Slashdot Mirror
Interview with MPAA Chief Dan Glickman
farmerbuzz writes "USAToday has an interview with Dan Glickman (Jack Valenti's replacement as the CEO of the MPAA) where he announces that the MPAA will begin suing movie downloaders. An interesting point brought up in the interview: 'At the time the RIAA announced its lawsuits, it said music sales had fallen 25% over a three-year period. The MPAA is in a much different situation. Box office receipts aren't down at all -- 2003's figures were $9.5 billion, the second biggest in history.'"
I find it odd that people cite the MPAA figures for lost revenue. These figures assume that all of this media would have been purchased had they not been "stolen." IANAAccountant but I think that their figures could be reduced by a factor of a hundred to get closer to the actual losses.
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard disk?
A: Some people who were sued raised hell. But by and large, if you look at the big picture, it was important to make the point that this cannot be free. Piracy has a tremendous negative impact on consumers.
No, the movie industry has had a tremendous negative impact on itself. Expensive movies that fail turn into expensive losses. STOP MAKING SHITTY FUCKING MOVIES that cost 100+ million dollars. Believe me, I don't feel sorry for the MPAA when they have to shell out millions to big name actors to get them to act in a movie that sucks.
In fact, if anything, piracy has had a great impact on consumers. The MPAA has been forced to push movies out quickly to consumers at low costs. Walmart has some great titles for under $8. Target routinely has newer releases for under $15 and some under $10 on sale.
A: My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000. A few days after the film was released, a member of my staff found it being sold as a DVD just a few blocks from our offices. I called my son to give him the bad news, and he told me this is happening to all the current films. And then he said, "And what are you going to do about it, Dad?"
Is this quote supposed to make me feel bad? That the head of the MPAA is fighting for the rights of his son who is a producer? I don't. In fact, it turns me off more than anything.
A: I have very good teachers here. I think of myself as having adequate knowledge, but the principles are easy to understand. We have to embrace new technologies, but also enforce the law.
Perhaps you should learn to embrace the wants and needs of the consumers and be less worried about pissing everyone off.
Will we totally obliterate piracy? No. But we have to make it as difficult as possible.
Suing people won't make downloading "difficult". Perhaps a bit riskier for those people in the US who happen to do so.
Regardless, I'm assuming they'll have to go to the ISPs individually with a court order for ID rather than the sweeping lawsuits the RIAA used?
Trolling is a art,
Which is it, Music or Movie Sales? And if it's Music, what do Music sales have to do with Movie downloaders?
Stealing movies is not a crime. It's a right. Don't try to take away my right to commit crime!
Just out of curiosity...
CD sales went down, but how about concert revenue?
Movie box office went up, but how about DVD/VHS sales?
Sue this MPAA!
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Since they are now going to be suing their customers, i will no longer be purchasing any of their films.
I'm about ready to cancel my cable TV as well..
Will my dropping off their cutomer roles hurt them? No.. but enough others follow me..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Profits are up as a result of raising movie ticket prices to make up for losses due to piracy...
So stopping piracy will bring movie prices below $12/show right? Riiiiiiiight???
When it costs as much to see the movie in the theater as you can OWN the DVD for later on, it's a wonder they still make money at all.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Off-topic, really, but the original headline to this story (as seen by subscribers) was "MPAA to Begin Suing Movie Downloaders". That looked like a dupe from Wednesday's story, Movie Industry to sue File Sharers. I'm sure I wasn't the only subscriber to submit a "Dupe!" warning, and the headline got changed.
Y'all who enjoy lambasting the editors over dupe articles, chew on this for a while, alright?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
I found the real explanation here, nestled between paragraphs...
"We know there are losses. We believe we're losing $3.5 billion yearly."
...
"My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000."
Hmmmm. Ever considered that part of that mysterious 3.5 billion dollars might have gone into making this stinker?
In any case, Mr. Glickman does a wonderful job of not answering the question at all, and by pulling a random number out of the air.
The RIAA hasn't lost 25% of their sales.
Sales of singles went down significantly.
But...
Its mostly because they stopped selling singles.
Some of you buy into the crap that these people spout. I think its a joke, and those of buying into these lies should be ashamed of yourselves.
Michael, you newb! Everyone knows not to get their movies from Kazaa!
...We have to embrace new technologies, but also enforce the law.
It was my understanding that it was the judicial systems job to enforce the law. Maybe Danny boy here knows about upcoming (paid for) changes in the law that we don't.
Excuse me...I have to go answer the door.......
Right
LOL, they still don't get it, do they? Sharing is not illegal. Selling is illegal. If I make a copy and give it to a friend, that will never be illegal. If I sell it, then that is illegal. Plus, ever since the RIAA started their hell, I have not purchased one CD. I refuse to support people who use KGB and Gastapo tactics.
BTW, are these the same people who are forcing 30 minutes of commercials before movies?
Greed works, Greed is right. HA!
Man, this cynicism sucks. It is taking so much energy.
And I can't help but notice the word "proprietary". That reminds me of my IBM ps/2 30sx, which had microchanel.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Music sounds the same from an MP3 as it does from a CD. However, I enjoy movies ALOT better on a HUGE projector screen than on my 17" monitor. :-)
Can all fish swim?
It comes across more like genital tugging. When I see heads of organisations like this attempting to paint their business opeations as something the head dude feels morally compelled to do because his child asked him I immediately switch to total cynic mode and am immediately sure there is another agenda.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
My sister wås bitten by å møøse ønce...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
"A: My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000. A few days after the film was released, a member of my staff found it being sold as a DVD just a few blocks from our offices. I called my son to give him the bad news, and he told me this is happening to all the current films. And then he said, "And what are you going to do about it, Dad?" Translation: Awww I'm rich beyond silly. I was the executive producer for a shitty movie that nobdoy wanted to see. Daddy make the bad pirates go away.
I haven't put a lot of though into this, but how will they catch downloaders unless they offer up some bait to begin with? Would doing so preclude them from being able to sue you for taking it? It'd be like a copyright owner handing out copies of a work for free on the street corner, and then suing everyone that takes a copy out of his hand.
What?
Several points.
A) In the past few years, Cable TV, view-on-demand, pay-per-view, TiVo and gang have proliferated. Massively. That means that single-viewing of movies became cheaper. Meaning that people can finally see CatWoman for a dollar before blowing $25 on the DVD. Thus, triage has gotten tougher, and crappy movies can't sell DVDs on title alone, anymore, in quantities they used to.
B) Suing downloaders has nothing to do with lost revenue. Lawsuits are, in the modern world, more frequently made to acquire profits than to compensate for losses. SCO would've NEVER generated income based on its alleged properties on the scale of some of companies whom it is suing. It is far easier, and cheaper in the terms of production expenses, to sue someone than to turn out a new product.
C) Suing downloaders, most likely, doesn't have 'making profit' as a primary goal. Most students and high schoolers can't pay tens of thousands of dollars of damages. No. Goal is Shock and Awe assault on offenders. Smack a hundred of them with lawsuits, and others would back off. At least in theory.
In the end, it all comes down to the fact modern movie costs are overblown. If an actor gets paid several mil. dollars for half a year of half-assed work, and you have several of those actors to pay, then add to that a million other overblown expense issues... Holywood really needs some budget lessons.
'...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
Not sure exactly why, But I am far more likely to purchase a movie rather than download it (opposite of mp3). I suppose its in part due to the fact that I have a Big screen TV and such, but even when I travel, its too convenient to just purchase a dvd to watch on the plane. I dont think the size of the file really has anything to do with it. Downloading is downloading. I suppose quality is a little more important for a movie though.
Music is a far different matter though, I will wait until I get home to either buy a digital copy or download the mp3 if I cant buy one. From what I see pirating movies really isnt that big a problem.
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
There's been many studies that showed the file sharing has not decreased (and I would agree with that). There's also studies showing that CD sales have continued to plummet.
So, you may ask, if the monte carlo lawsuit method isn't slowing piracy then why would the MPAA take up the same fight?
