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.'"

41 of 476 comments (clear)

  1. Fuzzy math by DeepFried · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Fuzzy math by superpulpsicle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The entire MPAA, RIAA and every other one of these lawsuit SCO-wannabe organizations have no idea what they are up against.

      I have bought TONS of songs via iTunes, and I can tell you that I am ashamed to have spent $16 in the past per CD with 2 good songs because that's all they would market to me.

      There are so many artists out there with great music, and probably great indie films too. You'll never get exposure to these great media as long as the record companies and MPAA have their way.

    2. Re:Fuzzy math by Twanfox · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I love that belief, that every download or copy made without paying for it WOULD HAVE BEEN a sale. Believe me, there are movies that I've seen that, while yes I liked, I would not spend what they asked for it. I would not go out of my way to acquire the movie. In all honesty, if I lived without seeing the movie again, I could probably do so very happily.

      For some people, there is a certain price that they're willing to pay for something. In the case of someone who won't buy it, that price just happens to be $0.

      Exceptions to this statement are those people that would have bought it, but instead saw it for free (pirated) and in their cost comparison, found free was more amiable to anything else.

      This is not meant as validation for pirating, merely debunking this "lost revenue" crap.

    3. Re:Fuzzy math by bludstone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has anyone really ever asked these people "Do you really think that all the Movies/Songs that are lost sales? I mean, isnt that a bit presumptuous? Some people bootleg dozens of albums they couldnt afford to begin with. How can you justify calling these lost sales, when the people didnt have the money, and were not going to pay for them in the first place?"

      --

      no .sig
    4. Re:Fuzzy math by mikecito · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Look - it's simple. Pay 24.99/month at BlockBuster, as many free rentals as you want. Done. My wife and I pay for the service, and I haven't even felt the urge to download anything when it's free a block away in dvd-quality.

      Of course, you still have the problem of movies not out on dvd. In that case, go to a matinee if you can't wait the 6 months. $4 later you've had a better experience anyway.

      My two cents.

    5. Re:Fuzzy math by ePhil_One · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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. If Joe wasn't willing to pay the $$$, he shouldn't have the benefit of listening/watching the content. If Joe stole a Ferarri he couldn't pay for, you wouldn't be pointing out that wouldn't have been able to $250,000, or that the value of the steel, aluminium, and paint is only $2,000.

      Why should Joe have the privledge of enjoying music/movies/anything that he can't pay for? This isn't Food, Shelter, or Medicine here, Joe will get along just fine without access to the Bubba Bandits latest album (there's even this "free" service called the radio and TV).

      The RIAA bugs me because they use price fixing to inflate the price of their goods, and haven't figured out the sliding price models that serve the software and movie industry pretty well. While these successful and growing inustries price their new material highest, slowly dropping prices over time, the music industry prices new material lowest, then raises prices. But I still don't use that as justification for stealing music.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    6. Re:Fuzzy math by bludstone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because copyright infringement isnt stealing. Its copying.

      Secondly, noone is being denied any money, whatsoever. Noone put money into this distribution, and noone is making money from it. If someone wanted the cd, and could afford it, they would buy it. An mp3 is not a cd. A cd is a cd. Sorry.

      Also, your logic, and the RIAA's is standing in the way of the greatest social and creative revolution in history. Creative works are built atop old creative works. (ask disney)

      In this country, there are kinds of brilliant music that are ILLEGAL and people get sued for. (DJ Dangermouse's Grey album)

      That alone is extremely disturbing. Music should not be illegal.

      --

      no .sig
    7. Re:Fuzzy math by Phisbut · · Score: 3, Interesting
      On the question about the MPAA not losing as much money as the RIAA, he replies : Someone sneaks into a theater with a camcorder, films a movie, puts it online for the world to see for free

      True, but the major difference between RIAA piracy and MPAA piracy is quality...

      RIAA : Someone buys a CD, rips it to mp3 (or whatever format), shares it, somebody downloads it and can listen to it with virtually no loss in quality.

      MPAA : Somebody goes to a movie theater, he brings a camcorder, films the screen, shares the result. Someone downloads the movie, shitty resolution (even 800x600 doesn't compare to today's hyper-huge-screen theaters), crappy sound.

