MPAA to Sue BitTorrent Tracker Servers

Mirkon writes "The Register and Reuters report that the Motion Picture Association of America is planning to begin a legal assault on websites that host BitTorrent trackers for copyrighted movie files. An announcement is supposed to be made by the MPAA President/CEO today, along with help from CEO of private P2P network developer Red Swoosh, and the CEO of BayTSP, 'which offers file-branding and -tracking applications.' Not that they have any vested interests in this of course. Though the articles take care to mention that this action is not against standard users, how long is it until BitTorrent itself is targeted?" Apropos of nothing, I saw a movie in the theaters a few days ago. At the official start time, the lights dimmed. Then there were 14 minutes of commercials (Pepsi, hair mousse, cologne, etc.) followed by 13 minutes of movie trailers (which are also advertising), followed by a few minutes of junk, followed by a 100-minute movie. I can't imagine why people would want to download movies when they have that great theater experience to compare against.

Comments

ATTENTION

[Anonymous Coward]

Please make sure you do not link to Bittorrent sites here on Slashdot, such as suprnova.org. If you do, then Slashdot will become liable as they'll be linking to a site that links to copyright materials.

Also, if that happens, please make sure you remove all links to Slashdot, or links to sites that link to Slashdot, as you'll also be liable.

P.S. michael, we're sorry you didn't like Blade Trinity, but Triple H was pretty hot, right?

Re:ATTENTION

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember to place disclaimers on your sites to limit liability. It is unfortunate that in such a open and powerful media, that litigation can be so invasive merely by threats.

Re:ATTENTION

[Anonymous Coward]

Like "no legal authorities are allowed to view this site," "these downloads are only provided for evaluation purpose, please support the original authors," and "this site is legal, by law NoSuchLaw-343778sXYZ you must delete what you downloaded within 24 hours"?

Re:ATTENTION

[cpt kangarooski]

What exactly makes you think that those work?

Re:ATTENTION

[hunterx11]

You mean Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act won't protect me? Damn, and I thought my warez site had foolproof protection...

Re:ATTENTION

[kasperd]

If you do, then Slashdot will become liable as they'll be linking to a site that links to copyright materials.

Don't laugh. Here in Denmark APG (the equivalent of RIAA or something like that) threatened to sue a man for a song that could be downloaded just eight links away from his page.

Vote with dollars

[BWJones]

Apropos of nothing, I saw a movie in the theaters a few days ago. At the official start time, the lights dimmed. Then there were 14 minutes of commercials (Pepsi, hair mousse, cologne, etc.) followed by 13 minutes of movie trailers (which are also advertising, of course), followed by a few minutes of junk, followed by a 100-minute movie.

Then why did you include it in your post? Say this in a comment instead. Anyhow, I will respond: I agree that it is silly and frustrating to have to sit through tons of ads before a movie, the length of time by the way standard so you cannot say "I will simply come ten minutes later". Additionally, ads are appearing in front of DVD movies which works for nationally known companies but not so well for smaller local companies which I am sure is one of the biggest reasons behind the push of On Demand. Namely the ability to sell localized content ads for an "at home audience". We are going to be faced with a deluge of ads (even intimately targeted ads) no matter what. The way to deal with it is vote with your dollars.

Re:Vote with dollars

[wo1verin3]

The only ad that pissed me off is the one about copying movies, getting really tired of seeing it, and I see it several times a month. I don't copy movies, I go to see them in theatres. Yet after giving my money to the theatre I need to learn a lesson about how stealing is wrong.

ugh. /rant

Re:Vote with dollars

[ClownsScareMe]

Then there were 14 minutes of commercials (Pepsi, hair mousse, cologne, etc.) followed by 13 minutes of movie trailers (which are also advertising, of course), followed by a few minutes of junk, followed by a 100-minute movie.

The same thing happened to me this weekend. And just when I was getting frustrated I thought, "But, wait, I'm still here and until it get's bad enough for me to stop going to the theater they're going to keep shoveling the crap on us."

Re:Vote with dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

I watch several new movies a month, and I have never seen that ad. Maybe I should go to a theater some time to catch it.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Wandering Wombat]

No, the way to deal with this is to ignore the ads. Seriously, thinking back through a day, I can't recall a single commercial I've seen, and the ones I do remember I usually recall vividly for being so bad, tasteless, and off-putting, that I have made a concious decision to never, ever, ever purchase that product.

I go to see a movie or two a month, and thinking back, I don't remember any commercials, because I ignored them. The human mind is incredibly adept, and at no point in the film-watching experience did I feel the overwhelming need to wear Old Navy, drink Pepsi, or stop pirating movies. In fact, the Old Navy ads irritate me SO MUCH that I have contemplated firebombing a few of them. Just think of it as advertising my desire to not buy their products.

Re:Vote with dollars

[glwtta]

The way to deal with it is vote with your dollars.

I thought I was!

But apparently suprnova is now going to get sued because of it.

Re:Vote with dollars

[maddskillz]

I can deal with the movie trailers. It's nice to see what's coming up, on the big screen. And it's fairly relevant advertising. But all of the commercials are just getting ridiculous.

Re:Vote with dollars

[dgatwood]

I quit going to the theater. It's one of the few addictions that's easy to get over. Just watch Spiderman 2, The Core, and Deep Impact right in a row. If you make it through all three without disgorging your lunch, you should be thoroughly cured of your movie addiction and can go back to the more common addiction of slashdotters, pr0n.

Seriously, though, some theaters still just show trailers. I'm much more likely to frequent them. Except for the rare occasions where somebody else is choosing the theater, I pretty much won't set foot in an AMC anymore between their horribly overpriced tickets and the twenty minutes of ads at the beginning. Thanks, but the last thing I want to see when I'm -paying- to see a movie is a Pepsi or Mountain Dew ad shoved in my face... and a -bad- ad at that. And I -do- vote with my pocketbook. If everyone did, this crap would stop.

Re:Vote with dollars

[rjelks]

If that ad really bugs you, just download a cam version of the movie...they usually edit out the commercials.

Re:Vote with dollars

[frostfreek]

Additionally, ads are appearing in front of DVD movies

Here's little tip:
Even if the DVD advert has disabled the fast forward buttons and the root-menu button, you can still hit 'stop', and then 'menu', which will bypass the ads. Maybe I shouldn't leak my secret, or they'll come up with a bug(feature) for that, too.

'Course, if it's a VHS tape, you can use a pair of scissors... Snip!

Re:Vote with dollars

[hackstraw]

The way to deal with it is vote with your dollars.

Unfortunately, this will not work. If that were the case, then only cars that don't need to advertise are the only viable ones to buy (Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Bentley, etc) And even those may advertise in higher dollar markets that I'm simply not a member of.

However, money protests may work if people demand their money back after watching an advertiser supported movie. I simply refuse to pay a rental fee for any rented movie that has ads that are blocked out by the remote. That has got to be one of the most annoying things out there. I hear that Disney does that with thier store bought DVDs.

I believe that there are simply too many mouths to feed and not enough real jobs to fill them. Its getting to the point that I feel like I'm being accosted by a begger everywhere I go, but the people begging are typically people that have more money than I do. Salesmen lying to me and badgering me all the time. Telemarketers. SPAM. Billboards. Ads are _everywhere_. Baseball has greenscreened the infield to overlay different ads, because one was not enough. Tickmaster shoves more ads down my throat and these people are a monopoly in providing different random (I love those 2 terms together) numbers to people, and asking me to PAY MORE for printing the damn tickets on my own printer and paper. Ads have been integrated into movies for some time as called "product placement" ads. I only see people drinking Dunken Doughnuts coffee in movies. Sometimes they are downright distracting to the point that I think I can hear the marketing dweebie from the paying company in the background yelling "Please keep the product label visable at all times!"

Oh, and with the MPAA. Go for it. What are you going to sue for? What are you going to get? I've never downloaded a movie off of the net because I consider it a waste of time. If I really want a movie that bad, I'll pay the $20 at a store for it.

It is about time that the members of the ??AA groups start thinking about what they are going to do about their stupid antiquated business model. Its not that difficult, but I guess these people are simply that stupid. There is supply and demand and cost is relative to that supply and demand. The demand appears to be there. I mean people spend a great amount of time downloading low quality crap all the time where the downloads don't finish, the quality is worse than they thought, the movie just sucks, and so on. If these people can't figure out a way to entice people to pay something for their product, then they deserve to go out of business like all other businesses that can't make it.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Eggplant62]

Yep, I agree. Trailers are informative. I see enough Pepsi ads on billboards, on tv, hear them on the radio, in newspapers, magazines, etc. I can understand promoting a product but c'mon, don't these big companies have enough exposure already? I can't picture going anywhere in the developed countries in the world and finding people who *don't* know what the hell Pepsi or any other big name brand item is.

Re:Vote with dollars

[SoSueMe]

If everyone did, this crap would stop.

Naa, they'd just blame it on piracy.

Re:Vote with dollars

[einTier]

I think a lot of the commercial advertisements benefit the movie theatre and not the movie producers. I hadn't really thought about commercials in the movies in some time, then after reading this article, I thought, "hmmm... I do seem to recall a period of time when it seemed like half the 'previews' were commercials. Come to think of it, there are less previews than there used to be...."

Then I remembered, I started going to a movie theatre that caters to movie enthusiasts. I can't remember the last time I saw an advertisement before the feature movie. I also can't remember the last time someone talked during a movie or was disruptive or anyone under the age of 18 was in attendance. No screaming babies either. Maybe because they don't allow children under 6 at all, and no one under 18 without parents and they are very intolerant of bullshit and very responsive about complaints.

Somehow, they still manage to charge about the same price as every other theatre in town. No wonder I go there for every movie -- and if it doesn't show there, I wait for DVD.