The answer is simple. The goal isn't to curb piracy, that won't help anyone. If the CDs being released now are really bad then stopping piracy isn't going to fix that.
Piracy is simply an income source. A few years ago the RIAA had to find, sign, and rape bands, then spend a fair amount of money to advertise and publish the bands. This was lots of work for a moderate income. Lawsuits are much easier. Simply write a program to log into a file sharing network, write down IPs, and have the printer send out extortion letters as fast as it can.
One person, with a pair of laserjet printers and an internet connection, can generate a few thousand dollars per extortion letter printed.
Hold on a second....
Sorry about that delay, I had to fold the paper that just came out of the printer and put it in the envelope. I just made $2000 by threatening some 13 year old kid.
What? You say this will make me look bad? You say that people will become alienated and refuse to buy CDs? I couldn't care less. I, as the RIAA, make far more money mailing out random lawsuits that I do pushing pop CDs.
The lawsuits won't stop piracy, but nobody wants piracy to stop. If piracy were suddenly brought to a halt then the RIAA would have no income from CDs AND no income from lawsuits. Piracy is what keeps the RIAA in business now.
It's what keeps the RIAA in business, it's what keeps SCO in business, and it's worked for years. The MPAA isn't hurting, not in the area of sales. What they see is an additional income source that they can tap into.
If *YOU* want to become rich, simply start an organization called "anti-piracy group". Contact a few dozen big software manufacturers and get them to sign a contract. "If you let my organization sue file sharers on your behalf, I'll settle out of court and give you half."
You won't stop piracy, but you'll be filthy rich really quick. It's a good income for the software companies so they may be eager to sign up!
Q: To follow up on that, piracy has even negatively affected your family, correct?
:)
A: My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000. A few days after the film was released, a member of my staff found it being sold as a DVD just a few blocks from our offices. I called my son to give him the bad news, and he told me this is happening to all the current films. And then he said, "And what are you going to do about it, Dad?"
Why didn't dad do something about it being such a crappy movie? I wasted a whole day's worth of bandwidth for it.
Ahm yes, but those numbers are based on data when the MPAA wasn't treating their customers like dirt and wasn't sueing everyone. Maybe after their lawsuits get the press they are after there will be a change in the numbers. Of course, if there is, they will just point to that as proof that piracy hurts their bottom line.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
They collect them. They just want to be able to say, "I have that" in case it ever comes up. I have a friend, who if he wants to disturb someone will tell about the time he saw, "Hardware" in the theater.
The MPAA is obviously following in the RIAAs footsteps, and I can't say I'm too surprised. Both the music industry and the movie industry suffer from over use of the rating systems, and lack of true talent in the public eye. What is seen most of the time is redundant tripe (in the form of pop music for the music industry, and most summer blockbusters for the movie industry.) Unfortunately, there are very few theatres that play indie flicks and in many cases video stores don't stock them either. I know, I'm an assistant manager of a Hollywood Video. I know that the MPAA is trying to target abuse, like people downloading and selling the recent "flash boobs, blow up buildings" movie, but honestly the abuse of these lawsuits is frightening. I mean, already, if you have a file on your server that has ANYTHING to do with the title of a movie, you will get e-mails and legal threats telling you to take it down. These lawsuits are frankly too easy to be frivilous with, and this is just going to be another excuse to violate civil liberties by monitoring peoples activities online.
So THAT'S what that means!
I might be the exception to the rule, I dunno, but I know I still go to the theaters for the theatrical experience.
I figure its worth my $6 to go see it on the big screen versus having to find the movie, spend a few hours downloading it, and then watch it in a small frame on my pc and hope the audio sync isn't too far off.
I see this as a much different problem than that of illegal music downloading. When I purchase/download music, I plan on listening to it more than once, and continually throught my life. When I buy/download a movie, I watch it once, maybe twice. I don't have enough HD space to hold on to it, so I eventually delete it. Most people download movies because they just aren't that interested in spending $$ on a crappy movie and that the quality isn't much of an issue. How many people download music at extremely low quality? It wouldn't be worth it. But movies, nobody cares as much, they aren't going to get attached to it in the first place. I go see movies in theaters and buy DVD's of movies that I like, usually after I've seen the movie. People end up downloading movies that they would not be going to see in theaters anyway so there's not much of loss of revenue. If anything, if someones actually likes the movie they just watched after downloading it, they'd be more willing to pick up the DVD. So in actuallity, movie downloading is probably helping the industry by increasing sales.
My eyes, my eyes! These goggles do nothing!
I have a small linux box installed alongwith my TV that acts like a media center. I have a huge desktop with 500 GB storage space which stores my media. i have ripped all the media i have and kept it on the desktop. i dont like to buy any more DVDs, not because they are expensive or anything, they are just inconvenient. downloading movies "legally" dosent help because they come with f@!ing DRM and cant play on the media center, and also, they "expire" after a day ! so the only option is to download for free.
I am really waiting for netflix-like thing to come up, where i simply pay a monthly rent and can download as many movies as possible and view them on a linux box. i dont care if they are DRMed as far as they play on linux.
also, for a LOT of movies that i downloaded from net, i actually bought DVDs lateron as DVDs are anyways of a superior quality. just waited for them to become affordible.
Different case. Different issues.
1 is a case of public safety.
2 is a case of a debatable civil issue.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Dick says, "Anybody who uses the technology to steal our property may be targeted. We want to get across the point that people are not anonymous on the Internet."
...
Tell you what Dick.
If you offer
riding the world those 'not anonymous' spammers
perhaps the world will offer to stop swapping fillums in exchange
How would one deal with a situation where a hacker used your server to swap movies? I mean if you don't know he's there...
Or the situation where you're WiFi hooked up to your 5mpbs cable ends up running bittorrent on supernova torrents for the three weeks you're vacationing in cancun. Will MPAA sue the baby sitter, you, or your precocious 4 year old triplets.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
Move all the DVD fabrication from China to the US. They won't be doing off the book evening runs to sell them or video games for 5$ in Hong Kong malls. And when the occasional copy ends up on bittorrent the fucking hammer of God will find it's mark, what 50% of the time, and fear will keep the rest of the systems in line.
Before Dan Glickman started working for the MPAA, he was at the institute of politics at Harvard's Kennedy School of Gov't. My wife and a classmate did a independent study with him about funding school lunches. She said the he was honest, excited, and insightful - one of the nicest "professors" she had ever worked with.
This has been mentioned before, but while Sec. of Agriculture under Clinton, he was the catalyst in a civil rights cleanup in the department. He had little support from anybody on this (including Clinton, most people would say). He just thought it was the right thing to do. I think that's pretty amazing these days.
People may hate the MPAA (for good reason), but it's better to have somebody like Glickman at their helm than Valenti.
After all, movie industry of today started out as an attempt to escape Thomas Edison's tyranny of requiring every movie to be made by Edison's hardware. How are we going to know the very heroes that are fighting MPAA/RIAA today won't turn into yet another evil that need be fought in future? Considering how fast things go these days, it can happen well within your lifetime.
The fact that the RIAA and MPAA are now going after the people breaking copyright law instead of writing legislation aimed at crippling technology and suing service providers is a good thing.
Now, of course there are still some stupid hybrid technological/legal measures they're pushing like 5C encryption and the broadcast flag. But if unlawful uses of file sharing/copying/archiving diminish due to fear of individual suits, then legitimate fair use will become a significant part of what is being prevented by these measures and they'll hopefully stop or be forced to stop them. Hopefully.
-Ryan C.
Garfield MAKES you wait for the commercials to complete before unlocking the DVD player so you can watch the movie. That means it takes over 20 minutes before I can begin to watch the show. I purchased it for my kids to watch. They like the commercials, I sure don't.
I've started to switch back to VHS tapes. Oh sure, I can put the DVD in and wait until it says ROOT to flip from TV to DVD, but come on! I paid for the DVD, I don't want to be forced to watch these commercials. Let me FF through them!
