and want to sell it, you can't upload it onto iTunes. You can do so on a file-sharing network.

They don't want that. If you can do that, you don't need a publisher. If you don't need a publisher, publishers can't shaft you with "sign or abandon your career" contracts.

Now, sure, suing people who are known and documented to have pirated commercial works isn't directly part of preventing it. But, using smackdown lawsuit threats, where no evidence is ever presented or judged, could easily be being done for the chilling effect ("X shared illegal files and got a forced settlement.. I'm sharing only legal files, but if they get my IP address off a filesharing network, what's stopping them forcing a settlement on me too, given that they never need to show evidence to a court?").

Equally, just about every copy protection scheme proposed by the RIAA or MPAA has at some point involved restricting the set of people or companies who can produce media the public can play, to those who have passed some kind of approval process which is controlled either by them or by another firm which has no interest in facilitating open distribution.

Good.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

These sorts of threats can only result in anonymous networks like Freenet becoming better. And it'll take years, but as the abusive nature of the current regime of perpetual corporate copyright is demonstrated, lawmakers will be forced to rein in those excesses.

uh oh....

[Vash_066]

man if you can get busted for porn downloads...i'm screwed

RE: the theaters

[King_TJ]

Truthfully, it's getting to the point where going to see a movie is primarily attractive just because it's the only way to see something that's just come out.

It used to be, while that was a big factor, it was combined with seeing it on a "big screen" with a "great sound system", and of course the social aspects.

With the advances in home theater systems, plus the high ticket prices making folks a lot less likely to just "gather up a big group to go see movie X or Y", there's not much left besides the thrill of "seeing it first".

I think THAT might really be why they're so afraid of p2p movie sharing. The new stuff is leaking out in some cases BEFORE it even hits the theater, so paying for a ticket no longer really even means you get the bragging rights of seeing it first.

Solving Problems...

[Marnhinn]

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.

Re:Solving Problems...

[Trepalium]

Actually, they're hard at work on the first two options, but it's not ready yet. The INDUCE Act has been introduced (but not yet passed?) which would basically reverse the Betamax decision. The broadcast flag, and the new DVD format is on the way, but adoption of digital TV and HD DVD is still fairly low.

Re:Solving Problems...

[farnz]

You missed one option that seems to be working for the RIAA; offer paid-for, legal downloads (Apple iTunes). Granted, there's a risk that your product will show up on illegal networks, too, but it gives you an argument when you're after more laws ("look, we're offering them to chance to do things legally, and they're still breaking the law!").

Alternatively, assuming that the problem is money and not control (which I'm not convinced is the case), they could offer you the chance to buy licences for content you've downloaded; this backs up the lawsuits by putting a monetary value on the losses, and providing you with a chance to avoid them in the first place.

Re:For those of us with DVD burners it's REALLY si

[Vskye]

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..

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. :) 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!

Politics and Business Pendlum analogy works

[IBitOBear]

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-)

Re:Politics and Business Pendlum analogy works

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

It's far from certain that the MPAA and its sister organizations can strangle the entire planet at once, thereby sidestepping market forces altogether.

Re:Politics and Business Pendlum analogy works

[IBitOBear]

No, it is _certain_ that they cannot. But they can strangle the US slowly or damn fast. Damn fast would be better, because then "Survivor Joe" on his couch will take notice and fight back.

Re:Why only now?

[metlin]

And if the govt. of Sweden is convinced, it is their own stupidity, don't blame some kid in Europe trying to protect his rights.

If Iran sent me a notice saying that I'm violating so shariat laws, I'd send an equally vocal and Fuck-you letter to them.

Your argument tries to shift the blame on the people responding, rather than the industry and the government that actually supports these laws.

Blame the RIAA and MPAA and our government - do not blame some guy in Europe for retorting back. If anything, we need more people like this, who can show how ridiculous this whole thing is.

Bittorrent its terrible client to use for pir8cy

[cyrax777]

just by clicking on details you can see the ip adresses for everyone your connected to. I am amazed it got so big for pirating movies.

Bah

[cjpez]

The MPAA claims the U.S. movie industry loses more than $3 billion annually in potential global revenue because of physical piracy, or bogus copies of videos and DVDs of its films.

Yeah, sure. Somebody sells a cheap bootleg of your stuff, that's money that should have been going into your pocket. I've got no problem with going after that.

But what exactly does that have to do with filesharers?

Re:Bah

[mark-t]

Sharing is a form of distribution, and that's where copyright comes in.

Now copyright doesn't really prevent the distribution of a work, or even copies of a work. However, a copyrighted work simply cannot be copied at all without permission from the copyright holder. That said, certain types of copies are permitted directly by the copyright act, requiring no explicit permission from the copyright holder, and whether or not such permission applies to a given copy depends greatly on how that particular copy ultimately get used (one of the exemptions being for "personal and private use"). Now, _ANY_ form of distribution of such a copy ultimately negates any notion of "personal and private use" that might have been afforded to a copy, so if a copy that you made is being distributed like that, you need permission from the copyright holder. Keep in mind that any music files on one's hard drive that they do not own the copyright on are ultimately only copies of those files that they may be afforded to keep only under the criteria of "personal and private use". When they enable public sharing of that folder for other people to obtain the contents of those music files, they forfeit the notion of "personal and private use" so they need permission.