      People who know they'll enjoy the movie will still go to the theater or buy the DVD because shared copies lose a lot of quality compared to the theater version (much smaller resolution and crappy sound), and also some quality when ripped from the DVD version (file decryption/compression usually affects the quality of the colors).

      People who know they'll enjoy the music can still download it and have a 'good-enough' copy and most people won't know the difference.

      When people figure out a way to pirate theater movies with high-quality, then it will become a major issue in MPAA's income. For now, they're just trying to make money off people who downloads their movies and who wouldn't have gone to the theater anyway.

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    8. Re:Fuzzy math by mindstrm · · Score: 3, Informative

      THe distinction you are making is only a temporary one, and they used to say the same thing about music.

      Most DVD rips are now full quality. Yes, some people transcode in order to fit the movie on a DVDR... others will simply use two DVDr's. Now, with dual-layer DVDr, this is not necessary either.

      Further, some poeple just leave them on hard disk, and play from there.

      Good DVD rips are identical to the original DVD. Good transcoded DVD rips are very close to the original DVD (just as good mp3 rips are very close to the original cd)

      Soon, it won't matter.

  2. Keep those DVDs cheap boys... by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Keep those DVDs cheap boys... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "STOP MAKING SHITTY FUCKING MOVIES"

      If the movies are so bad why are people stealing them (sorry, infringing on their copywrite)? I bet I could find a torrent of Garfield the movie if I realy wanted to.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Keep those DVDs cheap boys... by Neil+Blender · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "STOP MAKING SHITTY FUCKING MOVIES"

      If the movies are so bad why are people stealing them (sorry, infringing on their copywrite)?


      It's the Slashdot version of the Goodwin law. When all else fails, justify theft by claiming that whatever you are stealing sucks.

    3. Re:Keep those DVDs cheap boys... by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the movies are so bad why are people stealing them (sorry, infringing on their copywrite)? I bet I could find a torrent of Garfield the movie if I realy wanted to.

      They are stealing them to steal them. I know that some people here don't like the fact of "I'm not going to pay $9/ticket to see a movie but I'll download it for free" issue but it does exist.

      There's a market for free movies even if they do suck. I refuse to spend money on a movie that I just know (or was told) blows.

      Honestly, the only real reason that bullshit suck movies do well is because there is only a small number of movies made and people need something to do with their 2.5 kids on a Saturday night.

    4. Re:Keep those DVDs cheap boys... by subzero_ice · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have seen the movie Mr.3000 and would say that Dan Glickman's son should be happy that people are buying the DVD because anybody in the right state of mind wouldn't. It is a totally worthless movie. If thats whats lost revenue they will never be able to cut it down unless they improve the quality of the films being made.

    5. Re:Keep those DVDs cheap boys... by grub · · Score: 3, Insightful


      I know that some people here don't like the fact of "I'm not going to pay $9/ticket to see a movie but I'll download it for free" issue but it does exist.

      I'm one of those people.

      Not all movies. We have a "rule of thumb" that unless it gets a 7.0 or higher on IMDB (my peers, so to speak) we just don't go or download it. That all said, we rent DVDs once in a while yet very few of those are worth the effort to copy with DVD Shrink to DVD-R. Most recent movies are so-so one time views, that is what I think they're trying to grasp onto.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    6. Re:Keep those DVDs cheap boys... by Spudnuts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What are you going to do about it, Dad?

      Too bad the answer wasn't "Hold out for you to produce a movie that's worth protecting."

  3. shake in your boots... by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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,
    1. Re:shake in your boots... by zurab · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Suing people won't make downloading "difficult".

      I've stated this several times before, but WTH, I'll do it again. The problem with the MPAA is the same problem with the RIAA - they are both cartels: they are not competing for a consumer dollar amongst each other, they are enforcing illegal trade restrictions, bribing congress for ridiculous laws that don't make sense, and seek more control of the market and revenues by any means to avoid business risks associated with free market and competition. Once you are down that path, there is no turning back unless something drastic happens in the industry.

      So, no, their strategy is definitely not making the downloading difficult - they are just ending up suing their best customers.

