Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Sues Movie-Swappers
aacool writes "The MPAA has filed a first wave of lawsuits against individuals they say are offering pirated copies of films using Internet-based peer-to-peer file sharing programs." From the article: "The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any installed file sharing programs. The MPAA said the information detected by the free program would not be shared with it or any other body, but could be used to remove any 'infringing movies or music files' and remove file sharing programs."
Firewall,
firewall,
firewall.
I don't do the p2p thing but I'll be damned if I'm going to let somebody sniff around my system without my permission.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
They will make available a program that guesses which files are bad?
Can I rename my home movies with names like "Terminator.mpg" and then sue them when the file is deleted?
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
...that I need to delete all those...never mind!
Google cache
Will the madness never end?
The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any installed file sharing programs.
I would like to see the source code for this program, please. (Guessing it behaves much like a common virus or spyware.) I hope SpyBot releases some patches against this kind of snoopery.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
anybody knows that some legit files will be deleted. Willthe RIAA pay for that?
Har! But I already wrote & patented a program like that, so the MPAA is infringing on my copyright by distributing it for free over the internet!
If they invade peoples' computer without permission and remove P2P programs (which aren't illegal on itself) just like that, they'll get sued themselves. Even if they wouldn't be breaking some law, which is probable, with all the cyberlaws flying around.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
nt
Now what was the name of that russian proxy server again?
From the article: The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any installed file sharing programs.
The big and obvious question here is of course: but does it run on Linux?
I better erase my copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 right now! I would feel bad if Michael Moore ever found out I downloaded it.
:D
Heh... I didn't, btw... I lub Bush!
"...program that sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any installed file sharing programs..."
This program must have access to a master list of movie names for comparison to your filenames that is either installed locally or accessible online. Couldn't an enterprising individual just "back into" those reference names and rename his files to something that then won't trigger a flag?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
It is disturbing that an ad for Doom appeared under this topic...
I want to find out exactly how much stuff I have that the MPAA deems 'copy protected'. I would run their crazy program to find out, but I'm scared it's going to make me delete it all if I run it. Someone has to be first! If it will just give you a count, we could have a competition to see who has the most! Awesome.
Ashcroft should go to work for the MPAA, now. They seem to have similar philosophies
Their software doesn't offer support for the Macintosh platform! Oh my! I guess I better install Virtual PC...
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
I've been waiting for a program that deletes files and programs off my computer without my authorization!! Let me load up gnutella and download this program now!
On the bright side, the movies Hollywood puts out are for the most part total and utter garbage that they might actually be doing a world a favor by impeeding their distribution...
Are they going to get this program on to the computers of people who are swaping files? And exactly how is this program going to remove other third party software without access to the underlying filesystem? What about non-windows users? (That is unless this program acts as some kind of virus and forcibily removes it against the user's wishes)
I get the feeling that the people that are swaping these files aren't going to be very forthcoming or cooperative with the MPAA's wishes.
In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
And they won't just try to break the pocketbooks of everyone involved, either...l ?tid=226&tid=17
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/11/16/1529202.shtm
Working Google cache link
Glad to see the movie industry finally taking action against those responsible for breaking copyright law, rather than against the tools such as P2P, Bittorrent, and other filesharing programs which all have legal purposes.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
and it's probably already been done. I know there where companies specializing in this crap, and like all businesses they've probably got scads of patents. If not, I smell money...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
nope
It's too bad that they cannot find alternatives to lawsuits, you might find it plausable that they could perhaps offer movie's online at low-prices, and maybe even really early releases for people on the internet, and charge a price? Well I guess the thoughts didn't add up to make enough, although these lawyers aren't very cheap, it's hard to say which would make more profit... Anyway those are just my two cents!
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes something special to be different
...and the home of mega-conglomerates who sue their customers despite record sales!
when they pry it from the ashes of my cold, dead hard drive.
Seriously, I can understand the movie issue but I think it's a bit idiotic of them to go after filesharing in general. Oh, wait - there are no legitimate uses for filesharing, right? I see where I was wrong. I apologize humbly. I will go immediately and chop up my debian cds.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
So long FTP, watch out rsync...
Somebody at the MPAA must be crazy if this is true.
So this program, presumably similar to what they use to find movies and music, is actually available to everyone? So, for example, I can "check" "my" drive for any "illegal" music or movies? I've ripped most of my CDs onto my hard-drive. Of course the MPAA doesn't know if I own those CDs (they would have to prove I do not), but I will gladly direct them to the boxes downstairs where I keep all the jewel cases (for the record, since file-sharing, my music purchasing has gone from 1-2 CDs per month to 3-4 CDs per week).
Other people might use the program as "insurance" to make sure they are safe from any one tracking them.
As I don't have anything to hide, I would not mind using that program. Rest assured I would do my best to make sure information isn't being sent somewhere (custom host file? firewall? who knows).
So, my guess is I am the anomaly and would actually not mind downloading that software and trying it out.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
I don't understand. What's so good about fucking criminals arbitrarily deleting files on your computer?
I have been having problems with bittorrent lately. Anyone else seeing trouble? All I use torrent for is Linux and BSD iso. Could the MPAA and RIAA be starting to mess with iso file transfers? I know my server (telus.net) has started to monitor some of the torrent traffic.
RTFA you asshats. The program is not a worm which searches over the internet but a program for "concerned parents" to scan their own computers to find out what their children have been downloading, and from where.
Judging from what the article says, it seems as if the program would act more like ad aware or spybot, since it would be available for download. My guess is targeted toward the soccer mom's, it's available on some site to download and parents would download it and check to see if they have anything that could be pirated stuff, just as if you were checking for malware or spyware and remove it. IMHO the MPAA is evil, but if they want the common person to adopt this, then they are going to try to make the software as nice as they can, and not make it some type of worm. That would also just give them bad press with the regular joes & janes of america.
They are just begging for those lawsuits to come rolling in. The only place I can see this type of software being useful would be corporate networks, where the user has no rights to the boxes they work on. Sometimes it is not smart to be the first.....
Except, they never said it would automatically delete the files, probably for exactly this reason. They're just trying to prevent the defense that you didn't know it was on your computer.
And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
its under YRO because of their new program. Anyone remember the Adminmod fiasco back when lots of admins were using the client exec capability to trash peaples HDD's?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
The software isn't meant to run remotely. It's for a local user (a teenager's parent for example) to find pirated movies.
just goes to show you how powerful a reality-distortion field these mpaa people walk around in, if they think anyone is going to actually download and use their "warez detector" software.
if anyone had any doubts that the mpaa has completely lost touch with reality, this latest move should completely eliminate them.
Free as in [freedom|beer] now:
freedom as in slavery!
This brings up the interesting question: how does the MPAA program find "illegal" movies on your computer? With a little reverse engineering, this shouldn't be all that hard to find out, and probably even easier to fix.
The trade group said it would also join with the Video Software Dealers Association to place educational materials in more than 10,000 video stores nationwide. The materials will include anti-piracy ads that are also playing in theaters.
would these be the same ads where low-paid lighting technicians and extras complain about piracy because they are losing money(ie. the same ads salaried workers are paid extra to claim their payment from a film has anything to do with the profit of the film itself)? or would these be the same ads where the movie industry parades around its underpaid workers while "forgetting" to mention that, even if a movie is horrible the "stars" will still get millions?
The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde
... I was soooo enjoying buying 50 - 100 DVD's per year ever since 1998. I'm going to miss it. You brought my boycott upon yourself MPAA.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Parents!
There have already been well publicised cases of families having to settle with the RIAA because of a child's filesharing activities.
I expect this will be promoted by the MPAA as a way for parents to ensure that their children don't get the family in trouble.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
This article cites St. Louis as the first city to receive suits, followed by New York and Philadelphia. Examples of movies: "Troy," from Warner Bros., "Spider-Man 2," from Columbia Pictures and "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen," from The Walt Disney Co.
...any installed file sharing program That's a good one - I must admit that a lot of p2p file sharing is about pirating software/music/movies, but why on earth are they trying to find out whether someone is using a file sharing app? Looking for people sharing files called Terminator3.avi on Kazaa (example) is one story, but scanning entire subnets for p2p apps sounds to me like the RIAA is pushing it too far again.
I don't read replies by ACs.
I'm rather interested to see about this. I only use BitTorrent right now; are they tracking bittorrent users as well?