Keep doing this MPAA, and I'll quit buying your movies. I have bought only 1 CD in the last many years due to RIAA's actions. No, I don't pirate them. I just don't have them. I have XM Radio which is commercial free (mostly) and pay $9.95 a month for that. My CD purchases have been replaced by XM Radio.
Get wise MPAA, or my DVD purchases will go elsewhere as well.
It's not stealing because nothing is taken. It's copywrite infringement!
"I'm one THAT will download"... my typing sucks.
The MPAA is not suing to recover possibly lost income. They are suing to discourage future lost revenue by dismissing the notion that illegal movie distribution will go unpunished. They want to discourage illegal behaviour and they have the force of the law behind them.
Whether or not they have record profits this year, whether you think all movies are formulaic hollywood dreck, whether you think movies contribute to the decay of society, whether you personally are poor, whether you personally don't like lawyers or the MPAA, is irrelevant.
If you are complaining because it's a big evil corporation suing defenseless individuals then I ask you to propose a sensible alternative. Most of you, I am sure, would detest if the police were sent after same. "Embracing the new media" is one thing - but no business should have to just sit there and accept illegal competition. P2P has obsoleted the DVD about as much as guns have obsoleted banks.. which is to say, not at all. The MPAA rightsholders have the right to sell via the internet when they feel it is the time to do so. If not, and there is demand, then the consumer will spend his entertainment dollar elsewhere.
Those who disagree with the law should either work to have the law changed or boycott the movie industry entirely.
If they have to survive by selling copies of Mr. 3000 they're all going to starve to death!
"We know there are losses. We believe we're losing $3.5 billion yearly."
Uhhh....Ahem.
Mr. Glickman, I spend about $1200 a year going to the movies. I **KNOW** that two thirds of those movies were absolute crap and in NO WAY deserving of 90 YEARS worth of copyright protection.
You just keep up this sue-happy asshat behaviour and you can count on a grass roots ground swell that'll have the congress winding that ol' copyright clock back to 17 years where it belongs!
YOU are not in charge of things around here.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Q: Mr Glickman, which movies specifically will you be suing people for sharing?
Q: And which networks will you be targetting in your lawsuits?
Q: Specifically what time of day will you most likely be busy gathering IPs of sharers?
"'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."
You can't claim the the movie industry is doing great despite file sharing. Box office sales are not the same thing as CD sales. One item (CD's)is something you bring home with you, its virtually the same if buy it or download it. Going to a movie is more then the movie itself, it is an experience. So while in fact file swaping may be hurting CD sales, it's going to have a minimal effect on people going to the movies. If you choose to compare DVD to CD sales you have a much more fair picture. Something to consider however, is the technology behind each product. While CD's have remained relatively the same over the last 10 years, DVD's offer many new features driving consumer interest. The average joe knows at this point they can download the latest music cd intact, but most don't know how to get ahold of a limited edition Stars Wars DVD with all it's extra content, 6.1 sound, etc. and how to make it work in their home player. Finally you must consider the proliferation of CDRW vs. DVD Burners...
I don't understand how they can expect to stop this technology. Once you give civilization the ability to do something that is very easy and efficient, it's like taking fire away from cavemen. The thing is that both media forms, music and video, are not going about it correctly. They're suffering from being scared that the technology they monopolized for so long is converging into different, more easy to use media forms and they aren't taking this opportunity to make it work for them. I really feel that they need to be spending more money on business model plans for the future that uses the internet and digital technology to their advantage, other than trying (and I stress the word "trying") to sue anyone downloading. Cable and DSL providers want file sharing, whether they say so or not. If you take away the 35% of the internet on Bit Torrent and take the rest of the big files being exchanged on the internet, you won't have much need for such a fast connection for long. Anyhow, I think the MPAA and RIAA need to invest time and money into new business models, other than getting scared and going on the offense so much.
We know there are losses. We believe we're losing $3.5 billion yearly. Someone sneaks into a theater with a camcorder, films a movie, puts it online for the world to see for free, and it gets duplicated into DVDs that are getting sold on street corners from New York and Los Angeles to China. If this is allowed to continue, it will sink our industry.
I guess this numbnuts has never seen a camcorder copy of a movie. Absolute CRAP.
Like everyone will start downloading crappy camcorder copies, so no one shows up at the theaters any more except the camcorder pirates.
This moron is smoking the same batch of crack that Daryl is smoking..
BTW, *cough* most people *cough* watch movies from the net to decide if they want to BUY an original or not. No one wants to go spend $20 on a non-returnable item just to find out that it SUCKS, as most movies do now.
Also there is the OOP stuff. Some of the oddball and oldies just aren't available anywhere else.
These people aren't losing a damn thing. Go look at the movies for sale section in Wally world. If they weren't selling them they wouldn't stock them.
The movies section gets a LOT more retail floor space than the audio section does....
The MPAA et al should get it out of their heads that the figures they are spouting as actual losses to their revenue stream are factual will actually be believed by anyone with anything beyond about a grade 7 education.
The figures they quote are not actual losses, and I'm pretty damn sure that everybody knows it, so there's no point in them trying to convince anyone that they are.
That said, however... they are still entitled to compensation because their copyrights were infringed. Anyone whose copyright was infringed upon may sue the infringer for any amount he or she desires up to a maximum amount that the court deems reasonable. The person suing needs to at the very least justify their claim for damages with something sounding slightly more informed than "this is how much I want"... and calling it "projected revenue losses" makes it sound moderately educated enough that the amount may be considered justifiable by the court. Of course, either way, it's always up to the court to decide whether the amount is reasonable or not, but the judge will not be particularly symathetic to persons who can be shown to have actually infringed and can justifiably award even "non-real" damages to the copyright holder if they can make a strong enough case for the amount they are asking for.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
That the RIAA/MPAA's whole approach throughout has been that movies and music are REQUIRED to make profit, that there is no such thing as risk in the entertainment industry?
A: My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000. A few days after the film was released, a member of my staff found it being sold as a DVD just a few blocks from our offices. I called my son to give him the bad news, and he told me this is happening to all the current films. And then he said, "And what are you going to do about it, Dad?"
I can't believe he's actually proud to bring that up. I just can't believe it. It's almost as perverted as the fact that Dubya can call on Jeb or his Dadda to get him whatever he wants.
Man, America is going down the pipes in fifth gear, and nobody's doing anything about it.
<RANT> All you pacifist liberals/lefties/intellos/geeks who like to shit on Micheal Moore because you think it's more intellectual to be able to shit on your own camp (ref. Team America, World Police)... you'd better get off your starbucks drinking asses and get something done, and fast...
I grew up in several countries and continents through my life. Namely, Canada, Turkey and France. I clearly remember in my younger years how the US was in fact something of an ideal. An actual land of the free. You may not realize it but this is changing fast. It actually boggles my mind that such a deep cultural change could sweep the globe so fast.
</RANT>
PS. FUCK KARMA!
In the surprise over this news about the lawsuits from the MPAA, it seems that there has been little thought about one of the major differences between the MPAA and the RIAA.
The difference is summarized in one word: theaters.
My understanding was that this was one of the major reasons the MPAA wasn't going to sue customers because the association between the MPAA and theaters is too strong creating a very vulnerable and public target.
This is a very different situation from that of the RIAA. While you could argue that a concert is a close analogy to a movie theater, there are some subtle differences that make theaters much more vulnerable to public action such as picketing.
I don't think that most people who download movies are watching them on a computer any more. With a $100 DVD Burner, $0.25 blank DVD, plus free (and awesome) DVD Shrink, you've got yourself a shiny new DVD movie.
I don't respond to AC's.
No, people just shouldn't watch "SHITTY FUCKING" movies.
But that is the kind of porn he's into.
Even thought that profits are up for the MPAA this is only through increased ticket prices. Ticket counts are continually going down at this point .
My UID is prime is yours?
Download trends can stay the same for all that matters - this just about dispels any direct correlation between file sharing and loss of revenue.
Not to mention the slashdot articles in the past stating how much p2p activity was up in the past few years...
I guess their case just about falls apart, eh?
