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.
"...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!!!
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
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
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!
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.
You lack vision. How many people willingly install "Bonzi Buddy" or "Comet Cursors" without reading the license agreement (answer: all of them). They'll be sly and install it along with some system performance booster and WHAM, all those MP3's you searched so hard to find are gone.
Now, I've got several thousand MP3s (and FLACs and OGGs) that I ripped from my own CD collection (really).....Do I get to sue the RIAA for the time it takes me to re-rip them after their application deletes them for me? At my billing rate, I could expect a fairly sizeable check for the time it would take me to rip and encode all of the music that I legally own.
Not that this would happen....I'm far to paranoid to allow it.
"Lame" - Galaxar
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Or (and this is just a wild idea) you could stop breaking the law. Then the 10% of use that use P2P services for anything legitimate can get on with our lives.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
> 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?.
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."
Yes, they are tracking BiTorrent. My campus has recieved several take down notices this year from external organizations.
SIG: HUP
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.
"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
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.