I wouldn't be surprised if they were (BitTorrent is inherently public after all), but I'm wondering what they will do about Japanese anime type of stuff (Since that's the only thing I download these days).
i didnt RTFA, but do they consider it illegal to download episodes of a show (like episodes i missed or earlier seasons)? I know its just about the movie industry now, but tv channel companies might pipe in later.
Current Ares user, started kicken it in '98 with Napster.
Fucking criminals.
It's actually not as unpleasant as it sounds.
Hopefully they'll have co-ed correctional institutions by the time the copyright police hunt me down.
Please come to Canada and delete my movies. Please! PLEEEEEEEEEEASE! I sue you for violations of my chartered right to privacy :) I'm a broke student and I NEED MONEY! Come to Canada! ...Please?
(with sugar and a cheery on top?)
The article describes an as yet unnamed program that parents can download from their website to run on their own machine. "Parents want to know what their kids are downloading onto their computers..."
It's not a bot/crawler/whatnot. Hang up your tinfoil hat now.
I could see the corporate I.S. people using this to check on employee's desktop systems.
I think the previous poster was more concerned with being funny than casting aspersions. Did anyone involved tell you "Shocked! I am shocked to learn there is file-sharing going on in this establishment!"
Capture the stream from say HBO from your cable box onto your computer, and have a movie say Terminator.divx?
From the MPAA point of view, it is still a movie on your computer.
So does this program only delete files that ARE copyright violations, or does it delete anything that contains the string "Terminator", or "Xmen" or perhaps "Matrix"?
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Well, I guess the MPAA really doesn't like not being boycotted. It's a pity really, because I actually spend money on movies and video games...well, I guess just video games now. Oh well! ^ ^
It's been a long time.
From the linked MSN news article: "The copyright law also provides for penalties of up to $30,000 for each motion picture traded over the Internet, and up to $150,000 if such infringement is shown to be willful."
So, if some family member of mine uses my computer, downloads some movie using a P2P program and leaves it there in my "shared files" folder, I can be fined $30,000, or potentially more?
Whatever... hearing about this stuff just makes me want to promote the piracy of movies (and music) because of the way the record/movie industries are handling the situation. They're behaving like little kids who got their candy taken away from them... they'll bitch and whine and scream and do anything to get it back, but never even consider any form of rational reaction.
loads gtk-gnutella on my OpenBSD box If they write something that will run on a *BSD box, they can have the shit!
This guy is way out there
Files you captured yourself (which I presume are legal, video tapes are, say off HBO), from those you downloaded. I realize that due to the DMCA you aren't allowed to rip DVDs because of encryption, but what about HBO feeds?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
to scan their own computers to find out what their children have been downloading, and from where.
SCANNING............
REPORT: 6 potential infringing objects detected
ANALYSIS: according to our records, the following items are copyright 2004 by Pinnacle Premiere Entertainment Studios
OBJECTS FOUND:
BarelyLegalinBlue.avi
GOGirlsGOvol_2.avi
That'sHowSheLikesIt.mpg
640TittiesOughtToBeEnoughForAnyone.wmv
OOOHYEAAAH.avi
GroupCollegePartyFreaks(see these babies do it all!).mpg
What the!!!!!????
BOBBY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When you spray pesticides on a population, and only one plant is resistant, that plant thrives. To date, the MPAA has not allowed the porno industry to join its ranks; after all, it's responsible for regulating morality for America via PG and PG-13. So if they go after movie swappers, but not PORN movie swappers, won't this have the effect of creating a population of p2p shared movies which are "safe" - that is, just porn?
I love the law of unintended consequences.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
I think people have the right to be policed by POLICE, not by companies. Companies should have the right to hire reputable companies to research suspected copyright infringement. Corporations should not have the right to snoop on people's private property and delete whatever they want - ESPECIALLY with an automated utility. If it was okay for anyone to be their own police, that would be anarchy. If America was anarchy they wouldn't have just had a presidential election.
Plus it's the MPA*A* - America only. I hope the MPAA does go through with this hackneyed plan so that they delete the private, legal files of some poor Brazillian who, in turn, sues the MPAA and the American government for allowing such a travesty.
And don't say "Freenet", as it's a) Slow as a dog. A dead dog at that, and b) Not really suited for p2p type file sharing.
I don't want to get into the whole "But it's still stealing!" arguement here, I'm just rather surprised that no one's created a totally anonymous p2p solution, particularly considering all the lawsuits being thrown out by the big media companies.
(And yes, I realize it must be pretty hard to create such a beast)
This program isn't some mandatory piece of software that the MPAA is demanding you put on your system and run, as many many people on here seem to be assuming. They're *making it available* so uninformed, technologically-impaired users can find all the shit their 12-year-old kids have been downloading on Kazaa/whatever for the past year, so they don't get sued.
Thinking about that for a second, it's interesting - yet another manifestation of the "culture of fear" thing that's been going on for some time now... Better delete those AVIs, kids, *or else*!...
At the movies here in New Zealand there are ads on before the movies, one of the ads is to get you to advertise in theaters, and they say's that movie attendance is up, revenue is up, etc... if a movie is worth seeing it is obvious that people are still paying to go and see them.
The downside of movies in NZ is that a lot of them aren't released here until they have already been in American theaters for 3 months...
Dear MPAA,
I ran your program and my computer said, "not executable". Had I known it might execute me I would not have complied with your request.
Sincerely,
Joe Numbnutz
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
However, as a Systems Admin, it would be nice to have this available to scan my corporate LAN. I am all for file-sharing, but I don't trust users to do so safely and would prefer to protect my servers and avoid lawsuits at work.
Won't the normal snort p2p.rules pick up most of this traffic?
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
Hear me out, I'm not talking about snitching.
/." jokes aside) there must be enough intelligent and creative people here to come up with some feasible copy-protection schemes, even if they aren't orthodox.
It's getting more and more obvious that the guys at the MPAA trying to figure out how to curb piracy are either (a) idiotic, (b) draconian, or (c) draconian idiots.
But it's not like they're not going to stop, and so long as they can lobby, it's not like anybody is going to be able to effectively curtail them. Assuming that it's (a) they're idiots, maybe we ought to start thinking up some ways that the MPAA gets what it wants -- no more piracy of their products -- and we get what we want -- no more of this treating-customers-like-criminals garbage.
So? Going with the idea that their solutions suck, what are good suggested solutions from the tech heads here? Surely (all "You must be new to
Here's one: Introduce a new media format that can't be copied easily by computer, have it decreed illegal to use the product on a computer, and market a sanctioned playing product for the media format at a low price.
Yeah, so there are a ton of flaws in that suggestion. Brainstorming is like that. Let's see if what suggestion we come up with that is the least flawed.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Why would the MPAA release a scanner that detects pirated music files? I thought their purpose was to protect motion pictures from being pirated, not music.
"The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any installed file sharing programs. The MPAA said the information detected by the free program would not be shared with it or any other body, but could be used to remove any 'infringing movies or music files' and remove file sharing programs."
Sounds like a trojan/sniffer, and last I checked it's sort of illegal to use one of those. I know that this is used to actually stop illegal activity, but isn't it illegal to do that without the users' permission?
- dshaw
PS: Do you guys think that these suits will be settled out of court, or will the MPAA have to actually fight them out?
No, fair use allows some sharing, making this anything but "clearly illegal".
Looking at the anti-piracy campaign ad poster (PDF file), I just wonder if the P2P program nicknames depicted are fake or a real sample of fileswappers the MPAA has observed on the net... :)
Like I said...tubgirl link above.
Ha, well not in that nerdly manner, no, but he did sound pretty pissed off about it.
Surely there must be a torrent or something...
Waking Up - There must be a better way to start the day.
In pursuudo epso, epo no madis teht hadi.
Great. So now this'll just further fuel the movement of the extremely large file-sharers to move to those P2P networks that are completely anonymous, like GNUNet or Freenet.
Sure I'll install it! Um... Hmmm, no linux version. Oh well!
Do you think that 90% of the population even realize the war that is being fought on the internet to protect their basic rights? The invasion of big corporation into our homes is a serious problem that the vast majority of americans would not want to have happen to them, yet they are wholly unaware that this almost happens on a daily basis because of big corporations.
1. Create a virus which links the Windows kernel to Brittany_Spears.mp3 :)
2. Sit back and let those with this program let it do its thing.
Since when do we have the right to swap movies (or music for that matter) online?