My argument still stands: it really doesn't matter if you download movies or not - the rest of america will still pay to see em. Ok, so they only get $9 billion instead of $9.7 billion. Boo hoo.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
I never download movies, but now that they're doing this kind of crap I think I will. Don't try and tell me how I'm being "bad" or something, I just don't enjoy the idea of a company suing people to the point where they live the rest of their life without credit or in debt. If the movie costs 19.99 you should only be able to sue for 19.99. Say no to corporate fear mongering.
that gives me an idea..
I think i'll patent "leeching" first thing though.
God is real unless declared as int
Society is really messed up when corruption amongst lawmakers is treated as casually as both interviewer and interviewee did here.
Did the interviewer make up the bit about Republicans claiming an entitlement to certain jobs based on their control of Congress, or is their support for this?
This is a far more serious issue than movie piracy.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
there are all sorts of ways to beat the system.
always mosh clockwise
... some topics would better do without an illustration...
I had an idea the other night. The MPAA should give movie goers a free DVD copy of every movie they go see.
Maybe you have to make it $1 or something? Either way, I think once you've paid to see a movie, you should not have to buy it for $15 or $20 if you want to see it again. No?
If you just want to wait till it comes out on DVD then it should only cost $5 to $10. Something like that.
- Kevin
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
Distributing other peoples works without thier permission is indeed against the law and has been for a couple hundred years. The only difference that selling makes is that it then becomes a criminal offense instead of just a civil one.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I believe their strategy works, although maybe just for a percentage of file sharers. I know someone who stopped using P2P entirely once the lawsuits came out. Sure, even if you're statistically not likely to get sued, why risk it?
If you're just downloading for fun, to hear a couple of songs or watch some movies, then why not just spend 20 bucks and get it legitimately?
For me, being on a university network is wonderful for downloading--but I don't try to abuse it. If I want something really bad, then buying it is usually what I'll do. For those passing interests (maybe I'll watch some silly comedy movie) I'll get it online and feel stupid for even bothering to download it.
In the end, how fun is it to watch the video/listen to the track--and compare that to how much trouble you might have if only 1% of people who saw it got a threatening letter...and if 1% of those people actually got sued, but had to waste weeks of their time and thousands of dollars, then is it really worth it?
I think it's about time some people get sued. They are the ones clearly breaking the law--nobody is trying to shut down bittorrent per se. If the music industry doesn't like people downloading their movies, they should forcefully "remind" us of it--and then act on their threat. That is the most powerful deterrent I can imagine.
...those of us who simply don't like theaters? music is very different because you're listening to it (generally) under the same circumstances as you would if you had bought a CD. but for most movies, if you want to see them when they come out, you have to go to the theater, pay too much money, and tolerate a head in front of you, kicking feet and fidgety knees behind you. not to mention a fellow moviegoer who might enjoy announcing plot points. and my all time least favorite, applause. being in the theater for a movie is rarely an enjoyable experience, and i'd much rather watch a movie as soon as it's available in the comfort of my own home, without waiting for it on DVD. why does there have to be a waiting period for watching something in an environment that isn't annoying?
I've already seen multiply DMCA notices from BayTSP on behalf of Paramount for people using both Gnutella and BitTorrent. Someone is finally backing up their threats?
Not that I care, but this is pointless. Honestly. Anybody who is willing to sit through two months of constant harddrive thrashing, bandwidth sucking, by their favorite file sharing virus to download a Movie to watch in a 320*200 artifacted and pixelated window, is probably so low on cash they wouldn't have paid money for it anyway.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
I love movies. I hvae a very low income but I own close to 200 DVDs. I'd say at least 20-30 I've purchased because I downloaded an unknown movie I would have never been able to see in a theater or even saw a trailer for. When I download a movie and watch it worth watching again I purchase the movie.
A few examples of great (at least i think) films I've downloaded just on a whim without seeing a trailer or hearing about (i do read a brief IMDB description though) would be Donnie Darko, Boondock Saints, Hurly Burly, Free Enterprise, Waking Life are just a few off the top of my head.
I do use netflix and I do purchase many films on DVD after an initial viewing on netflix. If there was service like netflix via bittorrent or something similar I would gladly pay a monthyly fee. I would also assume since it'd would be shared bandwidth they wouldn't require that much of their own to start the service. Maybe even a discount to customers who'd total upstream is greater than downstream or something.
What I'm trying to say is in my case I they make more money off me because I'm able to find great films I never would have had access to if it wasn't for it floating on the internet.
The reason I say its debatable, is that I feel the legality of downloading many of these movies is debatable in the first place.
Short version: If the movie aired in my market, I should have the right to download it at a later date, in the same format it was offered at the time of showing. this is because I could have recorded it at the time.. so I have a right to possess it.
While this may or may not hold up in court, it's a valid argument. and regardless, its how I feel and I act on how I personally view the world. Not necessarily how the laws dictate.
But i wont beat a dead horse and continue on with this thread..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'm going to state this up front. I'm kind of an asshole when it comes to things like this. But please, hear me out and I think you might find we have more in common than you believe.
The biggest problem with videos of movies that come out on theater is that they are in Cam quality on IRC. I download these religiously. I don't think I have a god-given right to them, but I download them like no tomorrow. If caught, oh well, it was fun while it lasted and the MPAA can enjoy suing me. They can "make an example" out of me. If someone can get away with using lawsuits to ask for outrageous amounts of money in damages, then I don't particularly see a future for myself, anyway. All I see right now is dodging one litigous situation after another.
Anyway, I steal because I just can't justify spending 7 dollars per ticket plus five dollars popcorn and pop for myself and a date. And yet, I'm suppose to court all these lovely young ladies that are gold diggers too. (Told you I was an asshole, stay with me, here)
I went to see Return of the King, and I think that will be the last one. Forget the crappy quality of the Cam versions, I enjoy the other little things, like:
1) Popcorn and pop cost whatever I spend on them at the grocery store. Usually about 50 cents a can and package.
2) I have as much room as I want, either on the couch or leaning back in a computer chair. I can even change my clothes while watching the movie.
3) I can pause the movie when I have to take a crap. Or to go jerk off.
4) I can answer my cell phone and say, "What's up?" without being booed and hissed to the foyer. Same goes with farting, people won't get offended and tell those pimply-faced teens to ask me to leave.
No, I don't answer my cell phone during movies (I have it on vibrate, I'm not a total asshole) but it sure is nice to hit pause and then answer it right there. Can you imagine if they gave people remotes so they could pause the movie while they used the crapper, got a drink of water, made out, or breast-fed the baby? Return of the King would have been 3 days long, not 3 hours.
For what it is worth, it's not the MPAA that is the problem, it's the damned theaters. They have to start introducing some things that I can't purchase for my home and use that to try to get me to go there.
Here's some ideas:
1) Private rooms or twenty-person rooms with a large screen TV instead of a projector.
2) A table I can put food, Goobers, or a UMP on.
3) Theater massages - This can include vibrating chairs
4) Headphones. These serve two purposes: first, I don't have to hear the little brats screaming/whining/crying; and second, the abducter that is stealing the screaming/whining/crying brat will actually get away before the mom notices her kid is gone, so the kid will grow up in a god-fearing Mormon/Candian home, far away from me.
5) Naked chicks. The theater girls aren't always that ugly and fat, why not pay the good ones more to give us a brief synopsis on the movie while in the nude?
6) Hell, maybe if they even started providing gas for my big olde SUV I'd start going.
i've been doing just fine without cable for about 8 months now. don't missing anything. i used to love the discovery channel but that was before the 'makeover' shows started qualifying for 'discovery'. i did like the TLC 'junkyard wars' but since the original dudett (cathy rogers) left, it ain't quite the same. never cared for much else on TV. haven't bought a CD in over 4 years. except for 5 Joe Satriani CDs (would buy direct from Joe if he set it up that way but oh well).
now what do i do in my spare time? sketch, play along with Joe on the guitar, create drum tracks on 'hydrogen' to play along with, learn from microscope slides the wife prepares, read books (GNU press mostly), photography etc. (note to self: need to find decent fiction from the gutenberg project).
all in all, MPAA and RIAA ain't getting squat from me. keep producing Ms. Spears and 'kangaroo jack' for $12 and $19 (respectively) all you want.
there. i voted with my dollar. and no, i don't partake in 'file swapping'.