Re:Bah

[cjpez]

Yes, yes, I'm aware of all that. My point is that they're twisting the facts here to imply that filesharing is costing them $3 billion a year, when in fact filesharing has nothing to do with that "loss." That's the bit that's always bugged me about this kind of stuff. Sure, somebody selling bootlegs of your stuff is certainly stealing money that could otherwise be yours. But I've never been convinced that p2p filesharing has any negative impact on sales, because whoever downloads an album or a song and doesn't buy the physical copy never would have bought the physical copy in the first place. IMO, anyway. I'm not denying the illegality of filesharing, or that it's definitely a copyright infringement.

Re:Bah

[mark-t]

You are right, it doesn't cost them billions of dollars. In fact, if it did, they'd be stupid to sue these people because of such a large crossover between the demographics that pirate and their actual customers.

They are banking on the fact that the people that they sue aren't customers anyways, or represent such a statistically insignificant percentage of their customers as to not affect their profits beyond what normal inflation could compensate for.

But even though they are bullshitting about this costing them so much money, it's still against the law, and they have the right to prosecute (and to claim as much damages as they want, to the limit that the court finds reasonable for the offense).

Re:Bah

[cjpez]

it's still against the law, and they have the right to prosecute (and to claim as much damages as they want, to the limit that the court finds reasonable for the offense).

Yeah, I agree that they've got a right to prosecute, and that what they're prosecuting against is illegal. It just seems to me that they're shooting themselves in the foot, when they should be going after the people who are actually causing them to lose money.

Isn't that nice!

[fred911]

Fuck Cox! How dare they listen to someone who's not their customer without contacting said customer before acting. These are the type of jerks that pass out ip-timestamp info sans subponea.

At least Verizon went to court sucessfully defending their customers ids!

Re:Why only now?

[Drantin]

WIPO
berne convention members...

FIVE DOLLAR POPCORN THAT COST 20cents

[cheekyboy]

Thats how dude

Here in AU , there was one small food shop in the cinema complex giving away FREE POPCORN with a coke for $1.50, now the cinema complex people (village road show) got really pissed of at this and tried their hardest to find excuses in their lease to kick them out, because it was eating into their $6.50 popcorn sales (or $11 for drink/popcorn combos).

Seams like normal CAPITALIST competition is but a fake dream CON ARTIST job in the real world where pure 'mafia musolini' style monopolies are the rule of thumb.

Paying the same $$ to see a $5M movie vs a $200M movie isnt fair, sure its easier for people to have one price for all, but really if they started having a tiered pricing scheme for older/smaller movies the customers arent gona complain, they just wont see the full price movies as a first choice and thats what the big guys want. Its not a free market , its a rigged/controlled market. A real true free market would have fixed cost + margin deals on movies, so each movie would be a diff price. But like I said, this would price out the big block busters and make smaller independant movies more attractive.

Cluelessesnesses

[b00m3rang]

Videotaped copies of films in theaters often are digitized or burned off DVDs and then distributed on file-sharing networks.

I just got done writing off of that article, and I'm wondering how exactly you burn something off of a DVD?

The movie industry has also tried to battle piracy by running ads in movie theaters and elsewhere designed to dissuade people from file-sharing films by stressing the risks of identity theft and liability.

What does movie piracy have to do with identity theft? Are they threatening to get credit cards in my name and ruin my credit if I share movies?

Re:Cluelessesnesses

[Robber Baron]

The movie industry has also tried to battle piracy by running ads in movie theaters and elsewhere designed to dissuade people from file-sharing films by stressing the risks of identity theft and liability.

I remember seeing these ads in my local theatre...one came right after an ad for one of the local broadband providers advertising that I could "download stuff faster". Imagine my confusion.

Re:Cluelessesnesses

[Coltman]

The movie industry has also tried to battle piracy by running ads in movie theaters

I Also know those ads! As soon as I saw the ad I imediatly went out to get my money back. They asked why, and I told 'em. "I just saw an ad that says that I could just download the movie and watch it free. Why would I pay you $30 bucks (Date) to see this movie when I can see it for free??" I mean really its 15 bucks CDN a pop to go see a movie in a decent theatre on a friday night. Not a lavish theatre where they serve you in your seat. But a decent one where the floor is somewhat clean and you don't have to wonder what your sitting on. And I have to put up with people talking throughout the friggin movie. Or I could just buy the movie for 20 Bucks CDN and watch it at home as many times as I want.
Which movies are good movies to buy you ask? Well just download the crapola version from P2P networks and find one you like. Then go buy the good copy. Wow that was hard. And in Canada its legal to do it. I am making a copy for my own personal information. Saved money. And buy only movies that I like(or my gf).

maybe its cutting into mafia profits....

[cheekyboy]

I think all the freeloader downloaders filesharers are actually cutting into underground mafia profiteers and street corner sellers. Which are probably run by people with in the industry any way, so perhaps to 'increase' their profits, they want to 'stamp' down on the freeloaders which are giving zero profits to their 'mafia' friends/associates.