Living in Canada I've had this right for a long time. I can't distribute content but I can freely download it.
Easy, this is a program that you install and run on your own. It doesn't install itself with out your permission nor does it erase anything with out your permission.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it involves terrorism.
I didn't know the Canadian economy was that bad. All of that snap immigration after the election must have been crushing to the labor market.
No matter how much it may pain you, as a /. reader.
It's an application you can voluntarily install. They aren't forcing anything, on anyone, other than trying to enforce copyright compliance on people they are pretty sure are sharing.
If you don't want their application checking out your machine, don't install the damn thing.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
And my reason is simple, those "damn" virus writers and our IDIOT lusers here in the US keep us techies employed... if Linux were adopted or BSD or any system that separates trivial user processes from admin processes, then we'd have less of this crap to deal with and even the Indians would be unemployed.
CAN YOU IMAGINE?!?! we'd have to find REAL problems to solve!!
I hope the MPAA isn't using something like find or file from System V, otherwise they'll have to answer to SCO.
lending dvd's to your buddies? Nobody gets any $$ out of it and it seems to be legitimate... (can anyone remember Divx, the other format)
Provided people aren't selling copies of movies, i can't see the big deal, provided the film is on legit release on dvd, hadicams suck.
- Rob
Join the Digital TV discussion @ http://forums.dvbowners.com
I've got a new idea that's simple enough. Don't let companies own copyrights. Simple enough, if an artist writes a song, and wishes to be signed to a record label, the label can't own the copyright, only the artist. On top of this it shall be illegal to make a contract binding the individual to use the copyright in any way, shape or form, so companies can't just simulate owning it by saying "you must do what we want with it and we'll make you money." And there shall be punishment to any company who is trying to bribe or use any other type of manipulation to get someone to enforce their copyright in a certain way. This includes threatening to end contracts over it. Assume greed.
This will ensure that those who are using copyright's protections against people are the actual creators of the object, not some corporate giant who had it signed over to them, and is going to use it to "protect" it's investment even if the creator doesn't agree with it.
It also means we know who to buy from, and who to avoid like the plague. Who's evil and who's good. But oh no, this proposal would take away the god-given-right of companies to be treated as individuals. Tough shit.
This is getting ridiculous. Of course you know I'd proposal total elimination of copyright in favor of a system guaranteeing creator-recognition and listing works used, but not guaranteeing any type of profit, but this would get mr.right-wing's panties in a bunch, so I won't go there in this one.
This is just an addition onto an existing law, after all, most laws are. Radical changes never get made in this country because everyone is afraid of failure. Of course those who are really afraid of the change are those in control, those who lose, and those who don't know. When it's already failing, those three are one in the same.
If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
Since when does illegal = wrong? I don't understand that way of thinking. Yet many people have that attitude.
In some us states, pounding your wife in the ass is illegal. In some us states getting a blowjob is illegal.
You can't turn and say because something is illegal, it's wrong. Take alcohol prohibition in the 1920's for example. Some hard liners in Congress felt that drinking was wrong and made it illegal. Many disagreed. After some civil disobedience, the prohibition was lifted.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I've noticed the same thing (and hey, I just saw your site pop up on my bt list today, btw!).
I suspect it's due to the recent release of Fedora Core 3 which is slowing things down. It's been about 9 days since the release, and all the normal ftp/http/rsync sites are still plugged up. That's why I finally went to bittorent, and hey, it rocks! It may be slow, but at least it's working.
It's also a superb example of why P2P is extremely useful.
MPAA in this case ...
(I know, same shit different name, but I can't help beeing the detail-nazi every once in a while)
Buy all your crazy japanese videogames from
No OS X or Linux version of the program available?
DRAT!
There's no way for this program to tell if I own a legal copy of the CD and made mp3s from it to use on my mp3 player. It seems as though the program would just assume any music found on the computer in the catalog of the major record labels must be pirated. The same goes for movies.
its awful nice of the mpaa to give us a scanning tool so that we can prove that our file obsfucation works correctly. We just have to obfuscat the files well enough to beat their tools and we dont have to wait to get cought to be sure the software is working correctly, thats GREAT. I cant wait until something like edonky grows to support file obfuscation and calls it 'encryption' and thus makes all of this p2p scanning by third parties a violation of the DMCA.
From the article: The trade group said the program would be available for the Windows computer operating system on a special Web site established to educate consumers about copyrights. The name or exact nature of the program was not described Tuesday.
So, no...
The MPAA press release is here. [PDF]
Cos' as we all know, *nix and *BSD are the cure for cancer.
Do they have it for linux? And if so, can I compile from source please =P
Thanks guys, love it.
-- Eekrano
copyright infringement is a civil item, not a crime. Therefore the real police don't give a damn about it. As a society we shouldn't give a damn about it, but hey, there is a lot of money in movies.
Does it run on Linux?
*Ducks*
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
One thing i have noticed, is that they never go after the IRC networks. Thats the only place i have ever DL anything. Is it that IRC takes more time to figure out than say a Kazaa program?
This bullshit really burns my britches. They list an address on their site for Reporting Piracy. How's about we all get together and report CowboyNeal for having "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen"?
The more bogus reports the better!
Hey, MPAA, have at it:
Oops, you probably don't have your sniffware ready for *nix yet.
Possession and/or unintentional distribution is considered a finable infringement..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Go change one byte in the file. Doesn't really matter where, MPEG will at worst just glitch from a bad byte, but there's plenty of places that it won't do anything. Hashes are such that a small change will completely alter the hash (that's the point).
Thing is, I don't think mine came directly from the MPAA. Instead, it seems to have come from some sort of legal agency representing them. According to their lawyer, they are in a screwed-up situation. They have twenty million dollars, but it is in an offshore bank and they are compelling me to assist in moving the funds into an American bank. I just need to set up a bank account for the transfer and I'll get 15% of the funds (I'm thinking I can up this to 20% through negotiation).
Thoughts?
Nuff said.
the *point* is that this essentially gives us teh list of search terms they use to try to find people to sue. doh!
Those ads are so condescending and insulting.
Fuck you, MPAA. And knock off the long ass ads before movies. I don't want to pay $9.00 a pop to be peppered with 15 minutes of TV commercials.
The theater experience just plain sucks these days. Morons with cell phones, expensive snacks, etc.
I want for everything to come out on DVD. Then I grab it from Netflix. Hopefully they won't start peppering DVDs with ads too...
I think you make some nice general points. But look you're mischaracterizing what is going on. (Google for 'strawman' for some better examples of what I'm complaining about in your post.)
So thats Bittorrent too?
Try it! I'll sure you for illegally removing data from my PC. Bittorrent and any other P2P program is NOT illegal, It CAN be used illegally)
I like muppets.
Perhaps all they will do is create a program that can block junk movie and commercial content, look on the positive side someone could hack it and use it to stop movie spam!
How expensive are movies and recorded music? I'm not talking about $8 movie tickets or $20 CDs, I'm talking about Total Cost of Ownership. Suppose some random person had to die every time a new movie was made, or every time a CD was released. Would we value our entertainment enough to tolerate that? What if the RIAA and/or MPAA had to electronically approve every file you saved on your hard drive, and could scan anybody's files at any time?
Helping movie studios and record companies continue to exist in spite of technology that makes it trivial to violate their copyrights does not come free. At some point the cost of these forms of entertainment is too much. How many FBI agents will we need to enforce the technology restrictions the entertainment industry wants to impose? How many more lawyers will we have to support? How much personal freedom will we give up so Hollywood can exist?
At some point you have to cut your losses. I wouldn't go to movies or buy CDs if they were $50 a pop, and I would personally rather live without them entirely than give the people who run studios and record companies all the powers they want, or pay the monetary cost of keeping the system going.
The MPAA also announced the availability soon of a free program that identifies movie and music titles stored on a computer, along with any installed peer-to-peer file-swapping programs. Information generated by the program would be made available only to the program's user, and would not be shared with or reported to the MPAA or any other body. Armed with the program's findings, a computer user can remove infringing movies or music files, and remove any P2P applications.
"Our ultimate goal is to help consumers locate the resources and information they need to make appropriate decisions about using and trading illegal files," said Glickman. "Many parents are concerned about what their children have downloaded and where they've downloaded it from. They will find this tool to be an excellent resource. "
The MPAA's www.respectcopyrights.org site will link to the download site for the Windows-compatible program when it becomes available. The MPAA plans to provide easy access to other such tools in coming months, as demand continues to grow for programs that protect computers from the deleterious effects of peer-to-peer software, including such common problems as viruses, Trojan horses and identity theft.