There are good movie theatres out there, you just have to find them.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Pieroxy]

While I agree that it is "frustrating to have to sit through tons of ads before a movie", I am almost shocked to see piracy recommended by a slashdot story, and so by extension, by all the slashdot community.

There is a middle ground to all this:
1. big media corps pushing for easy money and thus forcing movie theaters to run tons of ads before a show is bad. How bad, difficult to say, but definitely bad. BTW, Remember that it is the Theater's owner that decides the amount of ads. Of course, he probably likes money as well. One has to put bread on its table after all.
2. Piracy should be bad. In the normal world. If you don't want to call it stealing, fine. Big deal. You are still enjoying something that the author never intended for you to be able to, without paying that is. And you know it. So it is bad, in every sense of the word, and I am amazed that slashdot now promotes it in its front page that clearly.
3. The middle ground: You don't like something, no one forces you to consume it. You DO NOT HAVE TO WATCH THE MOVIE. The decision is yours...

Re:Vote with dollars

[runlvl0]

Additionally, ads are appearing in front of DVD movies

'Course, if it's a VHS tape, you can use a pair of scissors... Snip!

Depending on how much it pisses you off, you could do the same with a DVD, using dvdshrink.

Re:Vote with dollars

[stupidfoo]

no, there was no anti-pirate ads before Oceans 12. There was 6 movie previews (and not the short ones either, the long 2 minute ones) plus about 5 minutes of ads. Including that absolutely stupid fucking one where the guy and girl go to different movies and the guy says "We're still having dinner right? At the same restaurant?"

THAT WASN"T FUCKING FUNNY THREE YEARS AGO AND IT STILL ISN"T. Talk about an ad that makes you not want to do business with someone.

Re:Vote with dollars

[OwnedByTwoCats]

The last time I was in one of the big chain theaters, I noticed that the movie commercials ended right at the listed showtime. Then the then the theater chain promo ("please go to the snack bar, and dispose of trash in the proper receptacles"), trailers ("Coming Attractions"), and finally the feature.

But more and more, I'm going to my local theater www.by-jo.com. The By-Jo isn't "second run" anymore; they got Shrek 2, the Incredibles, and SpiderMan 2 the weekend they opened (maybe more; I just noticed those), and the tickets and the snack bar are reasonable. Or to the chain second run houses.

Re:Vote with dollars

[TopShelf]

The DVD ads are particularly frustrating for those of us with small kids. Picture the following scenario. You've just gotten the 2.5 year-old twins and their 1.5 year old younger brother buckled into the minivan for that long drive, and you're lucky enough to have them all clamoring for, say, a Wiggles video. You fire up the DVD player and here come the ads...

"No, I don't want to see Barney, I wanted the Wiggles"
"No, let's watch Barney"
"No, Wiggles!"
"Barney!"
"Wiggles"
A great wailing and gnashing of teeth commences. In the back, the kids are also upset as they ads roll on.
"Wait - where'd Barney go?"
"Look, it's Blue's Clues. I want to watch Blue's Clues."
"No, where'd Barney go? AAAAaaaahhhhhh!"

I've had good luck with Sesame Street and Dora the Explorer videos letting you get right to the content, but that's the exception, not the norm...

Re:Vote with dollars

[mozkill]

the funny thing is that by not buying CDs from stores, and by downloading, we ARE voting with our dollars.

if the music industry wants us to spend money, they should stop treating us like we are made of money, because we are not.

for now, I will continue my "do-not-buy" boycott until they get it right and start charging $10 for new CDs.

Re:Vote with dollars

[mrbcs]

That's so sad.. for me to take my wife to a movie it can cost us almost $100 if we go out to dinner. $20 for the babysitter, 40 - 50 for supper and 40 to see the movie. I'll eat real food BEFORE the movie. I'm certainly not paying $20 for pop and popcorn.

No wonder I only see a few a year in a theatre.

Re:Vote with dollars

[BWJones]

I agree and I am absolutely not advocating piracy or theft of any sort. I own no pirated software, music or movies and am very careful in my work environment as well to ensure there is no theft or possession of pirated software or products on any of our systems. By saying vote with your dollars I am saying "do not give your patronage to those businesses that bombard you with ads".

Re:Vote with dollars

[jschottm]

Um, no, that's not voting with your dollars, that's taking someones work without their permission. Voting with your dollars is supporting theatres that don't bury you in ads, supporting things such as the Indepedent Film Channel (or whatever it's called - I don't have TV so I'm not sure what it's called these days).

Don't pretend you're on some kind of moral high ground. Ghandi didn't take British salt, he made his own.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Phillup]

Up until at least 5PM the tickets are only $5.50: not too bad.

We aren't all in high school.

Some of us remember when the matinee movie cost a quarter (US)... and that included the popcorn and soda.

So, yeah... $5.50 looks like a lot. You just busted the $20 mark for a family of four and still haven't bought any refreshments.

Re:Vote with dollars

[tomstdenis]

Man I thought I was the only one...

I don't get the jist of buying tickets online. I can walk into my local theater [or drive 3 hours to Syracuse for fun] and buy tickets on the spot without trouble.

Seems a "business model MBA style" if I ever saw one.

Tom

Re:Vote with dollars

[RpiMatty]

How does the movie cost 40$ then? 2 people 10$ for a ticket, is 20$. so 20 babysitter 40 dinner 20 tickets thats still 80, but for a good dinner, and a movie, that sounds reasonable.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Firethorn]

It makes a difference when you're going to see the latest blockbuster on opening night...

While you likely won't get good seats, it at least allows you to get seats without visiting the theater in person an hour or two in advance.

Now, I usually won't go to a movie if the seats are going to be more than half full, and I try to get the matinees, both for the more empty seating and cheaper prices.

Re:Vote with dollars

[fireduck]

I don't get the jist of buying tickets online.

Buying tickets online is nice for the times you want to go to opening day of a huge movie (like Return of the King) and can't get to the movie theater during your lunch break. For RotK, I'm there at 6 pm to pick up the tickets I purchased online for the 7 show and all of the showing through midnight were sold out. With the exception of those types of movies, I'd never buy online. The service charge is ridiculous...

Re:Vote with dollars

[homer_ca]

Sure, you could show up late to miss the commercials, but how do you know if this time it's 25 minutes of commercials or 15 minutes of commercials? Plus you'll probably end up with a crappy seat like the front corner. You just have to know your priorities. To me, it's not that important to see a movie the first week it's out. I can wait a month or two to see it in the $3 theater or wait a few months more than that for the rental. The $3 theater isn't the place to impress a date, but it's a good value. They show 3 trailers then straight to the movie.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Firethorn]

And the movie industry wonders why movie theaters aren't performing well.

Take the family of four(I live in a cheap area): Tickets: $18 (two adults @$5, two kids @$4)
Popcorn&Soda: $20 (easy, for four drinks & two large popcorns).
Total: $38

At home:
Buy DVD: $20
Popcorn: $1-4 (air popped/butter or microwave)
Soda: $2-3 (couple two-liters)
Total: $27, and you get to keep the movie.
If you rent: ~$10-12?

Re:Vote with dollars

[rabbit994]

Your not voting with shit by downloading, your just feeding the fuel of RIAA. If you so pissed off at RIAA CD Prices, then stop downloading, stop buying and just listen to those songs on Radio or buy second hand or get your music off iTune legally. As long as this mass piracy continues, they can scream about lost profits and look pitful in front of Congress.

Re:Vote with dollars

[JWW]

I really wish I had some mod points for you right now!!!

That is dead on. I've seen this myself a handful of times.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Martin Blank]

I haven't stepped foot in an Old Navy store since they started that ridiculous ad campaign a few years ago, and I won't until they end it. Several other stores have lost my business because their ads are so incredibly stupid. I generally ignore most ads, so it's only those that end up somehow pushed in my face or in possession of extreme lameness that make it through.

One of the things that I've done for fast food places that use canned messages at their drive-throughs ("Welcome to Bob's Burgers! Would you like to try our new Super Burger with Cheese today?") is to consciously avoid buying whatever they bring up (which can be somewhat disappointing if that's what I was planning to buy) and make sure they know what I think about it. It's both annoying that I have to see the ads on the order board and listen to another nearly unintelligible ad, and disconcerting that I hear one voice open the order process and another one carry it through. They're usually pretty understanding about it, and the crew is also almost always sympathetic -- I can see it on their faces that they're not fond of it, either. It's a small victory, but one of the local Taco Bells has stopped doing that because they've gotten so many complaints about them.

On the other hand, stores with clever commercials will garner my attention, and I will strongly consider shopping there, if only to provide them the impetus to continue those commercials. I can think of two cases of radio advertisements where this has worked at a larger level. A local (to Los Angeles) mattress chain, Sit'N'Sleep, had a popular character in it named Irwin, who played the over-worked accountant to the ever-price-cutting company owner. They retired the character a few months ago, but recently brought him back by popular demand. The gruff-voiced telemarketer for Mitsubishi is another one that went away for a few months and was brought back by customer demand.

Good commercials generate their own talk. (Unfortunately, sometimes bad commercials do, too.) This can build an unconscious brand loyalty as they stick in customers' minds and come up when the customer is thinking about buying something from that class of goods.

Re:Vote with dollars

[poena.dare]

do not give your patronage to those businesses that bombard you with ads

Unfortunately, this just isn't possible in many cities. Long ago various sections of the country were divided into markets owned my movie theatre studios. Now something similar goes on with medium sized corporations which own a large number of regional theatres.