Yeah and every movie I watch on regular TV means I will never purchase the DVD and every song I listen to on the radio means I will never purchase the CD and every book I read in the library is one less book I will buy.
I think it's only a matter of time before McDonalds starts suing people who distribute recipes online.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Goal is Shock and Awe assault on offenders. Smack a hundred of them with lawsuits, and others would back off. At least in theory.
No, Shock and Awe would be Atty General Ashcroft arresting 20,000 people (mostly kids) for gross copyright infringement of music and movies. That would probably put an end to open piracy, but is probably not fesiable.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
As shown by the success of iTunes and Netflix, people want their damn media WHEN they want it, HOW they want it, and CHEAPER than what you're currently charging.
Sorry if you feel that movies should cost that much...but frankly the market is saying otherwise.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Stop saying people are "stealing" when they copy movies and other stuff against the law, when they are obviously committing an act of murder against the rights of the owners, and murder of creativity.
Copyright infringement is murder, and should be penalized accordingly!
Awww, Precious! If only you had the balls to sign your name to your post...
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
A question for anyone who cares to respond:
Every time there's a crackdown on a P2P app, Slashdotters are quick to respond "There are legal uses. I don't condone piracy, and think it should stop, but don't kill technology X just because it can be used for piracy!". This is a standpoint I agree with, but my question is this: For those who say they oppose piracy, see it as a crime, etc, how do you propose this crime be faught? I agree that killing the P2P apps is bad, restrive anti-copying DRM is bad and that suing your owns customers is bad, but what's the alternative?
Please don't see this as flamebait, I'm honestly curious; if we are to protest all the anti-piracy measures implemented by the RIAA/MPAA, and yet claim that we're against piracy, how to we propose to handle the logistics of this argument? Or do we expect that the movie studios et al should allow their works to be pirated, thus tacitly condoning the action?
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
Almost every video store has some kind of unlimited rental for 9$-15$ a month.
:)
I can currently get 3 movies a day for 9.99$ a month and then thanks to my dvd burner my video library is larger then it would ever be if I was just downloading them
Look, the people selling that copy are doing soemthing wrong (though actually I would have pointed out to him the distinction between offering the movie for sale and actually selling copies!)
So are the people sharing the movie.
Why is it so wrong to sue them? I totally agree it is stupid to do so, but they are having people take the product they own and share it without permission.
There are other things to complain about but who cares if the movie and music indsutry alienate every customer on the planet? Let them dig their own graves I say.
In the meantime just try not to get in the way of the dying monster.
This is a case of an INDUSTRY going downhill, not the country in general. Perhaps even industry is wrong though as just like there is a thriving indie music scene, so to is there a pretty vigourous indie movie scene to go to when the big studios stqrt to get too uppitty.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
At best, it'd put an end to 'open' piracy in USA. And honestly, in-USA piracy problems are nothing compared toproblems originating from Asia and Eastern Europe. And no matter how many US teens Ashcroft arrests, that won't make Chinese, Indian, Hungarian or Russian teens from sharing & downloading movies, music & software.
'...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
I think the actors are due a fair share of the movies profits, but to do that, they would have to be paid a percentage of the net, and it is an axiom in Hollywood that NO movie makes a profit.
For the actor, 10% of nothing is still nothing, even though the movie grosses $200M at the box office.
So those who have the reputation and box office draw, contract to get a fair share of the potential.
The MPAA is a criminal organization who is solely interested in gouging as much money as they can. Add to that the intentional intimidation factor of threatening to sue every man, woman, child and dog that even looks at a download, and you have the Kosher Nostra in a nutshell.
Awwww, precious! If only you had the balls to sign your post... And had the intelligence to realize that popularity contests score nothing other than popularity. Ah, well.
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
Blaming piracy on lost revenue is basically targeting a symptom rather than the underlying cause.
RIAA has overlooked the fact that it is completely obvious to consumers that they are being ripped off. Buying a CD often costs more than half of what it does to buy a DVD. Everyone can see they are over-priced. Recording songs is way cheaper than shooting a movie. DVDs hold 5 to 10 times more data than CDs. Music CDs hold 74 minutes or less of music and movies are always longer than that, plus there are no special features on a CD. Paying $15 or more for a CD just feels like you're being gouged.
MPAA whines about lost revenue and piracy while making historically high profits. DVDs are more reasonably priced but it still costs over $50 for parents to take kids out to the cinema. Add to that actors who get milions for three months work and it's hard to make people feel bad about copying a movie even if it is wrong (yes, it is still wrong). Furthermore, they play these idiotic, outdated games with primitive encryption and region codes and varying distribution dates that frustrate movie fans outside the USA. I bet a lot of pirated video is copied from North American and Quebec DVDs for viewing in the UK, France and other french and english speaking international viewers.
Let the **AAs keep trying to treat the symptom instead of the disease and sue away (and ignore the cure that Apple found). Eventually they will die of consumption.
with the money you earned, you can purchase some DVD's, rip 'em and give some Divx to your friend the pirate.
Yee haw!!! Creating your own lawsuits er... market.
Isn't that sweet? O:)
I wonder if they also include lost sales due to people boycotting them because they hate litigious bastards.
Personally, I've just extended my RIAA and BSA boycott to include the MPAA, and unlike music, which I never bought before, I used to occasionally go to the movies (last one I saw was Farenheit 9/11). And Hades will freeze over before I buy any MPAA media.
I'm glad you put "property" in quotes, but the example you then go on to give still shows a lack of understanding. In order to even try to argue for the **AA's side, you cannot ever equate real property with intellectual property. That deserved some bold text because it is the #1 trap people fall into when debating this issue.
The reason your Ferrari example can't be used as an analogy is because a Ferrari is an example of real property. It's something that has a reproduction cost. To give a proper analogy, how would you feel if Joe paid the $2,000 for paint, steel, and aluminium and built himself a Ferrari? Would you still call him a thief? Could Ferrari still claim a loss as a result, and would you sympathise bad for them if they did?
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
If the movies are so bad why are people stealing them ...?
... and the portions are tiny!"
"The food here is terrible
"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
I'd bet that the impact of the actual lawsuits is miniscule compared to the impact of all the publicity and discussions surrounding them, which they get virtually for free, including here on /. Therefore let's stop helping them.
I have yet to see anyone mention my reason for copyright infringement: To cut off their air supply. I want these people out of business. They've bribed our so called leaders and now it's time to make them pay.
Actually that's because the role of the theatre showings of movies is no longer to make money. By far, and growing, the most money a film makes is made from DVD sales. The theatre showing role has become that of promotion, and building word of mouth. There is certainly some money still made during that time, but essentially even a moderate "blockbuster" will only make a bit more than cost over it's run, but the word of mouth and buzz built up will pay off imeasurably in the DVD sales market. People will go to movies, but that isn't the sales source that the MPAA is worried about stifling with piracy. It's purely the DVD sales. Anyway, I must admit that I am much happier with the way the MPAA has run business than that of the RIAA. They embraced the DVD format, sell them at, what I would consider, fair prices, and try to give consumers what they want. Are there still crappy movies? Of course, but they aren't just pushing out crap 24/7 and stifling independent movies. Rather they embrace any indie movies that are deemed worthy by the public. And again, selling at a fair price in a format that consumers overwhelmingly approve of. The RIAA is struggling for their lives, and pissing off customers in the process. The MPAA, on the other hand, is testing the waters to see what sort of threat there is to movie downloading. Admittedly, this could all change as the MPAA deems the threat, perceived or real, as large enough, but until that time, I think it's a bit too soon to deem them as pure evil... Though the broadcast flag is a whole other story...
Of course people aren't spending money to watch movies anymore. The price to waste time watching a stinking movie is more than the minimum wage. So why pay to waste time when you can make money wasteing time, lets say as a ticket ripper.