I wonder if the MPAA's real goal is to demonize file sharing programs. Will this program detect things like icq, irc, and bittorrent programs? Will this have to download info like antivirus programs do? Will there be any features like auto-delete and run on startup turned on by default?
I think he was joking. It's just this suspicion that I have...
footage and movies are actually accumulated as a result of their actions... ^_^
Did anybody else notice this from the bottom of the article?
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
And just below that:
PRINT THIS ARTICLE -- EMAIL THIS ARTICLE
I mean, stupid unenforceable copyright notices are one thing (especially when it relates to an article that is about illegal distribution of copyrighted material) but then they actually include a link to email it on, encouraging people to break their own rules?
What the hell was going through the minds of the designers of msnbc's website they built that sort of functionality?
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
Can anyone say... Tiger Tree Hash? :)
What idiot modded parent insightful? How is a lawsuit and programed to sniff out copywrited stuff different from terrorism? NO ONE FUCKING DIES. For fucks sake people. Grow up and get some perspective. I violently disagree with patent laws as they are, but idiots like the parent don't help our case any.
Everyone likes to blame conservatives for the direction the country is headed, but you know what? I think it has a lot more to do with idiots like the parent. Some idiot spewing that the MPAA is acting like Al Qaeda or some grassroots democrat going door to door declaring Bush to be Hitler reborn DOESN'T HELP. People assume (rightly) that you are a fucking idiot and ignore you.
For fucks sake, you can advocate a position without sounding like some insane religious zealot. Grow the fuck up and keep your mouth shut until you can speak without sounding like a blathering idiot. Your stupid an inane input hurts the cause. Any person who doesn't know much on the subject who would be subjected to parents inane babbling would likely conclude that the MPAA must be doing something right if idiots like parent are against them.
The damages they ask for are reasonable. If they sue for, say, 2-5x the price of the DVD I'm behind them. That's enough to make it unattractive to copy it (I mean who wants to pay MORE for a poorer quality copy) but still a fair and reasonable amount, as required by the constution. If, however they sue for the statutorly allowed amount of $150,000 per infrimgement (which they will) then I cannot support that. That is basically saying they will financially ruin you simply for copying ONE movie.
c h2004.pdf) found that there was no stasticaly significant impact of file sharing on purchases. So at worst the company is losing a sale, and usually they lose nothing.
That is complete bullshit. We have a very strong concept of the punishment fitting the crime in this country, it's one of the founding ideals. Our justice system is designed around that. Speeding is a small fine, drunk driving is a larger one and loss of privledges, killing someone while driving drunk is serious jail time.
More than just recognising it, it's in the fucking constution, you know, the document that all other laws are supposed to conform to. Ammendment 8: " Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Notice the part about excessive fine not being imposed.
Ok well copying a digital file is a MINOR crime. It causes little to no harm. I mean an empricial study by Harvard and UNC (http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_Mar
Yet for some reason, it is punishable by $150,000 PER FILE? If that's not excessive, I don't know what is. You would literally get off easier if you went and stole the DVDs form a store. Now that's an actual real theft, with reall loss (you took something of value they had, depriving them of it), not just copyright infringement.
That's why I can't support these orginizations in their crusade against sharers. They bribe congress in to passing unconstutional laws, and then use them to beat people in to submission. Even those that are innocent are forced to settle because the amount they stand ot lose is to large to bear.
A person sharing 20 movies should not be a case for a major multi-million dollar civil suit. It should be a matter of a grand or two in small claims court. Enough money to make it a punishment for doing it, but not so much as to ruin a person for life for what is really a piddlyshit crime along the lines of speeding.
GroupCollegePartyFreaks(see these babies do it all!) ass titfuck deepthroat qwerty britney horseshit anal teen swallow (etc).mpg?
This is actually a fantastic tool for pirates.
Afraid that you could get nailed for sharing a movie? Run the tool and see if any of your movies show up on their radar. If not, and the movie isn't brand-new, you can be fairly secure that you won't get caught for it.
If it does show up, edit what you can until the hash value changes and the movie no longer shows up as a known pirated film.
This is a boon for pirates.
>80% of comments can be discarded because they assume you will HAVE TO RUN IT. you don't. piss off
At the University of Kentucky ResNet, there have been DMCA complaints (filed by third party companies whose sole purpose is to snitch on fileswapers). The RIAA, until recently, hasn't filed any complaints with UK. Now over the past few weeks I've been seeing RIAA (probably around 30-40 thus far) complaints--wow, sucks to be those students and the complaints are over the stupidest songs. Anyway, the other day I started to see MPAA complaints in the list. This leads me to wonder if these persons are among the first wave of people to get sued by the MPAA.
Oh I'm glad I'm not among these students. It's funny though, most have no clue of what's going on, and one, upon being told he was blocked for a DMCA violation, said, "Well I don't know how--I pay for KaZaa."
LOL
- Danny
They want people to stop downloading THEN MAKE IT CHEAPER TO GO TO THE MOVIES!!!! and Release the movie across the world at the same time. How hard cuold it be and after reading the fucking large profit they made last year(best on record) I really think the are crying over nothing. The things that gets me is why have they not look at the gaming industry for ideas on how to deal with this problem. For as long as I can recall there have always been people ripping off games yet it still makes Billions of dollars. You do not see them fucking having a cry about P2P. Fuck the MPPA and the RIAA they have no right what so ever to know what the fuck I have on MY computer. And the same goes with the wankers a EA and Activision who also seem to think they have a right to tell me what I can have install on my PC
"The most dangerous creation of any society is that man who has nothing to lose." - James Baldwin, American author
...except for the fact that nothing is being shared. Maybe you should try to get the legal definition of "sharing" redefined.
Please read the article before posting stupid comments. I hardly regard something you willingly download and where you have to initiate the scanning yourself a trojan or spyware. Unless of course you also consider anti-virus programs trojans too. They are initiated the same way....oh no, WAIT! Norton scans your system without asking, I guess Symantec should now be sued for distributing spyware. RTFA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
when someone coughs in the middle of a statement like that, it's ment to be funny. it's a sign of guilt/lieing, hence the hints there that he is.
get it?
Steve Jobs invented Movie Swapping.
If you look closely, one of the usernames appears to be "calbear821@..."
No matter how cheap they offer downloads there are always going to be people willing to break the law in order to get it free.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Troll? Are you KIDDING ME?
My sig would have been a lot cooler if
I wonder if it checks .ogm and .mkv files (used for many anime releases online do to soft subtitle support). Might see some shifting away from AVI and MPG file formats.
And I really like how they targeted the 69.109.XX.X class B network.
What are they going to do? Sue all of PacBell's users?
Someone has to pay up and they figure it'll be you.
The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any installed file sharing programs.
...almost done here... Will there be any plugins? ...one more... If people download this on Bit Torrent are they going to get sued for it? Annnnnd... I'm spent.
Am I going to have to sudo to use this? And how long do I have to wait for an ebuild?
Will they port it to *BSD? Will I be able to use it in CLI mode on my X-less OpenBSD system?
Did you see their full page add in the WSJ today. It states:"Is This You?" and then is filled with all these pseudo logins and ips that look like they came out of the movie Hackers, and then at the bottom it states:"If you think you can get away with illegally traficking in movies, think again. Lawsuits begin this week." It's kinda like the KKK advertising in white power monthly to threaten non-whiteys. I wondered why the hell they'd advertise in the WSJ and not some local rag or something more mainstream like USA today to get the point across, but then I realized the message wasn't for the downloaders, but for their investors. So it really is kinda like the KKK advertising in white power monthly: They're making sure they have the support of the corporate community before they go whoopin on regular civilians. They must not be to sure of their cases then. They're trying to capture mindshare before the first attacks. If people perceive they're in the right, then it makes it so.
I just posted a screenshot of an add the MPAA ran yesterday (Monday) in the school newspaper here at the University of Michigan:
- this-week.html
http://adamjh.blogspot.com/2004/11/lawsuits-begin
The ad features the usernames and partial IP addresses of peer2peer file sharers, surrounded by bold, red captions reading:
IS THIS YOU?
IF YOU THINK YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH
ILLEGALLY TRAFFICKING IN MOVIES, THINK AGAIN.
LAWSUITS BEGIN THIS WEEK.