I'm in Memphis and MALCO owns our asses. I could try driving to Collierville or Southaven or Bartlett or Columbus or Corinth or Oxford or Tupelo or Jonesboro or Fayetteville or Fort Smith or Sspringdale or Rogers or Owensboro or Blytheville or Sikeston or Monticello or Paragould. Ooops! All the theatres in those cities are owned by MALCO, too.

So the only way I can vote with my dollars is through NetFlix, which is a shame because I really prefer the movie theatre experience. I've tried downloading illegal movies off the Interweb and watch them on my computer and I feel like a total asshat because my computer is here and the nice comfy couch is over there.

The MPAA is obviously out of their minds. The only people they are loosing sales to are crazy file collectors with big ass hard disks.

Re:Vote with dollars

[corbettw]

If you make it through all three without disgorging your lunch, you should be thoroughly cured of your movie addiction and can go back to the more common addiction of slashdotters, pr0n.

But, um, aren't most porno movies, well, ... movies?

I'm confused.

Re:Vote with dollars

[b4rtm4n]

Wow! The Core was fucking awfull!!!

Deep Impact was cool next to it.

Spidey 2 was true art compared to both.

Re:Vote with dollars

[sahonen]

When I was at the Return of the King midnight showing:

Poor underpaid stagehand: Please don't download movies off the internet Someone in audience: Did anyone get that on video? Someone else: Yeah, I'll put it on Kazaa when I get home.

That was a rowdy crowd that night.

Re:Vote with dollars

[The Snowman]

The only ad that pissed me off is the one about copying movies, getting really tired of seeing it, and I see it several times a month. I don't copy movies, I go to see them in theatres. Yet after giving my money to the theatre I need to learn a lesson about how stealing is wrong.

I find that ad funny. It shows some cameraman or keygrip talking about how movie pirating makes his family starve. Meanwhile, Keanu Reeves made over $10,000,000 to jump around against a green background with cables and pullies to make The Matrix movies, and the suits who run the entertainment companies have personal jets, yachts, and other luxury items.

Piracy is not killing the entertainment industry, corporate greed is. Although much like BSD, rumors of the industry's death are greatly exaggerated.

Re:Vote with dollars

[ichimunki]

Exactly. That's what the RIAA did when their members actually cut the number and quality of new releases a few years ago.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Taladar]

I would say for every company I bought things from because of good ads there are ten companies I avoid for real bad ads. There are two possible conclusions:
Either Advertising isn't worth it for the companies that buy ads or there are too many bad marketing people out there.

Re:Vote with dollars

[mrbcs]

$18 per ticket

Re:Vote with dollars

[Fareq]

Actually this is higly useful if you, say, want to catch a 12:01 showing of Star Wars Ep. III at a popular theatre... Buy the tickets at home 3 weeks out.

You still have to show up 5 or 6 hours early to get good seats, but you don't have to worry about tickets (which will be sold out several days in advance).

Re:Vote with dollars

[ichimunki]

And if you borrow the movie from the library and drink water (which is better for you anyway)... ~$1. For the popcorn. :)

Re:Vote with dollars

[The Snowman]

Additionally, ads are appearing in front of DVD movies

Why should I pay $20 or more (I usually get the super-hyper-extended ultimate editions) for a DVD movie, only to be bombarded with outdated advertisements EVERY fucking time I watch it? If I wanted advertisements, I would wait for it to appear on TNT or USA. That and if I wanted analog audio, low-definition, and a castrated (narrowscreen?) image.

After years of saving up and buying components, I finally have a HDTV, digital 5.1 surround sound, progressive scan DVD, etc. so I can have the ultimate home theater experience. What kind of home theater is it if I am forced to watch something other than the movie I put into my DVD player?

Re:Vote with dollars

[Taladar]

Or if it pisses you off even more you could do the same with the advertiser/dvd-producer.

(I leave it to every ./ers imagination where scissors could be applied in the most effective way here ;) )

Re:Vote with dollars

[lowrydr310]

Charging $12 for a movie is stealing.

Re:Vote with dollars

[ichimunki]

Don't pretend you're on some kind of moral high ground. Ghandi didn't take British salt, he made his own.

Even the law refers to the act under discussion as "copying" rather than "stealing" for a reason--so it would be conducive to the discussion if you would stick to the more accurate terms already in use and not the loaded terms that a small group of corporations are attempting to push into use. And if you want to talk about moral high ground show me one moral code in all of recorded history that even took a stance on this intellectual fraud known as "intellectual property". You can't do it. Why? Because without the act now known as "piracy" we wouldn't even have a recorded history.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Chazmati]

The advertisers have the consumer in quite a bind; if you protest the advertising by coming later you risk getting a crappy seat, or maybe no seat at all (sold out). I like getting a good seat, so I'm resigned to hating "the man" for subjecting me to the advertisments.

'Course now that I have two young kids I rarely see a movie in the theater anyway...

Re:Vote with dollars

[RpiMatty]

wow, i thaught i was getting shafted with 10$ in Albany, seeing as they are still 8.50 or 8.75 in Buffalo.
What city are you in?
or is it for those fancy imax movies?

Re:Vote with dollars

[spectecjr]

And the movie industry wonders why movie theaters aren't performing well.

Take the family of four(I live in a cheap area): Tickets: $18 (two adults @$5, two kids @$4)
Popcorn&Soda: $20 (easy, for four drinks & two large popcorns).
Total: $38

Your ticket pays for the film.

Your popcorn & soda, and the movie theater advertising, pays for the place it's shown in, and the people who work there.

It's the only way they can make money.

Besides, do you really need popcorn? Or a soda?

Also, I'm pretty certain that your sound system and screen for that DVD don't come anywhere close to seeing it in a theater (although on the plus side you don't have to deal with ignorant idiots yapping through it - or cellphones).

Re:Vote with dollars

[infonography]

Wish it would work, but then I plan my movie visits to be in no earlier then 5 minutes after the stated start time. However switching to DVD and On Demand only hurts the Theaters. So your target is off, the theaters are only slightly functional, popcorn prices not withstanding. DVD and OD are far more profitable to the studios, especially at $20-35 a pop retail. The markup is still great for the studios.

However I do support IFC and company. Meaning the non-mainstream media. They have more plot, less action and better quality movies. If you so eagar to vote with your dollars, go see an Indy film. which you should anyway.

Re:Vote with dollars

[eofpi]

You can buy independent-label CDs, too. Those, by definition, are not part of the RIAA empire.

Re:Vote with dollars

[jschottm]

Even the law refers to the act under discussion as "copying" rather than "stealing" for a reason--so it would be conducive to the discussion if you would stick to the more accurate terms already in use

This would be a whole lot more interesting if I'd used a word such as "steal" anywhere in my message.

the loaded terms that a small group of corporations are attempting to push into use

Actually, the majority of my music industry clients are small independent groups who are either completely independent or on small, specialized labels such as Sugar Hill. And they tend to use words such as "steal" and "pirate" to describe those that make unauthorized copies of music. Some of them choose to make their entire catalogs available for anyone to download, copy, or share. Some do select songs, and some don't want anything they do copied. That's their choice. But they're certainly not getting rich or part of any giant media corporation.

show me one moral code in all of recorded history that even took a stance on this intellectual fraud known as "intellectual property".

How about the golden rule, which you'll find in most major religions in one phrasing or the other?

If you want to look at recorded history as your guide of how humans should behave, you'll see that generally we've been rather poor in our treatment to each other and that someone powerful has kept other people in abject poverty in order that they might benefit. There are problems now, but I'd certainly rather be alive now than 500, 1000, or 2000 years ago.

Most of the composers that are now considered great from years past lived on the whim of rich patrons. Mozart died in abject poverty. Is that the standard you'd like to return to, that great artists have to choose between finding some rich person to kiss up to, die young and pennyless, or give up their dream of creating great works and work a day job?

Next, there isn't much of a history on the concept of intellectual property because technology has been enough of a limiting factor until recently that it's not been a major factor in lives. Most people's jobs consisted of dealing with physical objects and most methods of duplicating text, books, etc. were so prohibitively difficult, lossy, or expensive that there was little incentive to do so.

A very large portion of this country's economy is now based on non-physical objects, including your work, from the look of it. There's no actual difference in the bits that make up a wave file to your documents that hold your database analysis to your ruby programs - it's all just a string of 1s and 0s. The difference between what puts food on musicians' tables and your table is that virtually no one cares about what you produce (this isn't a judgement on your work, just saying that it's only meaningful to your clients) whereas music is appealing to a [comparatively] wide number of people. Lucky you. It's easy to cast slings and arrows at others when you have nothing to loose, isn't it?

You proudly support the FSF and even have a few bits of code posted under what I'm guessing is the GPL, but the GPL is just another form of intellectual property, albeit a very liberal one. If you view intellectual property as a "fraud," you should support placing all code completely in the public domain without any restriction, right? Think your clients would object to adding that clause to your contract?

The spread of large digital media and bandwidth have also changed the game. As a teenager, taped copies of music were passed around by my friends, but no one viewed them as a long term thing - they didn't sound great, they degraded over time, and they weren't convenient when you wanted to hear the 4th song on them. And importantly, each copy took a fairly good amount of time to create and the copies were given to a very select few. MP3s have changed all of that. (They don't sound great to me, but I'm pickier than most.)

Because without the act n

Re:Vote with dollars

[mrbcs]

Canada.. Friday and Saturday nights are the worst and the MOST expensive is Silver City.

I just checked their websites and they say that prices are only 9 and $10. I may be on drugs, but I remember paying a lot more than that...

...I was wrong, the last time I also took my 5 year old and it was closer to $30 for us. It's still bloody expensive when I remember the days of 2 buck Tuesdays.

FWIW $10 american was like $14 Canadian.. plus taxes. Ouch!