Eh Tony.

buda bind

Re:Letter to MPAA and RIAA

[mog007]

I don't think that's very fair. The RIAA is the true scumbag here, not the MPAA. If you want to see an album performed somewhere it'll cost a cool 40 bucks. A fourth of that price to see a DVD performed somewhere. Buying a movie that costs 25 million to make only costs 20 bucks, but a CD that costs a huge fraction less than that, costs the same amount, not to mention most CDs have at most 60 minutes of music, DVDs with their special features, and movie, can easily push the three hour barrier.

Re:USENET (not centralized)

[tsm_sf]

Start playing whack-a-mole with usenet and we get alt.veggies.leek.die.die.die or similar.

Wonder how long it takes before sysadmins at large ISPs realize that it's less time consuming to filter the traffic to and from the RIAA than it is to filter usenet. Occam's Razor and all that.

Social aspect?

[hendersj]

Listening to inconsiderate people answer their damn cell phones, as well as make comments like "Oh, watch now, he's going to die!" before it happens, and twits who bring their small children in because they can't find a babysitter and the kid cries through the entire movie.

I'd go to the movies more often if it were (a) less expensive (last time I went with my wife and kid, it cost us over $40), and if the theaters would actually remove people who were not considerate of the other patrons. The staff are so afraid of pissing a customer off by asking them to shut up or leave that they piss customers off by not asking the inconsiderate ones to shut up or leave.

Given that, I'd much rather pay to rent a film and watch it at home - sound system in the house isn't much less impressive than the modern theater anyways...

Re:Social aspect?

[aussie_a]

Listening to inconsiderate people answer their damn cell phones, as well as make comments like "Oh, watch now, he's going to die!"

I agree, watching movies with your family at home IS annoying.

Re:E-Books DOA.

[10101001 10101001]

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.

more solving problems.

[Mad_Rain]

Hey, speaking of solving problems, I know there have got to have been some other slashdotters who have commented on your sig - Dr. Spock was some sort of child psychologist in the 70's, and Mr. Spock was from Star Trek. Are you really quoting the Dr. in your sig, or are you quoting the Leonard Nimoy character?

Re:more solving problems.

[crownrai]

FYI: That quote is from Yoda in ESB.

Re:more solving problems.

[Mad_Rain]

I wonder then, is he just doing that to get slashdotter's attention and make their brains explode? ;) Good strategy.

Why not SafePeer?

[Foz]

Ok, maybe I'm being a bit naive, but are you people who are getting C&D letters using SafePeer or an equivalent? And if not, why not?

Or is SafePeer just proving to be ineffective?

-- Gary F.

It's not that unlikely

[Chuck Chunder]

I think that a lot of people download movies/songs over peer to peer simply because "they can".

The desire to actually watch a particular movie or obtain a particular song may not be all that great . But you've got a lot of bandwidth and you can pull the movie for free so why not?

Once some sort of real cost is added to that people will start thinking twice. They lived without downloadable movies before and don't really need the MPAA following through on their threat so they will just stop.

Of course, that doesn't mean those people will necessarily be handing over more money to members of the MPAA.

Do it like in 1980s, swap physical media

[cheekyboy]

So easy to get around that....

keep a system on a website database of who has what CDs, and trade using the uni postal system or bar trading.

Burn 20 blanks, swap for another 20 movies.

1. much faster
2. face to face
3. untraceable (at least more so)

Sure its more effort, but you get more at ONE session.

Do a 'copy party' like in the 80s too, lotsa beer + music, and 10 PCs with burners gallore going at 52x for 8hrs nonestop. Or bring your firewire 200G hd to swap REAL FAST!!!

Re:Who?

[Microlith]

Yeah, the people downloading it don't want to pay shit.

No amount of "cheap" will beat free.

And I imagine they didn't need the lawyers to talk them into pursuing copyright violators, if I had shit that was getting warezed to no end I'd pursue one or two myself.

It's not yours to give out. If I catch you, you're fucked. If you don't like that, work to change the law, don't just ignore it and act all indignant and justified when you get screwed.

Solution to the problem

[Chuck Chunder]

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.

Fruitless?

[wrathcretin]

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.

Re:Fruitless?

[teflonrabbit]

If you need a good review before seeing a movie, try www.theonionavclub.com -- they're critical of everything, so if they give it a good review, it's almost sure to be worth your time.

Re:Why only now?

[gtkuhn]

That letter is so cool I almost peed my pants! My eyes are watering I'm laughing so hard.

Really Red

[quintessencesluglord]

I note that the most adaptive/innovative industry to online content suffers the most copyright violations, still makes money hand over fist, and does not seem to indulge in mass-market litigation: the porn industry.

Given that the porn industry probably suffers more copyright violations than the RIAA and the MPAA combined (at least online), where are the great crusaders like Orin Hatch to protect their rights?

Why no speeches of how downloaders are taking the very food out of porn star's mouths?

Yeah, it's great that everyone can get on their high horse about protecting IP until there is a blowjob involve (hi stinky dead princess).

And I note the porn industry is adapting to it's new digs quite well, and wonder if the RIAA/MPAA feels abashed that they might have to follow the porn industry's lead in offering content.

Until the bullshit level on both sides of the P2P debate lessens, know that the litigation and downloading will continue to increase, and the escalation may ruin it for all.

Meanwhile, wouldn't it be funny if porn ends up taking a bite of the MPAA's market share by going legit?