It then proceeds to note that:
Pursuant to the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. Section 504(c)), statutory damages can be as much as $30,000 per motion picture, and up to $150,000 per motion picture if the infringement is willful.
*sigh*
"Stupidity is the root of all evil"
# host all.evil
all.evil has address 207.46.130.108
# ssh root@207.46.130.108
password: *enters stupidity*
[bill@all.evil root]#
So, stupidity is the password of the root of all evil
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
I wonder if this will result in more blunders like this one?
> Speeding is a small fine, drunk driving is a larger one and loss of privledges, killing someone while driving drunk is serious jail time.
:)
Now this is something that always troubled me : what's the difference between a drunk driver and a drunk driver that kills someone? The only thing I can come up with is that one is a lucky bastard, and the other is not. Why do we fine the unlucky one more? Skill is not involved and intent as nothing to do with it. Why fine more? I thought that the end didn't justify the means. Why does it justify the fine?.
So can I break into the MPAA's computers and make sure they're not selling information of what's on my computer? Because I trust them even less than they seem to trust me.
Even if the MPAA developed a program, who would install it? Universities? How easy would it be for the program to scan harddrives of computers connected to the network? If a person has a good firewall I doubt the program could access a computer. Also it would probably be aimed an windows users only as windows security is typically swiss cheese and most windows users have no idea how to secure their computers.
Abandon all hope ye who enter here...
Wow, the MPAA has reached a new low. Now BOTH the RIAA and MPAA suck!
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
Absolutely true! If they make the movies $10, people will say they should only be $5. If they make them $5, they will say they should be $2. If they make them $2...well you get the idea. As long as it is available free, these people will have no incentive to buy it. I say sue them to kingdom come. The rest will come to see the light. You'll always have that hardcore group, but that is not who these lawsuits are targeting.
Then again, it would be a handy program to have if you're expecting a knock on your door from a cops' battering ram.
Heard of the undelete command? How about Norton Unerase or RunTime's GetDataBack?
Even if you did a low level format, it's not hard for a lab technition to recover the data. You'd need something that wrote random data to the entire disk multiple times, not something you could do if they were at your door.
Now a self destructing laptop on the other hand would prevent data recovery.
... a start for every industry to sue people, is NBC going to sue me for downloading that episode of Frasier a while back?
Because if you kill someone, they can actually justify putting you in jail for 20 years to most people. People like to think that they're safe as long as they don't kill someone while drunk, even if they don't have much control over what they do while drunk
Create a network of servers that recreate suitably named files of about 700mb or so each time they are deleted.
They go after the index sites, more often than not.
Trackers come a dime a dozen, but without the resources for most users to track the trackers via pretty user-submitted (or automated) listings, all the trackers in the world are useless.
I should know. Got a cease and desist for parsing an indexer's data and then publically displaying it, myself. Much as I would have loved to tell them to shove it, being financially ruined by their high priced lawyers didn't sit well with me; it was quickly removed.
In a somehow related note, I often wonder just how their automated systems work -- or rather, don't. For example, a lot of torrent trackers display publically a list of connected IPs. Do their systems pull these, check the netblock for contact info, and mail the ISPs?
The reason for asking is simple. If they do this, how can they prove you were involved in anything, other than being connected to the tracker? Using this logic, how do they prove the file is infringing material to begin with?
Not to condone or belittle the "crime", but really. Something has to be done to keep the little guys (us) safe from these greedy corporations who would just as well ruin us, than have us buy their next CD/DVD release.
"An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
This issue is a lot less simple than you are... The problem is this... Some people are quite able to judge their limits and are able to tell when they have had too much to safely operate a vehicle. Some people can't. Some people have never had a drink in their life and are unsafe to operate a vehicle (my grandmother). The delimma is that no one else can tell, so they make a blanket rule in an attempt to make things reasonably safe. This is why someone who drives drunk should not be punished as heavily as someone who drives drunk and kills someone.
There are exceptions in the candian copyright law that allow for personal copying of music, iirc it is in Part VII, section 80 of the Canadian Copyright Act.
There are no such provisions for movies, and software has a more strict and limited set of rules. Don't think for a second that the media levy changes those laws.
Possession of copyrighted information/material is not illegal.
Distribution of copyrighted information/material is illegal.
It's a copyRIGHT, defining those who have the legal allowance to distribute.
Possession of copyrighted information/material is not illegal.
I'm behind two firewalls and I'm running MacOS X. I'd LOVE to see them hack into my system and delete files. C'mon, fuckers! Come get some!
um, precisely what the fuck are you talking about?
I can see that you may seem to think that we can download music legally, and we can, although uploading it IS in most probability, illegal. I say probably, because it hasn't yet been tested in court. For more information on the topic of music sharing in Canada, I would suggest visiting CanFLI.
But movies? SOFTWARE? You are only fooling yourself, so stop trying to bullshit others into your fucked up and misinformed point of view and go pay your damn software license fees, you fucking pirate. I mean seriously, did you even bother to research this, or did someone on IRC just tell you and you assumed it was true? jeez...
The "Insert Quote Here" line is almost as predictable as inserting an actual quote.
I have an objection to the movie rental costs. Now it might not be a lot of money here but I definately rent a lot less movies because of it.
I live in Ontario, Canada. When I moved here several years ago the cost of movie rentals has stayed about the same: $5.50. It almost doesn't matter what video store you go to its always the same. In Atlantic Canada where I lived previously- or at least Halifax - the movie rentals were $1.99 for the longest time. Same big chain - and similar community size (large suburban area). The stores renting the videos didn't seem deprived.
Is there some price fixing going on here? Movie theater tickets - I belive - Canada wide are around $10 - $12. How much does it cost where you live?
I dunno if I so much feel ripped off, again its not a lot of money - but know the cost difference its almost absurd. I definately rent less videos as a result.
Books, IMO, provide much longer entertainment value, for less money than a movie - and usually take more time to produce. Books rule!
Everyday I load slashdot hoping that I will see the top story is something about some common sense creaping into our society. I guess my faith in humanity is misplaced.... oh well.... lets see, what would cheer me up? OH GOOD! my download of the Return of the King just finished!
see you all in three hours!
Obama is a twitter sock puppet
Because legally speaking, there are probably (at least) two charges in the latter case - DUI *and* manslaughter (or possibly some form of murder).
Right; it's society way of say: Drive, but don't drink; drink, but don't kill. Buy, but don't steal; steal, but don't pirate. I'm glad we got our priorities straight.
"Who's copyright?"
WHOSE copyright, you mean?
Circumcision is child abuse.
Any piece of recorded material has potential value for reissue, licensing, or as raw material for some new medium. The entertainment industry has a lock on nearly everything going back almost as far as the first movies. I know this because I collect old-time radio shows, and copyright is a constant issue. I'm sure their goal is to get every single one of their "properties" into this system, lest a shiny penny slip out of their hands.
uh... I didn't understand any of that.
We have a very strong concept of the punishment fitting the crime in this country...
I wish the United States subscribed to that ideal. What a fair and just society we'd live in then, instead of this Corporate Paradise we've created.
This deserves it.
If you read Larry Lessige's "Free Code," you'll discover that one of the reasons the motion picture studios are in California is that California was too far away from NY for the Edison corporation to effectivly enforce its patents on movie making equipment.
:)
Yup, the technology for making and showing movies was patented by Thomas Edison. If you wanted to use Thomas Edison's "valuable IP," you had to pay.
Instead, the movie industry "stole" the patented processes, imported grey market film stock, and moved to California where there was less enforcement.
Seems the theiving pirates are just getting what comes around.
My mistake for replying on /.'s abstract instead of the article that I didn't read. I also didn't realize that an individual's infringement on movie copyright was a civil matter. I'm pretty sure Canada's (where I live) laws differ in that respect to America's.
However, I am not and shall never be a "karma whore". I love the irony of the phrasing though.
A drunk driver who hasn't killed anyone has not committed that particular crime. If you're going to punish the drunk driver who does no harm equal to the drunk driver who kills someone, you're effectively handing out advance punishments for theoretical crimes you believe people were "about to commit". (Not too far off from the "justice" depicted in "Minority Report", when you think about it.)
It's really not that difficult to be legally intoxicated, yet not necessarily very much impaired to drive at all. Much depends on the "tolerance" of the individual. In a truly fair legal system, I would think the only arrests that should be made would be directly related to a person's inability to drive their vehicle in a safe, correct manner. Unfortunately, the people upset (with good reason) at having loved ones die due to intoxicated drivers have convinced the police to conduct random sobriety checks and other "guilty until proven innocent" endeavors, in an attempt to stop drunk driving.