Re:Vote with dollars

[BWJones]

watch them on my computer and I feel like a total asshat because my computer is here and the nice comfy couch is over there.

Ah, you need one of these. The big one.......Stunning.....simply stunning.

Re:Vote with dollars

[jschottm]

Well, technically it's taking someone's work without someone else's permission.

It's the artists' permission by extension. The record company gives the musician (insert other forms of media/creators as necessary) money in exchange for certain rights, including the right to limit distribution as they see fit.

There are plenty of completely independent musicians who are hurt by unauthorized copying as well.

And weather or not you approve of it, it is voting with my wallet - I voted for free stuff copied from others.

Ah. So the Chicago mob was simply voting against prohibition and a mugger on the street is voting against a society that he or she feels is biased against them? Charming. Hey, we can carry this concept anywhere. Stalin was voting against corporate farms. A vandal who spraypaints your car is just voting against your choice of style/colour.

Voting with your wallet means you buy something or you don't. The fact that you choose to take it anyway is separate.

Though I don't think I was claiming any sort of "moral high ground", you just kinda made that part up, didn't you?

The term "vote" caries certain positive connentations in this society. Therefore, claiming that your actions are merely part of it would generally denote an attempt to raise the act of taking advantage of others in moral level. It's certainly a reasonable assumption.

Just for the record, if you're such a proponent of free stuff, exactly what have you contributed back to the public?

Re:Vote with dollars

[Firethorn]

I know about the relative profit sections for the ticket vs. concession sales. However, just because I know about that doesn't mean that I don't total up expenses when I go to the movies.

Do I really need popcorn&soda? No, but I want them, and it's considered part of the "movie experience".

And while my video&sound system doesn't beat the new theaters, it does pretty good against the old theaters. My couch for one, is nicer than the old theater seating. Also, I can start the movie at any time, pause if I want to.

It's a relative merits thing. One of the driving forces behind the theaters swapping to the stadium seating is this. The theater is trying to get your money by offering a movie sooner, "theater popcorn"(no the microwave stuff isn't the same), a comfortable seat with a big picture and good sound. The competitor: Poorer sound(but better than it used to be), smaller picture(but fixable with the right investment), later, but played in the convenience of your home, cheaper. It's like apples and oranges. Sure, they're different, but they're both fruits. If the price of apples increases and oranges drop, oranges will grab a larger share of the fruit market.

While you can't compare them directly, they can be compared on an individual basis.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Atario]

Your analysis is stark and lucid.

Add to that the Dvorak op-ed piece in the issue of PC Mag I got in the mail this week, wherein he points out that the MPAA is going down the same stupid road the RIAA took -- publicising something the mainstream public heretofore knew little-to-nothing of. "Hmm, $38... $27... $12... Hey, you can download movies on the Intarweb? Neato!"

Good going, MPAA.

Re:Vote with dollars

[grolschie]

..or arrive late, say 10-15 mins after the advertized session start time. Works for me.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Lehk228]

Don't pretend you're on some kind of moral high ground. Ghandi didn't take British salt, he made his own.

and i didn't take anyone else's copy of any movies, i made my own.

Re:Vote with dollars

[lew3004]

Especially at a movie. Chances are if they're showing a Pepsi commercial, you've already purchased a Pepsi; and even if you didn't, how many people are going to run screaming out of the joint because they need a Coke so bad after paying $18,000 for their super-mumbo-jumbo 20 gallon drink? Ridiculous.

Re:Vote with dollars

[ScrewMaster]

Actually, yes ... the MPAA doesn't really care whether their case is justified, morally or legally, in any particular country. They simply want to crush any competition, free or otherwise, and that's all there is to it. And after they way they handled DVD Jon I wouldn't expect Suprnova to get any better treatment.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Chris Siegler]

Your best solution is to rip the DVD with dvdshrink, which is not only the best DVD ripper but FREE.

It's very satisfying to pop in a DVD and have the movie start playing without any ads or previews (or menus if you like).

Re:Vote with dollars

[L0k11]

"theater popcorn"(no the microwave stuff isn't the same)

Your right, microwave stuff hasn't been sitting in a dingy cabinet for a day or two, and is actually warm...
Then again maybe us Australians just dont stand up for ourselves, we pay $5 for a popcorn and take what we're given (crap), I guess if that happened in the US there would be riots!

Re:Vote with dollars

[Agrippa]

Theaters charge that much because the studios take most of the first week's revenue of movies. It is on a sliding scale payout (starting at ~95% to studios) and only after like 4 weeks of being out does a theatre realize any decent revenue on ticket sales alone. Since most movies are played out after 4 weeks, that's not a lot of profit. Therefore theaters charge 700% margins on the snack bar to turn a profit.

Essentially, theaters exist almost exclusively to sell you popcorn and candy and soda at ridiculous prices and use the movies they are playing to lure you in.

.agrippa.

Re:Vote with dollars

[glwtta]

Voting with your wallet means you buy something or you don't. The fact that you choose to take it anyway is separate.

Not exactly, I'd say that "voting with your wallet" is the more general process of altering your purchasing habits in hopes that it will attract the attention of the corporation(s) whose products/services you are dissatisfied with. Sure they'll chalk it up to greed on my part, but that doesn't mean that their outmoded distribution model kept in place by oligopoly power isn't part of my decision process. Oh, and please don't read any sort of justification into this, I'm merely making a few observations.

The term "vote" caries certain positive connentations in this society.

I wouldn't be so quick to speak for the entire society (whichever one you mean). I'd say voting is simply the expression of your support for one of several presented options; there is nothing intrinsicaly noble about it, no guarantee that your vote will be consulted or that it was even solicited. And certainly no guarantee that it's cast with pure motives. Yes, it's the more general meaning of 'vote' (as you've noted with your examples), but "vote with your wallet" isn't exactly a strict and technical phrase.

So, I am greatly dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, there is no legitimate option for me to throw my wallet behind, so I am choosing the option which will, most likely, force the issue at some point and change the status quo, one way or the other. To me, that fits the meaning of he quoted phrase, I certainly wasn't trying to elevate myself.

Just for the record, if you're such a proponent of free stuff, exactly what have you contributed back to the public?

Well, I thought I was posting at least a half-funny joke, but apparently I was wrong.

This isn't really about "free stuff", anyway. Why should the entire creative corpus of our generation be controlled by a few companies, and something as culturally pervasive as music be traded on a quid pro quo basis? There are far better means of compensating the actual artists far more fairly, and the only thing standing in the way of progress in this area is corporate greed. Well, personal greed seems like the perfect weapon against that.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Matt2k]

> Because without the act now known as "piracy" we wouldn't even have a recorded history.

What are you saying, this doesn't even make any sense.

Let's get the semantics out of the way, since that seems to be such a common point of defense. Stealing means to appropriate without right, ergo this includes physical property as well as intellectual property. But that aside, what's the point of being pendantic about it, the word "stealing" used in this context is obvious in its intent-- feigning personal insult that someone would use language in this manner is not only rediculous, it's becoming tedious.

> And if you want to talk about moral high ground show me one moral code in all of recorded history that even took a stance on this intellectual fraud known as "intellectual property"

To duplicate another's labors has always been ethically suspect, quick case in point when cartographers and chart makers were granted their first formal copyright protection under the US government in the 1700s. Is that historical enough? No wait, it was probably the MPAA lobbyists that turned the tide right, god knows those founding fathers weren't concerned about personal liberties and ethical considerations.

Re:Vote with dollars

[sysopd]

I just hit TITLE when I insert the dvd which brings up the title menu, skipping ALL the ads.

Maybe you should get a different DVD player.. Mine is a cheapo APEX and it plays all DVDs I have run across and skips all ads too. Of course I have modded the firmware and added a removable harddrive- but it was only $80 when I got it over 3 years ago and it has more features than brand new players that still cost twice as much.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Thing 1]

OT: your sig (similar to mine ;-).

I realized yesterday that "666" is a palindrome. Cheers!

Re:Vote with dollars

[jschottm]

there is no legitimate option for me to throw my wallet behind
Why should the entire creative corpus of our generation be controlled by a few companies

Would you care for a list of independent artists that are worth supporting? If you have the bandwidth to download media, there's tons of fantastic stuff that's not hard to find. Heck, E-music's gathered together hundreds of thousands of songs in high quality, DRM-free format that you can get for $0.25 each. ($10/month for 40 songs.) That doesn't seem outrageous to me.

Or RealRhapsody/Napster Pro (and others) will let you listen to any of 500,000+ songs on demand as much as you like for $10/month. (Granted, you need broadband to do so.) $0.33 cents per day to listen to as much music as your internet connection will handle is too unreasonable?

Why should ... something as culturally pervasive as music be traded on a quid pro quo basis?

Because being a really good musician takes a good deal of time. Because the lifestyle of touring generally doesn't allow for a "real job" that provides things like a sustainable salary or health benefits. If you want something that's simply culturally pervasive and non-quid pro quo, chances are there's a bookstore somewhere near you where someone will play and sing to you just for the pleasure of it. They may do a fantastic job or they may not.

If your only measure of worth is pervasiveness, why should anything be compensated for? Food is certainly cultural pervasive and medical insurance is societally pervasive in many countries. The health insurance companies don't actually produce any physical goods - should the people that work for them not get paid?

Would you acccept a situation where you worked for someone for a year, and at the end of the year they decided if they felt your work was worth paying for [for the already completed tasks]?

I am greatly dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, there is no legitimate option for me to throw my wallet behind, so I am choosing the option which will, most likely, force the issue at some point and change the status quo

Supporting those that produce quality products outside of the "oligopoly" will send a far better message to the powers that be than ripping them off and will leave you with better music as well.