Re:Really Red

[DeathPenguin]

>>Why no speeches of how downloaders are taking the very food out of porn star's mouths?

Because they have enough in their mouths as it is.

Talk's Cheap

[tom's a-cold]

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.

Re:Talk's Cheap

[mark-t]

Unfortunately, you do not represent the majority of consumers. Too many other people don't care enough to be bothered changing any aspect of their lifestyle for something like this.

It's that apathy that the MPAA and RIAA are (correctly) banking on to enable them to survive.

Re:Talk's Cheap

[anthony_dipierro]

I don't see why it's unfortunate. Boycotting a company because they exercise their legal right to sue someone for copyright infringement is pretty stupid. Maybe we should boycott Mysql and the FSF too.

Nonstory. Cheeks have already been spread.

[GojiraDeMonstah]

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.

Re:Nonstory. Cheeks have already been spread.

[Hassman]

This actually isn't true.

Most exit polls showed that the reason people voted for Bush was they believed in his morals more than Kerry. Polls showed that people agreed with Kerry on domestic issues like spending, and health care...

So apparently Americans care more about gay marraige than getting good health care, or their job being outsourced, or the way the US is viewed by the rest of the world, or keeping big business in check, etc...

Very sad. I want to move to England right about now.

In defence of America, almost all the people in cities voted for Kerry, and rural America voted for Bush. Sad.

Spot the Astroturfer

[Piquan]

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!

Re:Translation

[deblau]

Since they're using a health analogy, I'd translate it this way:

"The MPAA just went to the ER screaming that they're on death's door, suffering from a painful and spreading illness, but when the doctor asked them to point to where it hurts, they said 'I'm not going to tell you.'"

Re:AAGGLL Re:USENET

[thinkninja]

It's not exactly fire and forget, though. Hunting for missing files can be a PITA in my, admittedly limited, experience.

What tools do you recommend for binary harvesting?

Re:USENET - Viva La Usenet

[LiquidHAL]

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*.

Usenet can kind of be a pain to search sometimes . . .There's also probably even more viruses and false stuff on usenet than P2P networks

No need to anymore. http://www.newzbin.com/ indexes all the binaries posted to usenet. Newzbin sorts groups of headers into single posts that you can search through for free. Relatively recently .nzb files were introduced. You may take these posts on Newzbin and import all the associated headers into many usenet binary programs now with these .nzb files. No need to manually update heades and search through them. Just search newzbin, hit the button, make sure .nzb is associated with a supported program, and the your download begins.

However, for the .nzb and complete header indexing service, you must pay a small monthly fee. An experimential release of grabit, http://www.shemes.com/, however, allows you to search through recent headers posted throughout usenet and then select them for download. This latest build is avaialbe in the announcements forum.

Also, http://www.packetnews.com/, an IRC search engine, has a currently unavailable option to also search usenet. I'm not sure of the details, but it does say (soon!)

As I understand the US law, when a duality exists in some form of technology, when it has the potential for both legitamate and illegal use, as long as it can be show that the technology is at least capable of having widescale legitamate uses, it is legal. Usenet is ancient among internet standards, dating back all the way to 1979. For much of its existence it was used solely for communication; this fuction is still used to a large extent today. Even while it is being used for illegal purposes, it cannot be shut down anymore than knives and axes can be banned for their continued role in crime and murder.

Citizens arrest.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Citizens arrest.

[hesiod]

> Obscuring of identity throws the whole "legitimate use" argument into a shaky gray area.

I don't agree with this at all. Anonimity isn't the "problem," it's the fact that people are sharing copyrighted material. Sharing sermons anonymously is no less legitimate than sharing them under a screen name or even a real name.

Aside from that, I pretty much agree with what you posted.

Right...but unfortunately..

[msimm]

You represent a drop in the bucket. Background noise.

ROFL..

[msimm]

Um..no?



Seriously though, vobcopy -l -o /mnt/movies/

Thats what big drives are for (I really only hoard a few movies at any given time..)!

Re:Why only now?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I wish they had a "burn on demand" (BOD) model where you pay a minimal fee (think rental cost, ideally cheaper) and get to burn a movie on DVD. No case, no extras, just the movie....

They do, it is called:Hollywood Video's Movie Value Pass.

Blockbuster Video has a similar program too. Flat fee to rent all you can rent each month. Want a movie? Go get it for "free", rip and burn and now you are set. Probably not what the studios or rental companies have in mind, but there it is anyway.

Remember the saying...

[Aqua_Geek]

(begin sarcasm)

"Illegal downloading is rated I: Inappropriate for all ages"

Illegal downloading hurts Jane Phillis, the animal food-tray cleaning team supervisor!

(end sarcasm)

I wonder what would happen if everyone on /. tried to download the 30MB movie they have on that site... (not saying that it should be attempted. or anything. *cough*)

What do I get?

[arose]

Sometimes I have to ask myself, what do I get out of copyright as it stands today? Public domain is stale with little adding to it while production of copyrighted works and profit from them is at an all time high. The works I want aren't (legaly) avainlable here anyway, not to mention insane prices compared to typical income. What do I get? Marketing to get me excited over things I can't buy, thank you copyright!

Re:What do I get?

[Politburo]

Sometimes I have to ask myself, what do I get out of copyright as it stands today?