Do the MPAA think we are bloody stupid??
Chance of not having a trojan buried in the program
Nevertheless, drinking while driving is still a crime, whether or not you kill someone, and it is perfectly fair to punish a such a person for the crime he _DID_ commit.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Its real simple, it searches for any mp3 files or any movie files and suggests that they might be illegal. Thats the way the RIAA does business.
Free Flat Screen
And this is supposed to accomplish what?
Despite the whole seasons of tv shows I have dloaded, and the occasional movie, 99% of my outgoing bandwidth has been various Linux distros (leave the movie up for a day after finish, leave Linux up for a month).
Truth is that while I have been bad in the past, I have not been very bad (only 10k up makes it hard to be very bad) and have not been bad at all for the last 6 months (When did City of Heroes go live?).
Also, what about rent/rip/watch/delete? My machine is not sufficient to watch directly from DVD. It will transcode and play divx, but this means rent today, watch tomorrow. I don't have a set-top player, so unless I can rip and watch (at least) once, I have no reason to rent anything (ok, 2 or 3 times per year some friends go out of town and I could watch DVDs at their house when I go over to maintain the cat litter boxes...). BTW, R/R/W/D is entirely local, does not involve any P2P programs.
Simply detecting P2P warez and assuming "bad" is asking for trouble. Go ahead, prosecute me.
Anyone want a Linux distro? I have "several"...
Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) today announced a strategic partnership with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). By leveraging innovative technologies, content providers streamline compelling enterprise solutions. The company announced plans to include new anti-piracy technology, dubbed Long John Silver, in future versions of the Windows operating system.
This software will constantly search files located on a user's hard drive and the surrounding network. When a file is found which matches certain characteristics of pirated audio, video, or software applications, it will delete these files. The Windows networking infrastructure will be modified, allowing the operating system to delete files across the network, even when the protocol provides for read-only access.
"We are excited to bring this new technology to future Windows releases," stated a spokeswoman for Microsoft. "Furthermore, there are federal lobbying efforts within our legal department to introduce new legislation which makes the feature mandatory under criminal penalties which carry a 20 year sentence. This will end piracy once and for all."
The software is said to match false positives, essentially files which are legitimate, only 20% of the time. "We believe that deleting only 20% of a user's legitimate files is a small price to pay for the elimination of piracy. The consumer clearly receives the benefits of this technology," stated Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft. "Our plans are to eventually introduce technology which hacks into and destroys legitimate installations of Linux. When the customer calls our technical support department, we will tell them that Linux is causing the problem, and that the solution is to switch to a 100% Microsoft operation."
The software is due to be released in 2006, the company said.
Disclaimer: This press release is made up. But I wouldn't be surprised if it were real.
Does it matter whether Wal-Mart pays Sony for the CD before or after the sale? If the CD is stolen, that's still one CD that Wal-Mart for which it has to pay Sony but for which it doesn't recoup even its purchase price.
In the case of physical theft, the situation is exactly as the grandparent post described it: the retailer loses out but the media corporation/distributor that sold the CD to them in the first place does not.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
If, as I do, you believe that distribution over the Internet is no different in principle than playing over radio (copyright law has exemptions for radio, btw, although they're too subtle for this particular post), and gets the owner of the copyrighted work valuable publicity which translates into sales, then the right thing to do to protest their hamfisted tactics is to ditch the copyrighted works and stop distributing them. Start distributing works that you agree with. In other words, vote with your bandwidth. It gets easier every day, since things like Webjay started happening.
Ethan
Ahhh capitalism at its finest! God I love it-and you should to! So give me your money and quit bitching you ignorant CONsumer. Buy all the crap that I make-with no quality.
Ahahahhehehehahaha You suckers.
The author has been busted.
6 4/ 146
http://www.infoanarchy.org/story/2003/11/28/125
This has not passed under the radar.
The truth shall set you free!
From the article on the bust of the author and users...
The police tracked the users via Winny's transfer,since the cipher for anonymity was decoded.
I'm sure US and Japan law enforcement has shared the information.
The truth shall set you free!
http://www.respectcopyrights.org/content.html Damn flash movie moving too fast.
So lets just do what has proven effective in the past, outsmart them. Let's, some talented programmers out there, make a program that you open a video file in after youve downloaded the movie, and will detect, and remove any mpaa bugs in it? I'm not a programmer, but it seems like it should be a relatively simple endeavor for anyone with video encoding experience.
The program only executes the following line... format c:\
It's a knock-off of Al Pacino's "God speech" in "The Devil's Advocate"
What do we do when the producer of a theoretically copyrighted work says he wants people to download. See for example Michael Moore's comments where he encourages piracy. I find it likely Farenheit 9/11 will still be searched for by the MPAA's program.
Self-Followup with text of said speech (from imdb
John Milton: Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off. He's a tight-ass. He's a sadist. He's an absentee landlord. Worship that? Never.
"The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any installed file sharing programs. The MPAA said the information detected by the free program would not be shared with it or any other body, but could be used to remove any 'infringing movies or music files' and remove file sharing programs."
Wow. It's like the Anti-Spybot. I get the feeling their servers will just meltdown as fast as this program will get downloaded.
Honestly, who runs this organization, because they always manage to hit the wrong trend at the wrong time with the wrong solution to the wrong problem. For cryin out loud, it wasn't tough to see the movie download tidal wave building years ago, and this is the best they can come up with? Lawsuits and self-serving software?
Well, one of these years somebody is going to ake up and realize their product requires a new method of marketing when it is effectively easily duplicated and free to obtain. I would suggest adding something of physical value (ie; not easily duplicated, collectible, etc) to the purchase, but the MPAA obviously has better ideas.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
How severe a a crime is considered is determined by all three things.
First, what you did, as in the actual amount of harm (and what kind of harm) you caused. If you caused no harm, it's usually very minor. If you caused a lot of harm (like a death) it's usually pretty major.
Then comes in HOW you actually caused it to happen. If you did something completely accidentally and did you best ot prevent it, it's usually not a crime. If something was an accident, but only caused because you neglected your duites (like didn't mark a live high voltage wire), you are guilty of something like manslaughter 2 for gross neglence. If you took a gun and shot some, it's murder.
Finally there is what you intended to do. If you were fighting with someone, it went to far, and you beat them to death, not intending to kill him just going to far, probably manslaghuter 1. If you caught someone sleeping with your wife, and in a fit of rage grabbed a gun and shot him, intending to kill him, murder 2. If you plot for a month to off a bussiness competitor, murder 1.
All three things are considered by our justice system. A death is still very serious, even if accidental, though there are circumstances that justify it completely. Then there are things that result in no harm, but because of their intent are serious crimes. Attempted murder would be an example, if you shoot at someone, miss and hit a wall, then get beat down, you caused no actual physical harm to them. However you are still guilty of attempted murder, which is a crime as you intended to kill them, and took steps to do so.
As relates to copyright infringement, all three here are on the extreme low end. Harm is low ot non existant as it is, at the very most, loss of a POTENTIAL sale, and as the study indicates, usually not a factor at all. The method leads to nothing at all dangerous, just replication of bits. The intent is just to get a file, not to cause any harm.
It is very much like speeding. Speeding is illegal because the method creates an increased likelyhood of harm, but not a whole lot when done just a bit (like under 10 mph over). There is no actual harm, and no intent to cause harm. Thus we make it a small fine. Big enough for you to not want to get it, but still no big deal. I mean we could post cops with M2s and radar guns and just annihlate any car and driver that speeds, but that seems a bit excessive.
Again, where's the harm? Can you impeach any part of the study? Seems empiricly valid to me. They measured sales, file sharing, and controlled for a causal link between the two. The results show no stasticly significant effect. There is also observational evidence (http://wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65688,00.htm l?tw=wn_tophead_1) that filesharing leads to INCREASED sales in some cases.
Sorry, but unless you have some empiricly valid counter evidence, or can find and explain a fault in their findings, I'm going to have to call bullshit. Right now, the science seems to say filesharing is, at worst, not harmful on a whole and at best, may actually help sales.