Re:Vote with dollars

[believekevin]

I go to see a movie or two a month, and thinking back, I don't remember any commercials, because I ignored them. The human mind is incredibly adept, and at no point in the film-watching experience did I feel the overwhelming need to wear Old Navy, drink Pepsi, or stop pirating movies.

In 2004, it's safe to say that branding/advertising is slightly more sophisticated than the kind of conscious brainwashing you are describing.

Re:Vote with dollars

[sl4shd0rk]

Oh yeah. A good belt in the mouth usually settles it.

"No, I don't want to see Barney, I wanted the Wiggles"
"No, let's watch Barney"
"No, Wiggles!"
"Barney!"

*POWWW*

Have your ever thought about sitting down quietly with your children and hitting them?

Re:Vote with dollars

[tylernt]

"Also, I'm pretty certain that your sound system and screen for that DVD don't come anywhere close to seeing it in a theater"

Perhaps, but the gap is quickly closing. True, a Home Theater screen is smaller, but you sit closer and usually you get to sit on a sofa or Lazy Boy of your choice instead of a sticky fold-down chair with plastic armrests (if you get armrests at all). Put together an inexpensive LCD or DLP projector and a Dolby 5.1 system with a nice sub, and I think you'd prefer a home viewing over a public one. Another plus: no traffic, no parking. Another plus: pause the show to go take a leak.

The only reason I go to a movie at the theater is I don't want to wait for it to come out on DVD (or unless I go to a dollar theater because it's cheaper than renting). If you ask me, the theater is a wounded and dying animal propped up with artificial life support by the studios withholding DVD releases of movies until after their theatrical releases have been bled dry of any further revenue.

Re:Vote with dollars

[MBGMorden]

Really, what is it with the popcorn and soda? The only time I shell out for popcorn or soda is when I'm out with a girl which along with the rest of us isn't all that often (I don't eat popcorn anyways, and I've yet to find a theater that serves sweet tea :). From what I've noticed in the theater as well probably 1 in 20 people buy anything from the concession stand. So why does it keep popping up in all the analogies?

Re:Vote with dollars

[yppiz]

The story description ends with: Apropos of nothing, I saw a movie in the theaters a few days ago. At the official start time, the lights dimmed. Then there were 14 minutes of commercials (Pepsi, hair mousse, cologne, etc.) followed by 13 minutes of movie trailers (which are also advertising, of course), followed by a few minutes of junk, followed by a 100-minute movie.

This is one of the reasons why geeks download screeners instead of going to the theaters. Theaters provide the worst of all worlds - you pay and you have to watch ads. Also, the audio and video experience can be inferior to what you would get at home with a DVD.

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

Re:Vote with dollars

[parliboy]

Well, duh. If you want to have an experience at home that's just like a theater, then you need to have ads before your movie. Haven't you been paying attention?

Re:Vote with dollars

[Wandering Wombat]

Sophisticated in what way? Advertising is simply saying "Look, here's our product! Here's famous and/or attractive people we paid to hawk our products! Don't they make you want to emulate them?"

Personally, I'd me MUCH more inclined to buy something if a famous and/or attractive person endorsed the product, instead of shilled for it.

Re:Vote with dollars

[einTier]

It occured to me that some might wonder what this wonderful theatre is. I thought I included a link to it, but it didn't show.

Alamo Drafthouse : coming soon to a city near you.

Did I mention they also serve beer and real food?

Re:Vote with dollars

[mikeb39]

The reason the ads are so universal and abundant can kind of be compared to the Soviet-American arms race. Just as each side kept upping the ante, Pepsi and Coke have always had to match eachother for adveritising. If one side were to tone it down now, the other would appear to be more popular and successful. It's a never ending spiral of assult on your eyes and ears, and it's only going to get worse.

Re:Vote with dollars

[roman_mir]

Hohohohohoooo hoooaaa wooow, what an argument!

What a full of BS argument.

Re:Vote with dollars

[sangreal66]

Because without the act now known as "piracy" we wouldn't even have a recorded history.

First off, the term isn't "now known as" piracy. You'll note it was even used in Folsom v. Marsh which was the first case to apply Fair Use.

Also, copyright law does not bar people from recording history. It only stops people from copying someone elses record of history.

Re:Vote with dollars

[hunterx11]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be pedantic.

You see, organizations like the RIAA and MPAA like to say that copyright infringement is stealing.

It isn't. Stealing is taking a tangible thing from someone else without their consent.

The thing is, charging $12 or one cent or 52 octillion dollars to see a movie isn't stealing as long as people agree to pay it.

Overcharging is bad. Copyright infringement is (usually) a civil offense. Stealing is illegal.

Re:Vote with dollars

[spectecjr]

Put together an inexpensive LCD or DLP projector and a Dolby 5.1 system with a nice sub, and I think you'd prefer a home viewing over a public one.

I've got a Dolby 6.1 system with a nice sub, and an HDTV. The movie theater wins hands down for me, but then again I'm a picture quality nazi. *shrugs*

Re:Vote with dollars

[bleckywelcky]

Actually, with the morons running some of these theaters nowadays, it isn't that hard to beat the sound and video quality of a theater. The sound is the worst, with bass cracking , tweeters screeching, mid ranges washed out, and their respective volumes all inconsistent. If you properly analyze a room in your house, setup the speakers accordingly, and then fine tune them, you'll have a 10x better experience. And what is more, you can add in an infinite baffle (IB) subwoofer system for the same price as a good quality box sub and you will hear bass like you've never heard before (if you have an attic or similar). As far as the video, half the time the screen hasn't been cleaned in ages (simply because it doesn't need to be done every day or week, so the theaters don't think about it much) and you end up with gradients of clarity all over the place. On a freshly cleaned or new screen, a properly calibrated picture will jump off the screen at you. Picture quality can be kinda bad sometimes as well ... at the very worst some parts of the picture may even be out of focus!

And that's just the technical details. You also have all of these dumbasses talking on their phones and letting their kids run around screaming like apes. Take control of your freaking brats you negligent morons. And the floor is sticky, and the seats are ANYTHING but comfortable. And if you don't get there early enough to get the sweet spot, then you'll be watching the whole movie with your head tilted up or to the side 45 degrees.

Yeh, home theater is the way to go. For about $1k you can have a pretty nice setup with a projector, few speakers, screen, and you'll have a blast with it every weekend - parties with friends over, etc. Sure, if you're struggling don't get one, but then why spend money at the theater anyhow? If you've got a steady job with a decent income, it's pretty easy to set aside $1k over the course of a year to invest in a theater system.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Nutrimentia]

Nice post.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Eivind]

The math is actually *worse* than that here. (Cottbus, Germany) Let's say I compare watching in the theatre with renting a DVD.

Theatre:

• Tickets: 2*7 euro + 2*4 euro = 22 euro.
• Popcorn, Soda is something like 15 euro.
• Total price: 37 euro.
• If the movie is supposed to start at 19, rarely are you even let in before 19:10 or so.
• Then follows 20 - 30 minutes of advertising. Coming late is not an option.
• Then 5-10 minutes of trailers.
• Then one or two anti-piracy flicks for good measure. So, they punish those who *don't* pirate but go to the theatres with boring and insulting shit. Offcourse if I pirated the movies instead I wouldn't have to watch this ...
• Seats are bad. Air-quality is inadequate, especially if the theatre is full, the movie is long, or it's just a warm day in summer.

If instead I rent a movie on DVD, then:

• The price is 1.50 euro.
• Soda and popcorn is atmost another 2 euro or so.
• Total price: 3.50 -- 10% of the theatre-option.
• Movie starts when we want it to. There is no advertising of any sort.
• The seats are better, the air is good.
• The selection of movies is *much* better. The Cinema here is owned by UCI -- you guess how impartially they select movies. They don't even show Oscar-vinners if they aren't produced in Hollywood...

Basically the only reason anyone ever watches stuff in the theatres is if they a) Absolutely want to watch the movie now, and not in a year when it comes in rental. and b) are so honest they won't download the thing.

Re:Vote with dollars

[bit01]

Don't pretend you're on some kind of moral high ground.

Nonsense. I don't pirate movies because I'm just not interested in what they put out but I have no problem with the people who do.

You can bullshit all you like about morals and the high ground. It is simply not reasonable that that a small number of people (in particular, the actors) should get millions of dollars for a few hours of at best semi-skilled work. It has nothing to do with a free market and everything to do with market failure and gaming of the legal system. Little more than primitive industrial feudalism where might makes right. It's even hereditary now with the brat pack and their children replacing their parents at the trough.

In these circumstances I don't have much problem with people evening the score.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

"and i didn't take anyone else's copy of any movies, i made my own. "

Insert amateur porn joke here.

Re:Vote with dollars

[nairobiny]

Clearly we need to encourage people to take fake video cameras into films. If everyone is carrying a cam then they won't be able to find the real pirate from all the fakes.

Added bonus: every fake cam they try and take away can be used as evidence for a lawsuit against the theatre (someone in the cinema will probably have it on tape, eh?)

Re:Vote with dollars

[sahonen]

Good idea, but how could you sue the theater? You're on private property with a forbidden recording device. Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Firethorn]

Then the math is better for you. I happen to like some popcorn during a movie, but I can't really smuggle it in.

Movie theaters are actually working quite hard, renovating to provide larger seats, a steeper incline, putting a bit more effort into the screen and sound system, more smaller theaters so that they can show more shows more often...

Re:Vote with dollars

[ichimunki]

Folsom is from 1976. Relatively modern when one is talking about recorded history.