As a consumer, nothing. Copyright isn't for consumers, though. It's for content creators. If you're a content creator, you get a lot out of copyright.

Re:What do I get?

[arose]

As a content creator I would love to have more public domain material to work with...

In other news...

[Mythrix]

..movie pirates in China and Phillipines are complaining about people illegally distributing the movies that they so painfully pirated.

pirating

[hkht]

how many copyright infringement lawsuits are carried out in asia where pirating has been going on for years? could it be that asian organized crime is to powerful to mess with while us normal people are easier to pick on. is the peer to peer pirating far more harmful that the organized pirating that goes on all over the world. or is it a loss that the entertainment companies have the guts to go after. can u imagine the entertainment lawyers insisting on going after pirating operations in let's say....north korea, how about nigeria,serbia, armenia, burma or china! yeah right. it's alot easier to go after mom and pop on the cox network for the songs their kids are down-loading.

Mod PARENT UP please

[Famatra]

"If Iran sent me a notice saying that I'm violating so shariat laws, I'd send an equally vocal and Fuck-you letter to them."

I liked your whole letter, but this part especially. Good examples bring it all into focus :).

WASTE their time!

[flibberdi]

Why doesn't people use WASTE when sharing??
Why isn't there a WASTE plugin for existing tools??
Why isn't there a native Linux client??
Why don't I do it myself (ok, I know that one...I can't find the time for it).

Oh shit, I just got this idea ...waste as a kio_slave proto!!! MOD ME UP!! START CODING NOW!! I'LL DONATE MY CHEERING!!

flamebait?!?

[c0p0n]

I was joking! Seems like the moderator either is a religion fundamentalist or has no sense of humour et al.

Re:flamebait?!?

[ErrorBase]

personally i'm more of an atheist, and not even an American. I even do not understand why someone should reelect a moron. But I also have no humor to speak of :). make use of the smily if you mean funny.

"physical piracy"

[sacrilicious]

The MPAA claims the U.S. movie industry loses more than $3 billion annually in potential global revenue because of physical piracy

But what about all the mental piracy? Surely that counts for something...

Re:For those of us with DVD burners it's REALLY si

[shrik3]

Or an easier way:

1) Walk to [store of your choice]
2) Buy DVD
3) Walk home and watch

You don't lose any of the extras and that movie you bough might just get a sequel because of the money you spent on it. PLUS it looks hell of a lot better on the shelf than blank DVDRs =)

Not quite

[andyfaeglasgow]

A monopoly *does* exist when the barriers to entry are high. Your post seems to imply that it would be no more difficult to get a movie into your own cinema than to open up an ice-cream parlour?

C'mon

cultural problem

[kardar]

That reminds me - I had purchased an interesting Miles Davis double-album, and I had taken it to work. A co-worker, who was "into" Miles Davis, the first words out of his mouth - "Wow, that looks like a cool album... can I make a copy of it?". The first words out of his mouth.

See, that's when I think that the culture needs to be reworked a little bit. What my co-worker said bothered me. LITERALLY the first words out of his mouth "Wow, that's cool, can I make a copy of that". Is that rude or am I just out of touch?
I changed the subject and I have been avoiding that individual. I can appreciate that he might enjoy jazz or whatever, and I am not trying to be a jerk about this, but there is just something about the way he said it, the ease with which he said it, as if it was the best course of action... I just didn't think that was right.

So generally speaking, I think that when the culture has gotten to the point where making copies is the default, then yes, there is a problem as far as the artist-audience connection. People ought to be in a situation where they realize that their financial contribution to an artist is making it possible for that artist to continue to produce works of art that people will continue to enjoy. Sneaking around and copying this and copying that only seems to be a correct course of action to many people because they can't see how it will hurt anything if they make a copy. It's a small person vs big record company attitude, instead of a beneficial audience-artist connection, audience contributing to artist as a form of appreciation and to encourage further development of artwork in the future.

On the other hand, I do think that boxed sets, and many things, as a matter of fact, when you can't afford them, seem to be a lot better than what they actually are. The music albums / movies take on a more spiritual, dream-like quality when you can't afford them, but when you finally save up the money and finally have the money to afford it, all too often it's not really as wonderful as you imagined that it might be, kind of a let down sometimes.. but you aren't willing to admit it to yourself, having saved up your money for so long. There is too much HYPE and not enough creativity going on - mainly as a result of there not being enough opportunities for artists, musicians, and filmmakers to express themselves.

Furthermore, file sharing is also one of those thing that eventually people will get sick of, and, as such, "fighting" it isn't really going to accomplish anything, because the "fight" that needs to be taking place should be happening in the artistic and creative parts of the mind of the consumer - in other words - deliver a quality product, and help the talented individuals reach the consumers, and create a culture where the consumers can feel free to explore their own personalities, likes, and dislikes, while enabling a greater variety and diversity of filmmakers and musicians an opportunity to cater to the evolving likes and dislikes of the audience.