Well, just by watching the RIAA's actions, suing people ins't really a money making venture. Why? Cause most of the people they sue, might give up a few thousand dollars at most, if not going bankrupt to cause they can't even afford those cots.
The amount they spend on lawyers to go in and try a case, they probably be lucky if they break even on the venture.
The only reason I can see the MPAA to start sueing, is more just cause they think they can deter future file sharers from hopping on the train.
Taking the RIAA as an example, again, it seems that file sharing is up, not down since they started suing people. Part of the reason, might be because of all the attention shown on the problem.
Before the media started talking about file sharing, it was pretty much limited. I mean, I didn't know about Napster, till an episode of 60 minutes(though, I had heard of other file sharing communities).
My dad also learned about file sharing throw the news media. Though, he's given it up, not cause of lawsuits, but cause he got XM, and doesn't listen to cd's anymore.
I've gone to the movies lately, though its not a regular occurance. Spiderman 2, LoTR:RoTK, Michael Moore's Movie(cause a professor requested that our class go see it, to discuss it as part of a political course I was taking), and Team America World Police. Other than those movies, I haven't really seen a movie worth seeing to me, but thats just based on my personal prefences.
Q: Let's move to politics for a moment. As a lifelong Democrat, your appointment to the MPAA was criticized by several Republicans who said they felt a member of their party should have gotten the nod, since Republicans were in control of Congress. And there have been some reports that Congress withheld its support on some recent MPAA-supported bills in response.
Benito Mussolini, inventor of Fascism, once said that it could more properly be called Corporatism, since it is the merging of government and corporations.
Read the above quote again, folks. We live in The United Coporations of America - a fascist country.
This space available.
Stop all the downloading!
I thought he said
Will we totally obliterate privacy? No. But we have to make it as difficult as possible.
The Piracy theme has been widely discussed within the closest circle of friends and family. As of me, I find two reasons behind it. Firstly, it's not the prize, but the availability. I used to live a place where we had a 100MBps line, and surely the net was full of copied movies. It is possible to think that all these people are copying music to get it free. "Steeling" it, and thus making themselves criminals. The problem is availability. You're sitting down, having a boring night, and nothing on the tv or whatsoever. And then you know that you can have a movie down in the matter of minutes. Now, if the movie buisness had provided a download service, where you paid a REASONABLE price for the service, don't you think people would use this service rather than makin criminals of themselves? At least a certain persentage? When renting a movie might cost 5$ in the blockbuster, how much of this goes to the moviebuisness? Not much I'm sure. What if the moviebuisness were able to skip the middle part and deliver the movies directly to us for a better price? I for one would be happy to see that day.. And ohh.. With gooood quality. Lack of service isn't the only problem, overpricing is something everyone points out. I recently moved to Argentina, and behold! I can go to the premiere of a movie, paying as little as 2$, I can buy the DVD for less than 10$, aaand of course I could buy a crappy quality bootleg VCD on the streets for 5$.. So what do I do? Now I go to the cinema twise a week, MINIMUM. And I've got myself a nice collection of DVDs. For me this is about the only solution to the piracy "Problem". Give the customers what they want. Better service and lower prices!
I'm often willing to spend money and see a movie that my friends or co-workers say is good in the theaters if it appears to catch my interest. Sometimes it is a good thing to have a night out. Movies are a decent opportunity to do this.
On the other hand, if there is nothing that catches my interest, I won't go to the theater. If the MPAA wants me in the movie theaters twice a month, they need to start churning out LOTR-quality movies at record pace.
If I'm not willing to go to the theater, I'm certainly won't spend hours searching for a torrent and downloading a movie that doesn't interest me enough either. Even on consumer broadband, it still takes several hours to grab Hollywood movies at a reasonable quality. It isn't worth the effort.
Certainly there are people downloading movies in considerable quantity. But seriously, the MPAA members are raking it in with ticket sales of good films, DVDs, Special Edition DVDs, etc. Not to mention merchandising. This is when they release three or four good movies a year and the rest is utter crap. If they could divert their efforts away from horrid movies, maybe they'd make even more money.
Suing college kids and teenagers just makes them look like royal assholes and it looks like they are just doing it to get a supplemental two or three grand here and there.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Like myself, whom have pirated movies in the past, watched them, and forgotten them... later find the movies for a reasonable price on the shelf, and because we remember greatly enjoying the movie it then became a purchase
I just bought "Spaceballs" for a reasonable price of $10 the other day. I probably wouldn't have looked twice at the thing if my roomate hadn't pirated it when I'd seen it years ago...
Personally, I'd rather borrow a book from someone.
Have Linux installed at your place in Amsterdam, for cheap
Why bother debunking everything a bunch of sue-happy Nazis want people to believe? Doesn't that get tedious? I don't see anyone going so far to debunk the KKK's 'logic' or anything like that. Isn't it easier to just accept that these people are bunch of mindless tyrannic bastards like the aforementioned groups?
Honestly, it's like telling a schizophrenic person his pencil isn't talking.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
Since LOTR, the only movie I've seen in theaters is I Robot. In fact, most of the time I find myself going to theaters only if its on the big IMAX screen I got near by, as I know that I'll be seeing regular sized movies on HBO within a year, and when that happens, I turn on my ATI AIW for capturing if I really want to, and then I spit that out to VCD or DVD for watching on my HDTV. Movies? those aren't my taste for downloads. Its stuff that's legal I go for, or stuff that companies turn blind eyes to, like fansubs of anime until it's licensed that I'll go for.
They've already crippled the technology, and hampered the tools.
Go ahead, make a copy of your DVD. Oh wait, you can't
Don't think that for a moment that the movie/music companies are being thoughtful by taking their stand against lawbreakers, it's because they've already written laws (through bribery) and got otherwise-legitimate companies shut down - and in the case of ISPS their hands were tied (common carrier, etc).
Okay there is a big difference here. The RIAA distributes music while the MPAA distributes movies.
I'm glad I just stated the obvious but I did it for a good point. The extended time it takes to watch a movie then to listen to a CD changes the effect of the product. You don't go around watching Chapter 3 & 5 of Kill Bill Vol. 1 and then watch a little Chapter 6 out of Cube. When this is easy to do with music, because one song is not directly connected to the other. With movies your going to watch the whole thing.
I find downloading movies is more like renting them, if I like the movie, I will most likely buy it. Mainly for the subtitles, great sound, dvd extras, and overall quality. Music isn't getting any better weather you get the CD or the mp3s of it. You can always download the cover and anything else that comes with the CD. You can do this with DVD's too but most don't. Most likely you will find a divx rip of the movie, with no subtitles (or enlish if the movie is in another language) with no dvd extras, no DD 7.1 surround sound option, a set quality and view port. The Divx copies are extremely limited.
People that download these movies for the sake of watching the movie wouldn't buy the movie anyways, they would probably rent it. Which as we know doesn't take away money from the MPAA, it takes away money from the rental business. Also there is a slim chance that people wouldn't even rent the movie. Generally the only thing I will do with a downloaded movie is watch it once to find out if i will be purchasing a good product that i will enjoy having. Sure, you could say that I am still doing this illegally, but this is helping the movie business because I have bought dvd's now that I wouldn't have imagined wanting to buy before.
I do disagree with what people are doing when it comes to pirating movies before they have came out in theaters, this can take away from theater sales because there are quite a few people that don't care if they see it in the theater or not, how ever this seems to be happening in every data business these days, weather it is music, movies, games, or software, on any platform and through any medium, it is a bit of a madness, but shame of the MPAA and the RIAA for trying to make a point by sueing random people that may be benifiting their company. You do not slap the hand that feeds you, eventually your going to end up starving!
redvsblue.com
::BANG!::
Sarge: Did you just shoot yourself in the foot?
Simmons: Yeah I do that sometimes now..
Copyright: The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.
Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Or, to get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent.
$24.99/mo looks like a bargain compared to the what you're paying for the big fat pipe you use to download those movies.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
"While I agree with your basic point, look at it from the other side; Joe Dirt is in posession of their "property" which they value at full price."