Re:Vote with dollars

[tylernt]

Yeah, you may have a point. Having my computer monitor set at 60Hz has never bothered me, but it drives some people I know completely bonkers. So I guess picture quality is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

Re:Vote with dollars

[ichimunki]

To duplicate another's labors has always been ethically suspect

No. It hasn't. Pretending that another's labors were your own work has always been suspect (i.e. plagiarism). Copying them, especially deriving from them, have not. As I understand it most of Aesop's fables, Shakespeare's plays, and many Disney movies "duplicate" another labors. Are you whining about that being stealing? I can almost buy the idea that exact duplicates are unethical, but current copyright law puts heavy limits on derivation and reinterpretation as well. This is why using words like "stealing" or even "taking" is so annoying (and I never feigned personal insult, I'm not taking this personally, duh). We need to be very specific about what acts are moral or legal and not sit around and use overly broad terms like "intellectual property" to mean as divergent things as copyright, patent, trademark, and even trade secrets, and then start using misleading terms like "stealing" when referring to duplication.

Re:Vote with dollars

[sangreal66]

That would be 1841, not 1976

Re:Vote with dollars

[pair-a-noyd]

There are good movie theatres out there, you just have to find them.

Um, no there isn't.. Not around here.
The nearest theater is 35 miles away, in another city. And you'll have to mortgage your house if you want snacks and pop after paying $10 per ticket. Not to mention gas to drive the 70 mile round trip.

Oh, rent a movie you say? Hmmm, well, all the movie rental stores in town closed and moved to the same city as the theater.

I don't have satellite or cable. BUT, I don't HAVE to run out and see a movie the day it comes out, who needs the expense or hassle? It's been more than 10 years since I rented a movie and about 8 years since I bought a PPV back when I did have satellite.

The last time I went to a theater was just before the last one in this area shut down, after it had dropped to 99 cents a seat, no refreshments, just a seat and a few dipstick kids running the place. I took the wife and kids, we saw Bramm Stokers Dracula, it was hot off the press and we saw it for 99 cents. We brought our own refreshments in the wifes purse since they didn't sell any anyway. There were maybe 4 other people in the theater that could have seated 500. I remember when I was a kid (in the 60's) that place was THE place. Lights, glamour, big chauffer driven limo's pulling up to drop off the socialites to see new releases. Yeah, it was a real La-de-da place in it's time. Now, it's been torn down and replaced with medical offices. Another theater was replaced with a grocery store, another one with a church and two are abandoned in place, along with ALL the businesses on main street, roofs caving in and rotting away, waiting on the wrecking ball and bulldozers.

Every once in a while, a rare thing happens and a movie or two MAY make it onto *MY* radar, IE LOTR trilogy, and I go to Wallyworld and purchase the DVD collectors set. I don't like to waste money on the crappy singles if I know they will release a collectors edition.

But, most new movies do nothing for me, I'm sneaking up on 45 years old now and I like older movies. Most of the stuff I like is Looooooooong out of print and probably will never, ever be pressed to DVD. So, *IF* I can find an *old* movie on torrent, I'll get it, watch it and not feel bad at all about it. I used to go to the Block Buster before they shut down, as well as some other little mom & pop movies clubs (that have all vaporized now) and buy their old VHS movies that no one wanted anymore.

The number one complaint that I have is that they don't put the oldies on DVD and even if they did, Wally World isn't about to waste precious floor space on oldies that sell for $4.99 when the same space could be filled with new releases that sell for $16 and up...

Re:Vote with dollars

[ichimunki]

My mistake. Thank you for your patience. I scanned the article rather quickly, which says the outcome of the case was codified in the 1976 law, missing the earlier reference to the correct date.

Re:Vote with dollars

[ichimunki]

"Intellectual property" can be a fraud without copyright being illegitimate. "Intellectual property" is a catch-all phrase that confounds several separate and distinct concepts into a single muddled idea and then attempts to shoehorn in existing thinking about real property by using confusing terminology. It may actually be in the public's interest to temporarily grant exclusive rights related to the copying of a work to that work's author(s) in order to stimulate development of those works. And this is the stated purpose of copyright in the U.S. Constitution.

But you seem to want to engage in muddled thinking, even to the point where you end up equating copying something with stealing something ("taking" you said-- salt, specifically). I am saying that the "taking" analogy does not belong here. Shoplifting is "taking", copying is "making". There is a substantial difference, both in the underlying real actions and in terms of the law and morality. It disturbs me to see the penalties for copying becoming more like those for shoplifting. In fact, we may be seeing the start of a world in which copying is punished more severely than actual stealing of physical goods.

And while I'm flattered by the attention, attempting to go after me personally rather than stick to the issues is distracting... But to one of your points, given the current legal environment, those of us who wish to share creative works more freely would do well to use "share and share alike" licenses when we have that opportunity (which are not any type of "intellectual property," a license is permission to use a restricted work in additional ways that the legal defaults don't allow), not only to encourage sharing but to protect ourselves from the possibility that our own work would be used against us.

If you still want to call that hypocrisy, fine, but it still doesn't change the assumptions on which I base my argument or the logic I use to reach my conclusions. Especially since I'm not rejecting copyright entirely, but rather this notion of "intellectual property".

To me these issues seem important because they become about who owns culture, art, and even this discourse itself. Do I think people who create works of art should have a way to feed their families? Of course I do. But at the cost of my own freedom of expression? No. And this is my concern. This is why I tend to support those artists who encourage sharing and those organizations that create free (as in speech) software.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Jason Ford]

Have you heard of Negativland's 'Dispepsi' album? It's an entire album devoted to cola marketing saturation.

'When 7-Up has got me down,
When Hi-C gets me low...

...And my mind just turns to Pepsi
and I think of it a lot...

...When Constant Comment won't shut up,
I'll sit right down and fill my cup,
with Pepsi,
Drink it up'

The album liner contains a plea to the cola manufacturers to decrease the amount of ads. If you like music with a message, you might enjoy it.

Re:Vote with dollars

[Tombstone-f]

Why not buy 2 lg soda's and 1 lg popcorn (both should have free refills), and get some courtesy cups and bags for the kids. Most theatre's have those, at least mine does and it's a regal (which is most theatres these days).
That would probably save you about 10 dollars.

Re:Vote with dollars

[jschottm]

"Intellectual property" can be a fraud without copyright being illegitimate.

You're the one that made inflamatory statements using what you define as a "catch-all phrase" without ever defining it.

"Intellectual property" is a catch-all phrase that confounds several separate and distinct concepts into a single muddled idea and then attempts to shoehorn in existing thinking about real property by using confusing terminology.

Part of this is because we are facing a rapidly changing world where there are no established rules because technology is changing what we do and what we value in a way that's unprecendented by anything in the past.

I am saying that the "taking" analogy does not belong here.

My analogy was partially inspired by yesterday's Ghandi quote, and was aimed at the legions of pirates (oh oops, there's another loaded word. Would you prefer the equally unloaded "sharers"?) that equate their taking (look it up at dictionary.com if you really want to see a list of different emotional values the term can carry) advantage of other peoples' work. There's nothing revolutionary there - greed is an old, old value.

The analogy is this: If Ghandi had simply stolen the salt that his people needed, he'd have lost the war that he won. He completely went around the system and created his own (copying is *not* creation) and that's why he won. And that's what will win against the *IA - making your own *authorized* distributions of independent media.

There is a substantial difference, both in the underlying real actions and in terms of the law and morality. It disturbs me to see the penalties for copying becoming more like those for shoplifting.

You can dress up the actions of those that make unauthorized copies (unloaded enough for you?) in whatever sematic games you want, but trust me on this, it doesn't matter to the person who is disadvantaged by either action. A shopkeeper who is the victim of shoplifting is just as unable to feed his/her family as the musician who looses sales due to copying. No amount of word games that you play take away the fact that someone is gaining benefit from someone else's work without compensation. It doesn't matter if the copier would have bought the work if copying doesn't exist. They're still taking advantage of someone else.

Suppose I hire you to [insert some physical craft that you can do] that creates some custom physical object that would only be of interest to me that took two weeks of hard work to complete. Alternatively, suppose I hire you to do an analysis of my database that takes you two weeks to complete. In either case, would refusing to pay you for it leave you in a good position? Let's say the physical object was an intricately engraved version of my family tree that no one else would ever buy.

Whether you like it or not, the world is becoming increasingly abstract. IIRC, there's not enough paper money printed to cover what would happen if everyone wanted to convert their savings into a physical object. Do you view manipulation of the data that represents an individual's "wealth" as being a lesser crime than taking money out of their wallet? I personally think that many of the white collar criminals should be treated as harshly as if they mugged someone on the street - in many cases the damage they inflict is far greater than having your wallet taken. And yet, they never touch a physical object in the process of their crime.

attempting to go after me personally rather than stick to the issues is distracting...

So providing specific examples of my real world clients while showing that you support the forms of intellectual property that *you* believe in is distracting?

those of us who wish to share creative works more freely would do well to use "share and share alike" licenses

When it comes down to it, there really is no such thing as rights or property. The only thing that keeps someon

Re:Vote with dollars

[jschottm]

Wow. It's kind of like reading the Communist Manifesto, if Karl Marx had been dropped on his head a lot as a baby.

To summarize, you feel that it's economically unfair for some people to get paid more than others, so the solution is for unrelated people to screw over everyone in the industry, never mind that the people on the lower rung are the ones who suffer, not the people at the top.

Riiiiiggghhhhttttttttt.....

It is simply not reasonable that that a small number of people (in particular, the actors) should get millions of dollars for a few hours of at best semi-skilled work.

Why not? That's dictated by the public, not by the studios. They certainly don't want to pay $BIGNAME $20 Mil. per movie, but the public shows time and time again that they'll go to any piece of drek with said $BIGNAME in it. That's a failure of public taste, not of the industry. I'd say there are actually more quality movies being created now compared to anytime in the past. It's easy to look at the past and think that their movies were better, but that's because the bad ones have faded from history and use and only the decent to good ones remain. Cable, the internet, and high quality, low cost video equipment actually mean that film makers can do more with less and get better exposure than anytime before.