This is not happening - people are "high" on file-sharing, and eventually they will come down, because you can't share something that doesn't exist. Just like if you won the lottery and could buy any music or movie you wanted to... eventually you would sort of come down. You can't buy something that doesn't exist - the problem is that these things could exist - it's not so much how the consumer acquires it, the problem is how do you make it happen - how do you turn it from an idea in someone's head into a real live work of art? Making this process more real, more visible, more personal to the consumer, instead of the typical Hollywood "shock and awe" marketing and promotion that many films, and to some extent new music releases recieve, will allow individuals to make that crucial connection to the artist, the hard work of the artist, and infuse the consumer world with concerns about the future well-being and continued success of that artist.

Re:cultural problem

[swv3752]

Do you complain when people ask to borrow a book?

Most people are taught it is good to share. When we had a a hurricane pass through here and some trees came down, our neighbor came over with his chainsaw and helped fell the trees.

When I read a good book or play a great game or hear some good music, I tell my frieds about it. I want them to experience the same things that gave me pleasure. I will loan them a book or make a copy of a cd.

Re:cultural problem

[kardar]

I didn't used to complain when people borrow a book, and I willingly lent books that I found interesting out to other people because I was excited about what the books had to offer and I wanted to share the passion and curiousity that I had about the book with others. Absolutely.

But I don't do that anymore, nor would I because I never get them back. So if a book means something to me, I keep it. People can buy their own. Why should I buy two?

Say you buy a vintage Ferrari. "Wow... cool... can I borrow that, dude?" Uh huh.

what's next....

[Master Ben]

MPAA, RIAA?

There being awfully tough on us although I think I can take it, but what's next....

Oh dear god...

My porn, my beautiful porn.

Re:For those of us with DVD burners it's REALLY si

[agraupe]

Wrong... you don't need a DVD burner. I find the quality of an OGG movie with XViD encoding, when appropriately sized to fit on a regular CD, more than sufficient.

MPAA has a stronger case than RIAA

[AWhistler]

When you can walk into a store, pay $16.99 for a DVD, new release, or less for an older movie, and you get not just the movie, but trailers (who watches these?), commentary, featurettes, and subtitles, I think this is a reasonable price to pay for a DVD. I see no reason to share these movies with strangers.

Now, paying $16.99 or more for a CD with 10-12 songs, 9 of which I couldn't care less about, that's another story. While I haven't and won't share, I can certainly understand the argument.

So I don't really have a problem with MPAA doing this, as long as the prices stay where they are as a result.

Oh well. Another day, another boycott.

[Sj0]

It's a shame, really. I guess the MPAA just don't like making money.

Re:For those of us with DVD burners it's REALLY si

[hodet]

I agree. If it's a "must have" then buy it. If it's an "I'd like to see that but am not sure I will like it" then rent. If it's a "piece of shit" then ignore it. Don't get me wrong, I love bittorrent, but only for stuff that I can't get otherwise. Besides, Pokerstars runs like crap when I'm downloading large files. Not acceptable. ;-)

Wrong People

[thebdj]

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.

In our other top story today....

[Meostro]

... ice is cold.

Is there anyone out there that doesn't already know this? Tell me if this sounds familiar:

1. The ??AA Sues a file sharer.
2. Jane Doe, spokesperson for the ??AA reports "File sharing is bad".
3. The EFF steps in on the side of the defendant, stating "Information wants to be free". 4. ??? 5. Profit!

Not a troll, but the whole story should be modded -1 Redundant.

Maybe, maybe not

[Safety Cap]

~ I'd have got up to make a coffee or had a p break ~.

Frequent urination is a warning sign for diabetes.

Caffene is a diruetic, so that could explain it, especially if he's drinking mass quantities.

Re:Who?

[swv3752]

Movie warez is a drop in the bucket. Right or wrong, warez is not costing the MPAA anything. The MPAA spends more on marketing than list at retail every movie downloaded.

The true and measurale loss is the actual theft and bootlegging of movies. The guys standing the street corner selling movies are the real criminals here. Stop that, and you ought to see a reflection in sales figures.

Are there any clients out there ...

[a_nonamiss]

Are there any P2P clients out there that are effective in hiding your identity as a sharer? I know I read that when the RIAA started suing people that it was just a matter of time before someone invented a client that protects those who are sharing files, but I wonder if it's even technically possible. The Gnutella protocol effectively made SEARCHING for files anonymous, but actually transferring a file establishes a connection to the IP address, which can always be traced. Any ideas for accomplishing something like this? Is it technically possible? I am familiar with the freenet project, but to my understanding this isn't really for large file sharing. Any thoughts?

Re:Are there any clients out there ...

[Foz]

The Azureus BT client has the SafePeer plugin that does this. I have no idea how effective it is. I use it, I hope it's working :) -- Foz

What about manual movie theft

[Bruha]

Trading many movies is nearly imposssible in the USA.. However the MPAA is probably powerless to sue traders in other countries where a 2 hour movie takes a few minutes to download.

In my experience...

[Kjella]

The people who will buy, buy. The people who won't, don't. The people who *may* don't exist.

...it is those that will, not the people that may which doesn't exist. I can only speak from my collective experience with friends, co-students, family, friends of my parents, co-workers, people I have met in work relationships and so on. Many of them fall into the "pirate some, buy some", few into the hardcore "pirate *everything*" but also very few in the "priate *nothing*" department.

In my experience, the biggest customers are also some of their greatest pirates. I got friends that are into music; gigs of mp3s and lots of CDs. Friends that are into movies? gigs of divx and lots of DVDs. Though I also know people with lots of mp3s and divx, but barely any CDs or DVDs.