      Imagine now, what would make "piracy" really difficult is if there was any competition in the entertainment industry and consumers were getting what they really want. No, not the service that works on Windows media player only and you pay and download a "movie" that you can watch for the next 24 hours only on your computer. This is useless. What consumers want is a service that allows them to download a movie (in MPEG-4/XVid/DivX/Theora/whatever) for, say $5, burn it to any DVD easily and watch it on any DVD player of their choice. Imagine now if all this can be done many ways - using your computer, networked DVD players, DVRs, etc., etc. On top of that, how about making the deals with broadband providers to mirror the content for faster downloads? How about helping them deploy fiber optic cables for better and faster market acceptance and saturation?

      If not this way, find another way to deliver content and meet the existing and future demands of potential consumers. Let the market and the competition decide what method will win and what your consumers really want.

      Instead, the way the cartel is taking the industry and the "market" is paying legislators to try to pass mandated DRM schemes, CDBPTA (or whatever), INDUCE Act, broadcast flag, guaranteed tax revenues (while they are not paying their share of taxes), restricting fair trades, and best of all - suing their own customers.

      Will people ever say enough is enough and make their governments disband the illegal cartels?
  4. Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just out of curiosity...

    CD sales went down, but how about concert revenue?
    Movie box office went up, but how about DVD/VHS sales?

  5. Soon there will be only one way to d/l movies by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  6. Ive bought my last movie by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 ----
    1. Re:Ive bought my last movie by interiot · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you disagree with the policy decisions that the monopoly that controls roads makes, you can quite literally vote against the organization(s) who made those policy decisions.

      If you disagree with the policy decisions that the near-monopoly that controls movies, you have only one choice: "vote" with your wallet. It's probably even less effective, because you only have one ideology that you can vote for or against, rather than voting between two competing ideologies, but if you want to do something other than simply bitch about it on slashdot, clearly it's about the only choice you have.

  7. title by Malicious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
  8. Mr. 3000 by mopslik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Negative Impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Piracy has a tremendous negative impact on consumers."

    Right

  10. MPAA Shouldn't be losing money. by rmadmin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. :-)

  11. Spare me the heart tugging bullshit by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  12. Awww poor baby by ColdZero · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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.

  13. Value of movies, lost revenues and lost paradise. by Andr0s · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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'
  14. No Surprise by Natchswing · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm not sure this surprises anyone. The RIAA took on a campaign, with the "stop piracy!" flag waving high, to sue every file sharer they could identify.

    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!

  15. No nepotism here... by PsychoKiller · · Score: 4, Funny

    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. :)

  16. Give him a chance! by shilad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  17. We should be applauding this by Ryan+C. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  18. Yay for nepotism by pVoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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?"

    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!

  19. The payoff comes later. by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You'll never get exposure to these great media as long as the record companies and MPAA have their way.
    It's not just movies and recording industries, mind you. When I was a kid (13-17), I pirated lots of software... and I mean a LOT of software. When I was in college (18-21), I pirated (or downloaded... whatever) a lot of music. Lots and lots of free music, hundreds upon hundreds of songs. Now, I'm 26, I have an income, and I'm free to purchase whatever I can afford. I'll give you one guess what types of software and music I've been purchasing. Did you guess the types that I "stole" and liked when I was younger? Good guess... Isn't it common knowledge that the single most "stolen/pirated" thing out there in the electronic world is "Windows"? That really destroyed that company...
    1. Re:The payoff comes later. by metlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't it common knowledge that the single most "stolen/pirated" thing out there in the electronic world is "Windows"? That really destroyed that company...

      The best part is that it really _helps_ Microsoft, because it brings about wider adoption.

      Do you think Microsoft really cares about that much about home piracy? Yeah, they do come up with all these policies and strategies to counter that - but in truth, it just brings about more people using Windows.

      That is an area where Opensource can really pitch in, IMHO.

  20. You have no idea what you are talking about. by pavon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the US copyright code:

    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.


    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.
  21. Quality by Sheepdot · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  22. Its murder, silly, not theft by Peaker · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

  23. RIAA issue is completely seperate from MPAA issue by pretzelsofwar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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..
  24. Ladies and Gentlemen, I introduce the... by GeneralEmergency · · Score: 3, Funny


    ...the world's first fully functional Pig-Nerd!

    Careful, now. Not too close.

    --
    "A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
    GeneralEmergency