Most actors don't get paid anywhere near that though, and given that an actor might get one good part every two or three years, getting $150,000 for a part isn't that unreasonable if they're a good actor. And trust me, a good (or great) actor spends far more than "a few hours" on the part.

In these circumstances I don't have much problem with people evening the score.

I would say that the economic disparity that the first world visits upon the third world is a far worse situation. Would you be cool with the third world looting your town to "even the score?"

It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.

So you want to punish sucess? Do you support this pseudo-communistic theory across the board, or just in things that don't affect you?

Just for the record, how much do you make per year?

Re:Vote with dollars

[bit01]

Wow. It's kind of like reading the Communist Manifesto, if Karl Marx had been dropped on his head a lot as a baby.

I love the way that right-wingers love to tar anybody who doesn't agree with their particular narrow brand of capitalism as (ominous background music) A COMMUNIST. A hint: McCarthyism went out in the 60's and it just makes you look silly. Economics and markets are complex subjects and what we have in law right now is just one of a multitude of possibilities.

To summarize, you feel that it's economically unfair for some people to get paid more than others,

No, some people work harder or smarter than others and contribute more to the community and so should be be rewarded more. Unless their contribution is extreme they should not be paid so much that it endangers the democratic process.

so the solution is for unrelated people to screw over everyone in the industry,

No, the solution is that government should take back part of the privilege (copyright) they've bestowed on the industry because it's no longer in the best interests of the public. Note that I did not say all of the privilege so stop implying I did.

never mind that the people on the lower rung are the ones who suffer, not the people at the top.

That will happen in any system but it is usually possible to create a more fair and just society.

It is simply not reasonable that that a small number of people (in particular, the actors) should get millions of dollars for a few hours of at best semi-skilled work.

Why not? That's dictated by the public, not by the studios.

Partly. It's mainly dictated by mindshare advertising where the studio oligopoly simply crowd out alternatives by the sheer quantity of advertising they put out. Remember that free speech can be compromised by too much noise as well as too little message. Duplicate advertising is noise.

They certainly don't want to pay $BIGNAME $20 Mil. per movie, but the public shows time and time again that they'll go to any piece of drek with said $BIGNAME in it. That's a failure of public taste, not of the industry. I'd say there are actually more quality movies being created now compared to anytime in the past. It's easy to look at the past and think that their movies were better, but that's because the bad ones have faded from history and use and only the decent to good ones remain. Cable, the internet, and high quality, low cost video equipment actually mean that film makers can do more with less and get better exposure than anytime before.

In theory. In practice the market is completely saturated and when one player wins another player must lose. The major studios simply crowd out alternatives. People have only a limited number of hours in the day (hollywood is producing more than two movies a day now, let alone TV and foreign movies) and go with what they know.

Most actors don't get paid anywhere near that though, and given that an actor might get one good part every two or three years, getting $150,000 for a part isn't that unreasonable if they're a good actor. And trust me, a good (or great) actor spends far more than "a few hours" on the part.

That's my whole point. A small number of players, actors or otherwise, control a huge percentage of the market. Market failure. It happens, you know.

There is no such thing as a pure "free" market. If it existed it would be warlordism, might makes right, those with the biggest stick get all the rewards. Instead we have a complex legal and economic framework that discourages negative competitive behaviour (protection rackets, anti-trust, fraud, false advertising, stock manipulation, manipulation of minors etc.) and allowing positive competitive behaviour (improvement in product, lowering of price etc.). Even copyright law itself is a response to the negative competitive behaviour of simply copying a competitor's work rather than creating so

Re:Vote with dollars

[Firethorn]

You must have a nice theater in your area. Either that or you need to reexamine your HDTV solution.

Have you tried getting a projector and a good screen? They have projectors out now that have a higher contrast than film.
If you're really a picture nazi, you'd want to do some research and maybe get it professionally installed (to minimize digital keystoning).

Re:Vote with dollars

[jschottm]

I can't argue that the current system (of everything, not just movies) isn't broken, but I find your cavalier attitude that economic disparity should be adjusted by illegal and unethical activity.

I love the way that right-wingers love to tar anybody who doesn't agree with their particular narrow brand of capitalism as (ominous background music) A COMMUNIST.

Gosh, that would be almost like labeling anyone who disagreed with you as a "right-winger," wouldn't it?

Unless their contribution is extreme they should not be paid so much that it endangers the democratic process.

Perhaps, but such a change should be across the board (not just targeting the movie industry), and because you suggest guerilla actions are reasonable until your planned utopia goes into effect, you must be willing to accept possible consequences upon yourself as well.

Me: never mind that the people on the lower rung are the ones who suffer, not the people at the top.

You: That will happen in any system but it is usually possible to create a more fair and just society.

Again, you suggested that piracy is a good way of evening the score. So let's oversimplify everything, and go to a magical world where piracy has reduced movie revenue by 1/3 and it's been applied across the board to everyone's salaries.

So Jane Doe, a big name star, goes from making $3 million per movie to $2 million per movie. John Gaffer goes from making $15,000 per movie to $10,000 per movie. They both make 3 movies each year. Jane now makes $3 million less per year, but still lives a lavish lifestyle with millions of dollars still coming in each year.

John, on the other hand, only makes $15,000 less per year, but is now barely able to scrape by (assuming he can even pay the bills at all at that point) because $30K/year doesn't go very far most places where movies are made.

It's mainly dictated by mindshare advertising where the studio oligopoly simply crowd out alternatives by the sheer quantity of advertising they put out.

The general public has always noted to not have overly impressive taste. Remember the quote about bread and circus? With today's alternative media, I can reach hundreds of thousands to millions of viewers through ads on likeminded websites and zines for the same budget as one big network primetime ad or a spread [so to speak] in Maxim. This has gotten *better*, not worse in the past few years.

People have only a limited number of hours in the day ... and go with what they know.

From what I can tell (haven't had TV signal in years and have limited exposure to mass media), the biggest [money making] films with the big stars actually spend less money on advertising than the ones without the big stars. Titanic spread by word of mouth, not constant advertising. Advertising generally only pays off on the first weekend of a movie's showing - witness how truly terrible films can have a good opening weekend but rapidly drop off compared to movies that people enjoy and tell their friends about. The problem is that most people have terrible taste, hence the Mummy films and Survivor's popularity.

Fact is, my government is democratically elected. I have no problem with them modifying the copyright law they, as my representative, created in the first place to make a more just society, simply because it is assigning too many rewards to one small section of society for little return to the rest of society.

First [in your initial reply to me] you stated that individuals should violate those laws in order to even the balance, and now you start trumpeting the glory of democracy. Do you only view "democracy" as good when it agrees with your viewpoints? You seem to be arguing that individuals can disregard laws that they don't believe are right (which, granted, is a very common view in the US), but is a very unpleasant moral state to live in.

The fact is,

Re:Vote with dollars

[MikeFM]

I go to the theature several times a week. I own hundreds of legally purchased movies. I just don't feel any guilt for copying movies.

It really pisses me off that they're misleading people into thinking that copying movies is illegal. All the more reason to copy them.

Don't vote by not buying or going to see movies. You're dollar won't make a damn bit of difference. It's lost in the storm. Vote by contributing to open content projects. Let's make our own movies. Is there really nobody among us that knows how to write scripts, act, edit film, and such? Sure there is - so let's challenge the studios.

Re:Vote with dollars

[bit01]

I won't reply in detail to your argument. While you make some good points you are operating from assumptions different from me.

I don't agree with the third world comparison because they are in a different legal environment. I do agree that from a moral standpoint the third world is being badly treated. Particularly with third world debt.

I don't agree with your argument about production being cheap thus people have choices. True but pointless - if people won't see it (due to it being crowded out by repetitive mass market advertising i.e. noise) production is pointless. Only by statistical accident does anything not produced by the oligopoly hit the mass market.

Your argument about a proportional reduction in income in the film industry is overly simplistic - just as likely it's the fat (of which there is a lot!) that would be trimmed.

I am condoning a certain amount of copying because I believe that the media and IP oligopolies have already used their unique position to compromise basic democratic principles. In those circumstances I have no problem fighting fire with fire. e.g. the changes in IP law are some of the important issues for the future in government today but if you look at the mass media they might as well not exist. The DMCA, closed file formats, CD monopoly pricing and click-through licensing are other ones.

If the media, RIAA etc. were acting as honest brokers or copying was causing a lot more harm than it is then I would be less sympathetic to the copiers. In the current circumstances though that is not the case.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:Vote with dollars

[fbjon]

That's new to me. Here in Finland I can buy the tickets online, select exactly the seats me and my friends want, and pick up the tickets say an hour before. No extra charge, and if I just reserve the tickets, I can get the student discounts too.

Woo!

[American AC in Paris]

Apropos of nothing, I saw a movie in the theaters a few days ago. At the official start time, the lights dimmed. Then there were 14 minutes of commercials (Pepsi, hair mousse, cologne, etc.) followed by 13 minutes of movie trailers (which are also advertising, of course), followed by a few minutes of junk, followed by a 100-minute movie.

Wow--heavy, insightful stuff. Looks like somebody is gunning for a Pulitzer!

Re:Woo!

[generic-man]

Pulitzer nothing -- I think Michael has his eyes on a Bloggy !

Re:Woo!

[Thud457]

Funny, when I read that, I immediately had an image of a trophy design that appeared to be a hand wrapped around a baton. Bloody Freudian lookin' if you ask me...

Re:Woo!

[Bios_Hakr]

Funny, I show up 20 minutes late and still have time for popcorn and cokes before the flick starts.