Okay, then why do the studios not deduct this "cost" of piracy off their tax returns? I mean, it is a legitimate business loss, yes?
Perhaps because the IRS would laugh their asses off during an audit (Do you have any evidence to back this up?). In short, it IS NOT a legitimate expense-at least at the levels they state.
If someone (tax professional, IRS agent...) has a better explanation, I really would like to hear it.
It's perfectly reasonable to argue that that type of piracy does represent lost sales, and I for one think it's entirely legitimate to go after the people peddling those sorts of things. Too bad he goes on with Now THAT just makes him sound like a media-whore-sue-everything-that-moves twit; it's a shame, he had a good thing going. Well, except that he shouldn't be allowed to breed - I wouldn't d/l Mr. 3000 if you paid me $9 to.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
"Box office receipts aren't down at all -- 2003's figures were $9.5 billion, the second biggest in history.'" Well no shit, heres why...Because movies are rediculously overpriced. Is "Ladder 49" really worth $9 bucks for 1 person, during economy time, in Portland Or. If we were in NY, or Cali it would cost f'n $12 bucks and maybe even $20 for an evening show. Back in the day it was like $5. No wonder Box Office sales are breaking records, One ticket today is worth 2 yesterday. I don't even download movies with the exception of pr0n.
Careful, now. Not too close.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Just as bad as f'ing Jack Valenti.
Losing money in lost sales bs.
They need to put more effort into employing these disruptive technologies (like P2P) rather than fucking with their own customers.
Jesus, whine a different story, will ya'?
You feel like you've lost dollars in campaign contributions? Or bribes perhaps?
The whole fucking system sucks.
If all the music and movie sharers were able to buy off the politicians the fucking copyright laws would be changed significantly, but no, these assholes have voices in administration disproportionately bigger than 99.9999% percent of the population.
When will we get a say???
When are we gonna elect someone who might actually change the system? Quit fucking voting for these shitheads that accept bribes!!!
And quit calling it stealing and piracy. It's not, it's misappropriation. And it should be legal.
Zero-margin downloading. Cut out the useless fucking middle-man!!! What the hell value does he add anyway???
He shoves fucking Britany Spears ads down our throats. Do I want that?
He distributes CDs and DVDs so I can go to a store near me and buy them. Do I want that? Fuck no!
He bribes congress and the senate so he can maintain his fucking elevated position. I CERTAINLY don't want that!
And he fucking skims a ton of cash into his own pocket. Fuck that!
The worse thing??? The artists don't get shit. Not when you consider the actual total sales. A pitance.
Let me buy music straight from the artist:
1. I'll pay more - happily.
2. I'll have much more of a personal relationship with the creators - maybe even influence them.
3. They'll earn more (talented ones will anyway) - cut out the shit in the middle. No need to pay for stamping CD's or distributing physical media.
4. Noone is lobbying with MY money, against my wishes. I can put my money where I want to.
5. The talentless crap disappears. No idiots dancing on stage lip-synching!!! Who wants that anyway?
6. With a sea-change in the system, artists will be more likely to coroborate. Remove the pressure placed on the artists from the scared fucks who are afraid to lose their cash-cows and power.
7. People sharing music will encourage communities. More experimentation. Wider variety. Execs won't be pushing only that music they think will make the most sales.
Most of this goes for movies too.
Fucking lobbyists assholes.
While box office revenue may not have suffered, it is worth noting that ticket prices have escalated over the past few years. Soon enough, prices would be in the double digits for everyone (yes, that includes senior citizens.)
My reaction is to not frequent movie theatres as much as I once did, thanks to rising ticket prices. Not that I am protesting, just that I cannot afford it. Nowadays, I wait until the movie of interest makes it to (cable/satellite) TV.
and there have been a number of them that I went to see in the theatre, strictly to see them full screen. Fellowship of the Ring, Thomas Crowne Affair (watched it twice on a business trip, as it wasn't playing in my home town), Toy Story 2, Xmen 1 & Xmen 2.
Although I'm ashamed to admit it, I watched Titanic 8 fucking times in the theatre. All because I saw it was an awesome movie in MPEG-1...
Or did he just unzip his human mask and swallow a rat whole?
Dan - you deserve flaming radioactive bleeding out of every orifice death.
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. Saying that there is a market for movies that suck seems like a contradiction to me.
If tons of movies are being downloaded it means that, for whatever reason, they are in demand.
So they can sue online downloaders, but ignore the guy down the street selling it and actually MAKING REAL MONEY out of it?
;)
Maybe that bootlegger is really Jons cousin who is a drop out and cant get a job
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
If it wasn't for piracy they would have made more money!
In fairness 9Million is just not enough, I mean they must be stuck for cash all the time
"WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
Losing money? How's this for loss: "About 250 executives from Hollywood studios and home-electronics companies gathered at the Bellagio in Las Vegas earlier this year to toast their soaring fortunes, thanks to the phenomenal success of the digital video disc. Major studios sold a stunning $9.4 billion worth of DVDs to retailers last year, proof that DVDs now bring in a majority--52 percent in 2003--of Hollywood's revenue." (Newsweek July 5, 04)
So isn't THAT a hoot. These are same maroons who fought videotape under the premise that it would RUIN Hollywood (sorry, there are more than enough folks making crappy movies to do that already). But VHS opened up a multibillion dollar business expansion for them. DVD only speeds up their revenue machine. And now they're fighting DVD tooth & nail (i.e. buried 321 Studios, r.i.p., etc.) and continue to beat on every other possible means of DVD fair use.
"I tried to sleep my way to the top, but my alarm clock always wakes me right up" - TMBG
I can quit seeing Quentin Tarantino films any time I want. I just dont want to.
Speaking of which, why do people think Uma Thurman is so hot? Okay, she's slightly attractive when the camera is kind, but she must have the ugliest feet in the movie industry. Why didn't they get one of those foot models as a stand-in (bad pun not intended) when filming Kill Bill and the ten minutes of her toes?
*just a guess, but you get the idea.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
I'm amazed that movies with budgets of hundreds of millions get made.
Think about it... a seat to go and see a blockbuster costs the same as a comedy or small drama. But comedies cost a heck of a lot less money than blockbusters. I've just taken a quick look at returns on Farrelly brothers and Adam Sandler comedies or small films like Lost in Translation, and then blockbusters, and from a pure cold cash investment viewpoint, you'd keep off the expensive sets and special effects, and cinema from a "film it in the here and now, and keep the number of stars down".
Well, now with the Republican majority, we have almost lost. I still file share. I hope they rot.
dyg
---
my Slashdot karma departs.
Cause what you reap is what you sow. :p
They are milking the FUD. They know that only inertia is keeping them alive.
Most piracy is not purchased. I have no problem with people being shut down for trying to profit off of other's works. If a guy on the street was selling copies of the latest albums for profit, he should be busted. There is a big difference between the sharing type of piracy and selling type of piracy.
Lossy codecs for music are fine. Lossy codecs for video, well who wants to watch a grainy movie on your laptop when it's so much better on the big screen?
How about an understanding of copyright law. (free hint: It's about furthering progress and giving incentives, not protecting property rights.)
But, aside from that, you've certainly remembered your sense of bitterness, self-righteousness and tactless belligerence to a discussion about what copyright really is supposed to do.
So--Good job! You truly are the oppressed minority viewpoint in this absurd slashdot world! Keep fighting for the simple minded viewpoint that, if we can't understand what copyright infringement is, it must be stealing---yes, fight for your basic right to refuse to understand complex things! We're with you, brother!
It doesn't matter what money they're making. If they really thought that movie pirating wasn't hurting them or imporving their profits, why would they pursue it? It doesn't make sense.
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
I don't have a DVD player. I don't have a CD player. I don't have a VCR. I don't even have a television set. This is actually the honest truth.
And I consider hard media dead. Dead, I tell you. All my entertainment is enjoyed on a large computer screen. I would have gotten a projector if I had a bigger apartment, I am sure I'll never own a television set or any of it's related devices ever again.
