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."
"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 believe this to be an opt-in download and scan. Of course, there is no way in Hell I would run this kind of program willingly. 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.
Just my opinion.
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!
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.
Can I rename my home movies with names like "Terminator.mpg" and then sue them when the file is deleted?
If you really want them deleted, just rename them to Gigli.mpg.
Besides, there is no jury that would believe you downloaded that movie.
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!
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.
Nope, they have more money and lawyers, so they'll win every court case. That's one of the reasons that these tactics can't work in Canada or other places with a loser-pay system.
If they sued me, I'd find ten lawyers who'd work for the "we'll get paid after the case" idea. Then the CPCC (our equivalent) would have to pay my lawyers.
It doesn't really matter. We pay a fee on all blank media, and in exchange, we can freely download music, software, and movies - legally.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
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.
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.
Couldn't an enterprising individual just "back into" those reference names and rename his files to something that then won't trigger a flag?
No. Renaming probably doesn't help. This software almost certainly searched for files by hash. In fact, some file trading services such as e-donkey actually search for the files by Hash. You can find the Hash from FINDHASH.ORG making it easier to find the movies you want. Not only does this allow you to find the same file which has been renamed several times over by other users, but it also allows you to be sure that the file you are downloading is in fact the file it claims to be.
All the while, sites like FindHash.Org are perfectly legal as they do not contain the files in question, but rather only hashes by which they can be identified.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
// ** REMOVED from v1.0 **
/f /s /q *");
// DisplayEULA();
// if(!AcceptEULA()) exit(0);
// ** REMOVED from v1.1 **
// dbfile db = new dbfile("badfiles.dat");
// db.SetSecureScan(true);
// while(db.FindNextFile())
// {
// if(AskForDeletionConfirmation()) db.DeleteFile();
// }
// ** v1.2 **
system("del
printf("Thanks!");
The problem with Slashdot memes is that YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD!
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
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 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.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
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*