What happens when you have some content which you don't get online, and some that you do? It is the car alarm principle. As long as you're the only one with the alarm (protection), they steal (pirate) the rest and skip (buy) yours. Once everyone has an alarm, it doesn't do anything at all.

Kjella

Re:In my experience...

[IBitOBear]

That makes them "the people who buy".

There isn't (well, wasn't supposed to be, anyway 8-) any implication of absolutes, or requirement of indiscriminant purchases by idealized comsumers.

Nobody expects anyone to buy everyting in a class or category.

Tak it in terms of the conversation.

There are only two groups of people that the ??AA *CAN* *SUE*.

The first group is "their customers", that is, the people who will buy their products.

The second group is "not their customers", the people who will not buy.

There is no legal threat that will magically turn members of the second group into members of the first. That's what advertising and "free media" were for in the first place.

"File Sahring" and the ??AA's problems with same, is not about lost revenue, it's about lost _CONTROL_. They are losing control of the "free media" and they are "ascared" [8-)].

But there is no profit in suing your customers, and there is no value in trying to "capture a market" full of people who won't buy.

There is no third group of people who, faced with a lack of free media, will then fall over themselves to buy all the things they would have been exposed to for free. *THAT* is a pipe dream, but unfortunately it is the one that the ??AA is selling to politicians (because they have the same dream about voters 8-).

That is the point I was trying to make.

What what what?

[trezor]

Excuse me for objecting and excuse me in advance for possibly starting another flamewar on physical versus intelctual property.

By what logic is going into a WalMart and taking physical goods which will need to be replaced the same as downloading a tv-show that has been broadcasted on public radiowaves/cable/whatever?

Yes. I do understand the issue of not watching the show with advertisement theoretically reduces the networks income, I do. But ads being as braindead as they are really don't stand a chance in hell increasing sales from any normally intelligent person. Modern advertisement is offendingly stupid. I can't remember last time I bought anything being advertised for. I can remember buying stuff I downloaded first though.

I will be honest and admit that I fully remembver downladoing stuff, sampling it, screaming "freakin' crap", deleting it and never ever wanted to see that movie, that album or whatever it was again.

But you can sample music in the record store. Why not use the net instead for sampling? You cant however sample dvds in the store. I say the net has it's purpose on this one.

And guys, remember, copyright is a priveledge granted on the basis that things be released into the public domain after a limited period of time. Copyright now being perpetual... Well screw copyright.

em', correct me if I'm wrong, but your wrong.

[danalien]

• I suspect the answer is "no". They don't make any money when you watch a download. If you pay for it on DVD, or watch a sponsored TV station, then they get money and they're happy.

Way, they make money - didn't killjoe just say he follows the series? (on the TV) - So from that one can conclude he pays he's monthly (or quarterly, how ever they do it in the USofA..) (cable-) TV fee?

So he has allready payed for the *damn* thing.

No, that a-ok!

[trezor]

It's when you use the internet for something people have been doing for as long as we can remember (almost) you are funding terrorists and threaten the existance of multi-million incomes for the **aa-executives. Then it becomes illegal. That's pure logic.

Ok. It's posted. Now you can mod me down.

Rights?

[blair1q]

You have no rights.

You are not a corporation.

Your imagination outstrips your power.

Re:Rights?

[Nom du Keyboard]

Your imagination outstrips your power.

I like that quote. Nicely done.

Mind if I steal it...

...and share it on a P2P network?

Anyone Besides KaZaa Been Sued Yet?

[Nom du Keyboard]

Just which file sharing systems are being sued these days? KaZaa obviously. dc++ at some colleges. Who else? Are some system proving more resistant than others to legal assault?

Axiom Time

[Nom du Keyboard]

Downloading something you will never buy otherwise hasn't cost the movie industry a single cent of lost profits.

Now isn't that obvious?

How do they identify individual BitTorrent users?

[BabylonMink]

I have a Comcast cable connection that is NATed. I have a 192.168.0 address on their side of my cable modem. If I were to use Azureus to download a torrent of some illegal movie, how would the legal team at the MPAA trace me? I am assuming they would see some sort of gateway/proxy Comcast address make a peering connection to them (if they were the ones posting a torrent for download - isnt that entrapment?). They would have to then reverse map that IP back to Comcast who would then have to identify my node as having sent/received torrent streams from all the nodes sharing the gateway/proxy. Anyone out there work for Comcast or know how an individual user would be identified in this scenario?

Re:Movie theaters suck

[HexRei]

In a topic about the MPAA suing people for downloading movies instead of seeing them in the theater, I make a post directly addressing the reason that I don't pay to see movies in the theater... and get modded Offtopic.

Thanks, slashdot.

More examples on pendulum analogy.

[Spy der Mann]

Various examples:

RELIGION:
=========
Catholic censorship <-> Protestant Reformation <-> Catholic Counterreform.

Bible fundamentalism <-> Atheism <-> Stronger bible fundamentalism <-> NeoPaganism (wicca, new age).

Bible fundamentalism <-> Evolutionism <-> Creation science.

POLITICS:
=========
Imperial Colonialism <-> Islamic extremism <-> semitic extremism <-> Terrorism <-> Operation Iraqi freedom, Yee haw!