So what is the movie industries alternative for me? Nothing. This is the alternative I want:
I buy a one months free rental card from a major TV station or producer, or from some movie corporation. The one months pass gives me the right to view all and anything from that particular corporation. The corporation should make all their shows available in high quality easily-distributed divx files. Not only does this make customers satisfied, but it allows people to distribute the files and advertise them freely. Movie vendors could also make two versions available: One available for everybody with advertisements and one without. Those who would pay for a non-advertisement copy would do that, those who do not want to pay will not do that regardless.
I'm sure I am not alone in being willing to pay for the copyrighted files available on the net. I would very much like to clarify that it is the divx versions available on the net I am willing to pay for. I am not willing to pay for any streaming service, any service with a closed file format, any format that requires a special player and so forth. The movie industry tends to want control, restricting the customers freedom to use the product to the point where he simply will not buy. He will get a free hi-qualify copy that is USABLE instead. 'I would pay for a streaming service or a dvd if it gave me the right to download the xvid version,' someone told me a while ago.
Now, how would the movie industry end piracy anyway? THIS IS NOT A REALISTIC option. They can not do that. They can, however, MOVE the piracy. They can move it from BitTorrent to Freenet. Then what? There is already freenet and there is not a thing anyone or any corporation, no matter how big or small, can do about it. BitTorrent sites can be closed by Napster was closed.
The public demand for soft-versions (not on hard media) of entertainment is what is making BitTorrent use up to 85% of the outgoing bandwidth at Universities because they industry itself does not provide any realistic meet for the demand.
So what is wrong with hard media? First, it is very unpractical. It takes up space. It involves finding the hard media and inserting it into some device. Download the file and it's already playable from the device, without finding anything. Any computer, xbox and other funny device today can store one movie, and that is all the space needed. Movies are so widely available today anyway there is no need to store it, most people now tend to just download and play music and movies a few times before they delete it. People used to burn these things back in the last century, today it's quicker to download a music album off the net when you want to listen to it than to find the CD you bought of the album 20 years ago.
The environmental issue: There is not a single scientific paper published the last 25 years that contradicts a 6 th wave of mass extinctions (We have had 5 throughout history, the dinosaurs got hit by the second) within the next two hundred years due to the human species over-harvesting, destroying of natural habitats and pollution. We are cutting down ten times more trees than the world naturally produces, we are harvesting 25% to 50% of all plant material produced by the earth in any single year. We need to stop producing garbage. CDs, DVDs and video tapes are unneeded garbage, things we produce not for survival but to entertain ourselves. And for no good reason at all. Electronic distribution eliminates the whole harmful production of these hard-media items.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
I couldn't have said it better.
zosxavius photography
Because we all know how well it worked out for the RIAA.
-- TRUST ME! I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING!
I don't see much point in spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a movie really, unless there's a genuine call to do so.
For example, Aliens, one of the all-time best sci-fi movies ever made, cost a mere $18.5 million to make. Then you have movies like Titanic... $280 million?! WTF?! I'm sorry, but even generously adjusted to inflation, Titanic was no where NEAR 10+ times better a film than Aliens!
Granted, that's kind of an apples to oranges comparison since they're totally different genres and target completely different demographics, but still. I believe Aliens grossed a greater profit by percentage than Titanic will ever dream of.
Hollywood probably has the same kind of business model that it had back when it was financed by organized crime and was simply a way to launder money. The laundering part may have changed, but has the rest changed to adjust to doing business in a way which has a long term viability?
Go ahead and sue the downloaders, they are breaking the law afterall. But consider this, most of them are young people, college and highschool kids; those young people will be your bosses one day, they will take over your industry whether you like it or not, and the fact remains that it is they who will be in charge of your social security and health care. Be careful of insulting the chef you are ordering your dinner from. (I'm refering here primarily to the fact that they are suing people to enforce their intellectual property rights while simultaneously waging a lobby war to grant themselves ever increasing intellectual property rights to enforce.)
Keith D.
I like the sleight-of-hand he is pulling. This looks like a decent replacing for Valenti - we are bound to enjoy his lies and FUD in the years to come.
:)
How do you like the answer to the growing revenues question? First, he pulls a number out of his ass and claims that they are losing $3.5 billion per year. Second, he tells us about cam copies, briefly mentions the online distribution and finishes the argument with a story about counterfeit DVDs sold in NY and LA. The implied conclusion is that 1) cam copies are killing the industry and 2) lawsuits against fileshares will stop the production and spread of cam copies. Brilliant!
His story about his son Jon is pure gold. I mean, the "what are you going to do about it, Dad?" is even better than the tired old "think of the children" and "starving artists" cliche. Now I know what the MPAA is paying this guy for, he's a genius!
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
It's not "stealing" you can't steal something which is not there ;)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I don't see at all how you can claim any presdent is the product of nepotism. The country voted bush in, it's not like 51% of the populace owes GB senior a favor that he called in. In fact GB senior was pretty remarkably hands-off in doing any campaining at all that I noticed!
Furthermore for any kind of neptosim to be present, you would at least have to have some people voting vor GB because they liked GB senior. I've not heard one person say they were voting for or against GB because of what his father did - people voted for him because of what he has done, and against him for the same reason.
Blinding yourself to the truth of whay he was voted in does you no good because you will keep failing to stop him, by failing to understand just why people are voting for him. If you want an example of nepotism at work I would look to Alaska, but in the case of the president the action of the father are just too far removed from those of the son.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Am I the only one who thinks that the penalty for this type of copyright infringement (not theft) is way out of proportion with the gravity of the offence? The people they sue tend to be people like grandparents, 9 year olds, and college students. These people do not make money off their copyright infringement like bootlegers do. Why not make the fine just a couple hundred, like a speeding ticket?
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
Things have always tended to grouping. Families are an example, and frankly I see nothing disturbing with anyone in the same industry asking the head of the MPAA "What are you going to do about movie piracy"?
That's kind of the whole point of the group! Love them or hate them, it's general issues like these that are the reason they exist. To proclaim them evil just because of a grouping of similar interests parental or otherwise is just being paranoid.
I don't know where you are from, but I don't know why you would try to hide any association to any group whatsoever. Are you the ultimate loner or what? Of course they would proudly proclaim membership in whatever group is backing them.
Sure corporate america tends towards groupism. But with a group comes group consensus, and then a slowing. Then as has happened throughout history, the group that has suddenly paralyzed themselves by joining a group is removed from power at some point by a quicker, faster moving company that dominates the sluggish old one.
You want scary? Look at a company that's not really a joiner - Microsoft. They are parts of standards groups and things but not in the same way other companies are - they are only tools. But even Microsoft has seen sloth settle in, and looks to be in a long decline as other companies dance rings around them.
Your real problem is that you cannot see beyond the power of the moment, to the balance of the future. Sadly your hatred blinds you to the truth, and you see fit to live your days in the paranoid shell you have crafted for yourself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't think it's exactly fair though to compare most arab countries and places like France and Germany and then say that familes are generally harmful.
There are many cases of benevolent groups too - like the EFF for example, or so many nonprofits that do good things, sometimes as a coalition.
Whats bad is when a group starts thinking too short term, when they start trying to protect thier own members in a fearsome embrace that ends up hurting everyone. Here I would use the example of the MPAA or RIAA, where the actions they take might possibly help members short term (though even that is doubtful in my mind) but definatley hurt them long term by alienating customers.
So to answer your question, I would rather have groups that are able to have some power with the ability for new groups to be able to challenge them when they act in ways not healthy for society. Here I think the US has had some issues with no full supporting anti-trust as well as they might, but I have to tell you that as a person starting a small business myself I would rather be doing that in the US than in France or Germany - even with larger health care costs.
Finally, I would like to say that there IS one Truth. It's what is recorded my history. I think I have a feeling for it by extraploating from human behaviour over thousands of years. I might be wrong but in five or ten years I'll know if my theories were Truth or something else... But it is possible to come by the Truth. your guesses just have to be in alignment with what actually transpires.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Home Recording Act allows users to make copies of their music to share with friends and family members.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.