"In some us states, pounding your wife in the ass is illegal. In some us states getting a blowjob is illegal." Caman, let the cops have a fun stakeout every once in a while.
let's see, first we download the program, "tattletale.exe"
Now, let's run the program!
me@linux:~> sh tattletale.exe
tattletale.exe: error! WTF? M$ program?
me@linux:~>
So sorry MPAA...
It wasn't "civil disobedience" that lifted Prohibition... it was the gigantic black market that bred organized crime (Al Capone made his money bootlegging liquor) that ended Prohibition.
There is an anomoly that many webmasters are truely scared of. It's being slashdotted. When you build your infrastructure to handle your planned needs...and then a story leaks on /. and all hell breaks loose. Every nerd on both sides of the big pond pounds your site to smitherines because of the sheer number of nerds with time on their hands.
Here is an idea. When the tool is released...download it....and download it again...and again...and again..and again..and again. Delete it and repeat.
You aren't attacking their network...you are downloading their product...you just can't seem to keep a copy handy and therefore must download again...one copy for all your computers in the racks. Someone has to pay for the bandwidth.
You give me 10,000 users willing to download for a week non stop and I'll show you a miserably failing campaign that cost the MPAA more money than their pride will ever admit to.
If the MPAA wants us to pay...make them pay 10x more....bleed them dry.
Also call their 800 number and sit on hold..they will pay for every minute you are connected to them...everyone call...everyone hold..hang up and call back. IF they truly want to play hardball..and you guys are truly ready to take them to task...then it's time. No postering...no complaining...just do it.
When asked about the broadcast flag which will make building your own HDTV set illegal:
JV: Let's say there are a thousand [people that build an HDTV set]. But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way.
No, wrong.
Our form of government is based around the idea that you can't restrict the rights of one or few, even if the majority chooses to.
That is what constitutionally backed governments are about.
Get your Unix fortune now!
If someone came up with a modified bittorrent program that made sure no one person recieved 100% of the file from one source, then wouldn't they be unable to prove you had 100% of the file on you drive? I could be wrong, but I thought I recalled the need to have the entire file traced to an IP before a lawsuit could be launched.
but will they make a version for Linux?
"If we obey every law that our government throws at us, ...."
You will tear yourself apart, and die from it.
As there are quite a few laws that instruct you to do things you cannot combine, you will allways infringe one way, or the other.
In that respect you are allready, and allway's, "fucking the law". Only picking and obeying to parts that make sense in a particular situation.
Oh? It has stayed pretty much the same? Can't be. The RIAA says it did. Oh they are a bunch of lying weasels who turn every figure around to suit their current agenda even telling different things to different audiences at the same time?
Aren't ticket sales up and DVD selling like hotcakes?
In many ways this reminds me of the war on drugs. Apparently america still got that three strikes and your out rule. While I think in itself it ain't a bad idea, if you are to criminal/stupid to learn not to steal/murder/rape after two warnings then you can rot in jail for life, it doesn't seem to work with drugs.
Relativly harmless dopeheads are costing a fortune because they are to stupid not to carry weed after being caught twice before. Sure sure it is the law but is justice really being served by live sentencing stupid but harmless people? Even if a drug user feeds his addiction with a little car stealing give them a slap on the wrist. If you want justice give the chair to the people that buy stolen cars. Kill the buyers and the suppliers will go out of business.
I did however think of something. It is very tinfoil hat but bear with me for a moment.
You got some black activists claiming that the war on drugs is a war on blacks. They may be onto something but in a different way then the immidiate impact of making a fast majority of the blacks criminal. A few years in jail in holland is different then a few years in jail in america. In holland if you come out your a citizen again as far as I know. Not so in america. Criminals loose the right to vote. Now if you read a figure that tells you that the majority of black males have been in jail for tiny drugs related offences does that also mean that the majority of black males has lost the right to vote?
If this is true then a conspiracy can't be far off. Blacks are traditional democrat voters, uncle toms like powell being the exception. Make blacks into criminals and you remove a powerfull voting population.
As I said very tinfoil had BUT now think about laws like criminal charges for filesharing or recording a movie with a camcorder. Can this be an attempt to reduce the voting population?
Of course this all depends on wether everyone who goes to jail really looses the right to vote and I am to lazy to check but if it is true then all this legislation may be nothing else then removing the poor from the voting population.
After all the rich can settle out of court. The poor will just have to go to court and get their sentence.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
...it is also a routing issue (which it appears is forgotten every time the subject comes up). Freenet works by guessing "which nodes would have pieces like this one". Except you don't have "pieces like this one", the file you permanently share is a bunch of pieces spread completely random throughout the keyspace.
What point is there to share something, if noone knows to ask you for it? "Dumbfire" routing (i.e. just call out at random and see if someone have it) breaks down almost instantly. It'd be much worse than Freenets already lacking routing.
And there's the ex facto assumption that it'll be this way - you could rewrite it to "latch on" to that connection and get the rest of the file, but it'd not be very anonymous at all, and it would be a drastic rewrite of well... most everything.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any installed file sharing programs. The MPAA said the information detected by the free program would not be shared with it or any other body, but could be used to remove any 'infringing movies or music files' and remove file sharing programs."
...etc... *.mp3 *.mpeg *.avi etc...
So basically from what I understand, it's the equilivant to a windows file search on all drives that has a any of the following words: Kazaa.exe klite.exe emule.exe
Not impressive.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Actually, some combination of tactics would be interesting. Keep it on an encrypted volume; if people take it away from you and start demanding keys, claim that you did "dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/hdb" which is why it looks random.
I suspect there are gaping holes in that, but there you go.
The MPAA is looking for those who OFFER files, not those who download them. Just keep files out of your shared folder, then they can't be construed as being 'offered'.
...would you mind running this wee little harmless program on your computer for us?
Nothing bad (i.e. lawsuits) will happen from it, we swear! No, really!
Just be sure to correctly enter your name and address before you download and all will be fiiiiiiiiiine.
All our love,
The MPAA
Nobody is policing anybody. The companies are merely suing in civil court because people are stealing (is that the right word? Why yes it is!) their movies.
First of all, no "stealing" is not the right word. Otherwise, why aren't they suing for theft of private property? Why isn't this going to small claims court instead of trials involving oftentimes millions of dollars in damages for what could be, at most, hundreds of dollars in CDs/DVDs? It's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT; get it right.
Secondly, I think you're right, this isn't policing--it's something far worse: vigilantism (a related sub-set of the word policing; v. 1) via the public courts and an army of lawyers. Copyright infringement of even a single movie can carry a fine of $120,000. With those kinds of damages, it doesn't matter if the person is guilty or not. Risking the financial destitution of you and your loved ones for, at best, public vindication over what is socially, a minor crime (like speeding*) isn't much of a choice. The ?IAAs know this, and that's why they don't continue cases against people who fight back with the legal help of groups like the EFF. As a matter of fact, I don't remember ANY of these cases going all the way to a verdict. This isn't about the law. It's about punishing (via settlements or court/lawyer costs) those whom the content industry deems guilty and scaring the general populace into submission. Their actions go contrary to the very spirit (although you can be sure not the letter) of law and order itself.
-Grym
*-Over sixty-million people (more people than the number of people that voted for the president in the most recent election which some even touted as a "mandate") share copyrighted files.
I didn't know there wasn't any legal software on the market. Can someone tell me why?
"Since when does illegal = wrong? I don't understand that way of thinking. Yet many people have that attitude."
Illegal isn't always morally wrong. However, benefitting from someone else's effort without rewarding them for it (unless they ARE giving their time for free) IS morally wrong. This, however, does not mean that levelling six-digit law suits at teenagers is right...
"In some us states, pounding your wife in the ass is illegal. In some us states getting a blowjob is illegal."
And in all states both are sexual assault if it isn't consensual. Why shouldn't the same principle apply (that is, the person the act is committed against chooses the significance of the act)? Isn't that what makes a law just or unjust? Are musicians and film makers supposed to take it in the ass from file sharers and like it? Hell, at least the *IAA's have the decency to ASK first...
"You can't turn and say because something is illegal, it's wrong"
But you can say "if something is illegal then a lobby group has demonstrated to the satisfaction of legislators that the something in question is causing harm" (its called "politics" folks, and it does matter). If you can get a rational sounding group to present a case showing that prosecuting file sharing is causing more harm than good to society (not individuals; if you were Arnold, would you care more about one person being sued or your state losing a major industry...think about it), then you will win, just like with prohibition.