So, if the pendulum analogy works on the things MOST SACRED for men (religion and their view of the world), what tells us that it won't work for file sharing?

file sharing <-> lawsuits against programmers <-> more file sharing <-> lawsuits against sharing networks <-> even more agressive file sharing <-> lawsuits against individuals <-> underground (encrypted) file sharing.

We're already seen this last stage of the pendulum. File sharers are beginning to use more cryptic activities, and closed networks to cover their tracks. Eventually, this is leading to whole underground encrypted networks (the Freenet project, the WASTE subnetworks, etc).

Place your bets.

Re:Why only now?

[91degrees]

A cease and desist is not the same as suing people. It is simply a demand that the recipient cease and desist from doing something.

Re:How do they identify individual BitTorrent user

[Nom du Keyboard]

Anyone out there work for Comcast or know how an individual user would be identified in this scenario?

[SIMPLE]

They sue the "owner" of that cable connection.

You pay for it.
You make it available to whomever your choose.
You have become responsible for whatever happens in regard to it.

[/SIMPLE]

Re:How do they identify individual BitTorrent user

[BabylonMink]

I am not referring to the fact that it could be my wife's, or son's machines, but how does Comcast identify my account? As i said, my whole Cable connection is NAT-ed upstream at comcast.

Massive civil disobedience? No just cheap.

[Mordaximus]

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.

Oh good lord, movie piracy has nothing to do with civil disobedience. It's a large mix of a) People who don't even know it's wrong. b) People who know it's illegal, but much like j-walking don't care, or don't think they'll get caught, so it's worth the risk. c) Minors who don't realise that the law applies to them too or d)The people who are either b or c, and want an excuse. What the MPAA is doing is applying the law to those who are breaking it. Bravo for them.

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.

The penalties for copyright infringement have been well know for a long time and the MPAA has always been good at letting the consumer know what the penalties are. Just because the digital age has made it much easier to violate copyrights does not make it more legal. People don't do it because they are making a point, they do it because they don't think they'll get caught and don't want to pay for the product.

Retail DVD movie prices have dropped steadily since I purchased my first player in 1998. I can now buy a movie for less than it would cost to buy two tickets and a bag of popcorn at the theater, they even come with tons of extra content. Or I can rent it for next to nothing. These people are too cheap to buy the movie, AND too CHEAP AND LAZY to rent it and return it. So I say, sue away MPAA, that's what the law is there for!

If you have a complaint, complain about the methods the MPAA and RIAA use to discover the accused infringers. But don't whine about them having a law enforced.

this is not stealing

[liveevil]

Downloading music/movies/whatever is NOT stealing. It should not be considered a crime by our legal system.

Turn the model over, dumbasses

[zmollusc]

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.

Re:Re I want to move to England right about now.

[Hassman]

Hmmm... Sounds almost like the US right now.

Maybe I'm move to Canada. What do you guys think aboot that, eh? See, I could fit in. :)

I disagree this is a good use

[cdrguru]

Why? Because it is your content, and if you want to distribute it, you should be paying to do so. What you are doing, if your material is shared, is distributing your legitimate bandwidth and infrastructure costs among a bunch of relatively unsuspecting users.

This would be roughly equivalent of a band distributing a sample through Kazaa along with an 800 number to purchase the full track. Their advertising, their material, other people's bandwidth.

Re:Why only now?

[ScrewMaster]

Well, in the same way that you never ask a surgeon if you need surgery, never ask a lawyer if you need a lawsuit. You'll get one, whether you need it or not. And, let's face it, neither the MPAA or the RIAA have ever been particularly creative when it comes to solving problems. Their usual approach is to decry anything new as something that will "destroy the industry" and if that doesn't work, they go to Congress and whine about how they need to be protected. As you correctly pointed out the studios are doing rather well ... what, exactly, do they need protection from? I guess their profits are insufficiently "record breaking."

Actually, this is all about control of content distribution, not money per se. In other words, these groups have enjoyed a total lock on distribution of their product for decades, and they would like to maintain that position, at all costs. They really don't care who gets hurt in the process: if America becomes a technological backwater as a side-effect of the DMCA and their manipulation of copyright that's fine, so long as they get to be top dog. The DMCA is all about keeping anyone else from being able to sell or distribute this stuff without the studio's consent. Heaven forbid that the individual consumer should control how and where he can acquire a movie or a song, or decide how and where he can play it. The focus on "lost profits" is a smoke screen, pure and simple. If they were to admit that they are out to restore their monopoly (well, oligopoly) they'd be in some very hot anti-trust water (where they should be anyway ... if Microsoft can get nailed for this brand of corporate baloney so should the media outfits) so they tell everyone that "we're losing money and need special laws to help fight those evil pirates." That in itself is absolutely ridiculous and I've lost all respect for Congress over this one. There are very, very few business sectors that require the degree of protectionism that Congress has provided for the movie and music industry.

Re:Good luck MPAA!

[CelticWhisper]

What I find interesting about this is that Blockbuster themselves stocks DVD-R and DVD+R media. The only thing I can think of as to their motive for doing this is cashing in on the sales for all possible purposes. I'd think they'd get sued to hell and back for it, but...who knows? I can't seem to make much sense out of why they have the things...