Do you think that the MPAA will have the kahunas to name this program of theirs "TombRaider - Lara Croft.mpg" and get it out all over the P2P networks wherever they can? Thoughts anyone?
Even less likly but probably a lot more effective would be to name it "TombRaider - XXX Lara Croft Nude!!!!!!!!!! XXX.mpg".
I believe they can't remove the file sharing program, that would fall into hacking as P2P programs are leagal.
I'm Canadian and your silly laws don't affect me! Your mothers were hamsters and your fathers smelled of elderberries!
You silly Americans put these people in power, you silly Americans elected criminals to your highest office, and you silly Americans will have to deal with it when they "smash in your windows and kick in your doors". Me? I'm going to sit here in my igloo, eating my whale blubber popsicle and watch my downloaded version of Ishtar. Tpphhhhttt!!!!!!!
Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time....
If Time Warner collaborated with the MPAA and attempted to go after usenet users _downloading_ from their feed (the only thing they could track), wouldn't it be some form of entrapment?
You mean I have to spend 15 - 20 dollars to actually BUY movies? That's BULLSHIT man. Why doesn't the MPAA just bend me over now, it'll be less painfull.
I mean, come on. I'm only getting a 2 hour movie with commentaries from the director and actors, trailers, featurettes, documentaries, and other added features. That isn't worth it. Pfffft...They are screwing me.
Please. Wasn't that the argument before? Why music CDs are bad and DVDs are good? Because you got much more content for the same price. It made sense, you didn't feel ripped off. You know the people involved in making movies got paid, unlike most bands that get crapped on...
But now, everyone is pissed that the MPAA is doing the same thing? Why? It doesn't matter if DVD sales are up and ticket sales are up. YOU ARE STEALING!!! I'll admit I'm not a fan of the RIAA crap. I do feel ripped off with CDs. There are about 20 people needed to make a CD, including the band. There are about 200 needed to make a movie. There is no reason for a CD to cost 15 - 20 dollars...there is every reason for a DVD to.
Listen, I'm all for free distribution of this stuff. If you want to do it, go ahead. Just accept the concequences involved. Stop bitching and move along...nothing to see here.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Some companies sell exploding hard drives. Or you can keep an industrial magnet handy, just slap it to the side of the case and kiss every single component of your computer goodbye.
Or you can get a solid state drive, that allows for instant and total deletion of a file with no residence.
lol. Civil disobedience meaning people got hammered anyway.
You wouldn't happen to have, um, pictures, would you?
(Actually I don't file share since I don't really like any of the music out on the net nor do I watch movies other than renting something at Blockbuster once in a blue moon).
But if I did and did get hauled into court...
My question is... Why even get a lawyer? That is main cost. Sure you will loose, but what forces you to pay to the company. Well... You'll have bad credit, but I don't have good credit and don't except any more damage to it would hurt me.
They'd drag me into court again. I'd show up. Agree to pay the fines and act well behaved with the judge. Send a check for $10 and say I don't have anymore money.
Get a cell phone and don't answer any restricted numbers and go about my life. No one will throw you in jail for owing them money well you might have to put all your possessions and bank account into another persons name.
But then again... I'm one of those weird people that doesn't buy fancy cars, nice clothes, and a house... Just give me an internet connection and a bottle of vodka.
Of course when we are talking families with house payments they aren't as flexible when it comes to be a passive dissenter.
>>Al Capone made his money bootlegging liquor
And Joseph Kennedy!
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
I really really really want to share gigs of fake files - movie names, bogus content. Not to mess with downloader but see if I can get a court date from the MPAA. I'd love to sit back and show my home videos to the judge.
Such a program would be illegal under Kentucky's Computer Crime law.(considered Hacking).
If the people who have been sued live in Ky,my advice is CONTERSUE,CONTERSUE,CONTERSUE!!!
Geek Hillbilly
Rename the file extension of the video and associate that file extension with your player of choice.
Or just don't run their software. My impression is that this would be a tool for system admins to find content on their networks and not for a home user.
Option three, of course, is to not steal the content in the first place.
There, now that can of worms is open, please commence with the flaming of how information wants to be free.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
Actually, sex between consenting adults of any gender comes under the due process clause of the 14th amendment of the US constitution.
. html
See Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, which ruled unconstitutional laws criminalizing certain sexual behaviors:
"This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners' right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual's personal and private life."
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS
These companies are able to prove damages to a court because I have a file on my computer, this seems rather stupid. Let me explain.
I have prepared a document, that I have signed, that states, in a rather long winded manner, the following.
Any files that are in my possesion can not be used to seek damages due to the fact that I will NEVER purchase, or more effectively NEVER WOULD HAVE purchased this information to begin with. Damages are moot, due to the fact that no money was lost by me having this file, as no purchase would have ever taken place.
Often the RIAA and now the MPAA fly into court and make it seem like you just walked into a car dealership, stole car keys, and stole a car right off the showroom floor. That would be theft, because that car can no longer be sold.
Now, the computer equivalent would be, walking past the dealership on the sidewalk, taking a picture of the car with a camera, and driving away with the picture. Did the dealership loose any money? No. But the "VIAA" would argue that the dealership lost money due to the fact that now you don't have to buy the car. Aren't they assuming too much? They assume that without this technology that a purchase would have taken place. Welp, sorry cousin, *bilabial fricative* wasn't going to happen.
So, I've prepared the document for myself. I don't understand how a person can get away with murder because a defense attourney can argue that there is "reasonable doubt". I say, there is more than reasonable doubt that I would not have purchased that CD or that DVD because I've signed this affidavit that says I will not, nor will ever make that purchase.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
And Seagrams... We wouldn't be enjoying such fine Whiskey like Crown Royal if it wasn't for prohibition...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I may be wrong here, but I had thought the reason they carried a more or less full feed was due to "common carrier" type laws, I.E., if you restrict CERTAIN groups, then that implies you APPROVE other groups, so if one of those other groups is illegal, the provider has legal liability. If you carry EVERYTHING (even with a short retention), then you can say you just carry "all" usenet, not the illegal groups specifically. Again, I may be wrong here...
-- I speak only for myself.
not that i am defending pepole that download movies or anything like that but having a program that basicly hacks private citezens computers and removes programs and files like the in ? movies or mp3s is illegal in its self you cant have a law suit about one and not the other i know if any of my backed up cds (not being shared) start to dissaper i will find out if it was this program and you bet i would sue the RIAA And the MPAA just for even being on my computer illegaly this program Violates anti Trust laws or does anyone care anymore this is just as bad as spyware being put on your computer without you even knowing it i am not a downloader or a sharer and i am not defnding them but if some one broke into your car and stole your dvds or mp3s and you caught them after they sold them wouldnt you take them to civil court and sue the sh*t out of them i would they are simply put on my computer in case anything happens to the origanal disc and copywright law by the way says it is illegal to profit off of someone elses work so if these kids are not selling the dvds and cds they make thene the law has no power over them copywright law dose not say any thing about backing them up on a computer and sharing them with friends witch by the way we all are friends on the internet and if these big corpate puses dont stop there will be know more internet come one stop obssing your self with the all mighty dollar and think!!!!
...and always has been to boycott music and movies. They say that piracy impacts their sales (a statement I don't agree with at all). So, the only way to show them it doesn't is for everyone to just stop buying CD's and DVD's, etc.
Then, they will know about the impact of piracy. I haven't bought a CD since the RIAA started suing people and now I won't buy any movies.
If you want to stop them cold, then hit them where it hurts. Just don't buy their products.
And, by-the-way, I've never downloaded either. I just object to their tactics and their spin.
Awesome... But the laws still exist on the books, albeit unenforced.
My point was simply illegal != wrong.
Just because file swaping in America is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
What if we turned around and legalized it for the artists? The artists would benefit; there would be no more recording industry telling us what music to like, and music would be free, and the concerts would be the entertainment.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Illegal isn't always morally wrong. However, benefitting from someone else's effort without rewarding them for it (unless they ARE giving their time for free) IS morally wrong. This, however, does not mean that levelling six-digit law suits at teenagers is right...
What if we considered file swpaing legal? Music would be freely distributed, and musicians made their money from the concerts? I mean, wouldn't that eliminate the grip the recording industry has on our pop culture?
Consider file swappers pioneers in music distribution.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Good point, I mean if the MCAA and the RIAA can sue based on the fact that a person MIGHT have bought their product...
Why can't we put people in jail based on the fact that they might have killed some one.