Re:Woo!

[0111 1110]

Don't forget all those caring folks putting their feet up on the seats in front of them, kicking the seats, talking on their cell phones and talking loudly to each other to comment on the movie. Also those lovely people (usually women) who laugh loudly whenever a character speaks. If I stayed away from the theater I would also miss out on the loud crunching of popcorn and slurping sounds 6 inches from my ear. Unforgettable.

I do admit that, at least until digital projection takes over (at which time there will be [i]no[/i] reason to go to the theatre), it is the only way to actually see the film on film. Video is a poor substitute, which is why the MPAA should have nothing to worry about.

Advertising

[Dan East]

Apropos of nothing, I saw a movie in the theaters a few days ago. At the official start time, the lights dimmed. Then there were 14 minutes of commercials (Pepsi, hair mousse, cologne, etc.) followed by 13 minutes of movie trailers (which are also advertising, of course), followed by a few minutes of junk, followed by a 100-minute movie.

How many of you remember MTV, Nickelodeon, and other cable-only channels were originally commercial-free back in the early 80's?

Just because these media conglomerates are making money off of you directly doesn't mean they won't try to make it indirectly as well.

Dan East

Re:Advertising

[nurb432]

Not only were they commercial free, that was part of the advertising plan to get people to switch to cable ' its commercial free'..

That lasted a long time didnt..

Re:Advertising

[stupidfoo]

How many of you remember MTV, Nickelodeon, and other cable-only channels were originally commercial-free back in the early 80's?

Ad free television??? You Can't Do That On Television!

Best. Show. EVER.

Re:Advertising

[belg4mit]

Indeed. I'd wondered if I was dreaming.
Watching Daria on 'N' or Kim Possible on Disney a good portion of the half hour is eaten by commercials and *music videos*

Re:Advertising

[BWJones]

MTV was originally advertised as being "24hour music commercial free" hosted by VJ's who really did not waste much time in-between videos. Pretty cool. However, I made the mistake of tuning in to MTV a couple of months ago and I can certainly say that it is not "My MTV". Most of it is an ad for something including all of their product placements, and What happened to the videos? There do not appear to be ANY videos.

Re:Advertising

[FCAdcock]

Just like XM being commerical free now. They wait till you switch, then bring out the commericals.

Re:Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

MTV was originally advertised as being "24hour music commercial free"

ha! they fooled you! back then the music was the commercial! mtv was basically a 24hour long commercial for the bands that it played.

Re:Advertising

[boodaman]

MTV was awesome back around 1981. I loved it...blew my mind. I still remember the original "jingle" and the original MTV interstitial that used the guy in a space suit on the moon, and the American flag was replaced by the flashing MTV logo in different color schemes. For the time, radical stuff.

My beef with the movies is that I pay money to see the movie, and then they show me ads. If they're going to show me the ads, then they should charge less (or not at all).

Same beef as cable, I guess...I'm paying for channel subscriptions that in turn show me commercials, but at least with TV there's TiVo. No such beast in the movie theater.

Re:Advertising

[OverlordQ]

OMG YES. SO FUNNY :(

Re:Advertising

[stupidfoo]

Of course their answer is MTV2 - which just plays fringe crap that only New York snob MTV producers would like - or at least they pretend to like to seem "cool" and "unique" in their musical tastes

Re:Advertising

[BobTheLawyer]

MTV2 plays "fringe"? Pur-lease.

Re:Advertising

[stupidfoo]

last time I saw it, perhaps they've changed, or maybe it was just I was watching at some time, but everything being played looked like it was something that was put together by two blind art house retards and sounded worse than yoko ono played backwards

Re:Advertising

[putch]

you must be confused. TNN became spikeTV.

Re:Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

MTV2 - which just plays fringe crap that only New York snob MTV producers would like

I listen to "fringe crap" you insensitive clod!

Sorry, but if they really played 'fringe' music I would actually watch it. Every time I've checked it, they're playing some indie-poseur crap like the Strokes or Coldplay. Try listening to the Residents* or Acid Mothers Temple or Negativland or Lightning Bolt or Sun Ra sometime and get back to me ;-)

*MTV actually played Residents videos when it first started out (which comes off as very bizarre if you know their music). They were actually pioneers of the music video format, and some of their early works are archived at MOMA.
I highly recomend their DVD "Icky Flix" to anyone into Dadism, Surrealism or just plain visual and aural insanity.

Re:Advertising

[The Tyro]

Yep... MTV has gone so far downhill that it's probably not worth saving. I remember when MTV first came on the air; today's Music Television bears little resemblance.

Follow the money... and when they say "it's not the money"... it's always the money.

BTW, Dan... haven't seen you for a while... how ya been?

Re:Advertising

[abertoll]

Commercial free satellite radio, anyone?

Re:Advertising

[Senzei]

Well, they do have videos now, but they only get played late at night. Also the tool that they have hosting the show cuts in over the last twenty seconds or so of the song. That always irritates the hell out of me. Its just as bad as the self-loving djs who talk over the end of a song that I like.

Then again it could be worse .... but any specific description of how escapes me at the moment.

Re:Advertising

[gordgekko]

I don't know a single person who ever thought that show was funny or entertaining.

Re:Advertising

[LinuxHam]

duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I heard that!

Just for that, tonight you will read pages 46 to 10,160 and there will be a pop quiz tomorrow.

Sorry, I grew up on that show. I don't know how that 856k+ userid remembers it, but I watched it *before* /.'s favorite Alanis was on it. With Moose, Lisa, Alistaire, and some other kids whose names escape me at the moment. Now at 34 and 32, my sister and I *still* ask, "what do you think's IN the burgers?" BTW, where would Nick be without slime?

Re:Advertising

[mpe]

MTV was originally advertised as being "24hour music commercial free" hosted by VJ's who really did not waste much time in-between videos. Pretty cool. However, I made the mistake of tuning in to MTV a couple of months ago and I can certainly say that it is not "My MTV". Most of it is an ad for something including all of their product placements, and What happened to the videos?

This dosn't appear to be a specific MTV issue. Quite a few people have complained about specialist cable and satellite channels losing whatever unique identity which made them attractive in the first place. As well as "advertisment creep".

Re:Advertising

[gordgekko]

Where I lived we had three channels -- two English, one French -- so watching the show (like you, from its inception) wasn't so much a choice as it was inevitable.

Re:Advertising

[Sabalon]

I remember in the 80's when MTV showed videos and cable stations showed original programming instaed of reruns of 80's shows :)

Reform

[millahtime]

So, the MPAA is putting comercials in the movies, sueing people that might help support the effort for movie sharing. Are they hurting for money????? I have not seen any reports on it.

So, is there a way to reform that indusrty? Or, are we just screwed. Will it become like tv where the movies get shorter just to make room for more comercials and how long until there are comercials in the middle of movies?

Re:Reform

[CokeFiend]

There already are... companies acutally pay for spots in the movies. In blockbusters the cost can be in the millions.

Re:Reform

[NardofDoom]

The more they advertise, the later I can be to a movie, and the more money they have to hire better writers.

Seriously, though. I predict that the old adage "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" will hold true. The more restrictions on copyrighted movies are created, the less people will want to see them, and the more chance for smaller copylefted films will be created.

If I get sued for downloading certain songs, I'm going to find a way to cloak myself and/or find songs that people actually want me to download. Like Furthur. The same will go for movies. Look at the cultural phenomenons that have been created around flash animations created by Regular Joes. As broadband and broadcast-quality digital video cameras and editing software get more widespread, we'll see home movie sites popping up all over the place, outside of the control of big studios.

Re:Reform

[chemical_9]

how long until there are comercials in the middle of movies?

How about now. Product placements in movies have been on the rise over the past few years. If you've been to see National Treasure, then you know what I'm talking about. Good lord that had a lot of placement in it.

If you want to see one of the best documentaries I've seen about advertising, check this out. It includes the latest methods advertisers are conjuring up to get around the public's methods of blocking advertising in television (i.e. Tivo) and movies.

Re:Reform

[Drantin]

how long until there are comercials in the middle of movies?

Have you seen I, Robot? Will Smith wants everything vintage 2004...

Re:Reform

[C.Batt]

So, is there a way to reform that indusrty? Or, are we just screwed.

Are they forcing you to watch their shite? No. Yet you cannot, for whatever reason, seem to look away.

The key: look away.

Don't consume mass media, either free or for a fee. Just look the heck away. They will then reform themselves, or die.

Write your own stories. Make your own movies. Who cares if they're "crap"; share them with friends and give em to strangers. Do anything you can, just don't feed the established media industry.

Start creating. Stop consuming.

I know. Unrealistic hippie talk. Lay off the crack pipe. Blah blah blah...

Re:Reform

[PabloJones]

The day they start having commercial breaks during the movie is when people are gonna really gonna be pissed. I highly doubt this will ever happen, but who knows.

They seem to have an easier time with product placement, you know, where everyone one drinks Pepsi from a can, with the label facing the camera at all times. No more cans that just say "cola" on them.

Some movies like Castaway or I am Sam are even more blatant, making a company, such as Fedex or Starbucks a main character in and of itself.

Sure, it's blatant advertising, but I also think it ads a level of realism to a movie. It would seem odd if Tom Hanks worked for 'HDS' instead of Fedex, and what would he have named that volleyball?

Re:Reform

[John Courtland]

You are, of course, correct - but only for now. Once ads become super-invasive to the point where a normal person cannot walk outside without hearing and seeing them, people are going to start going ballistic (or at least I will). It's one thing to advertise for shit during a shit production, I'm perfectly capable of tuning it out or not going. It's quite another to bombard people with advertising to the point they have no recourse but to listen to it. I'm certain this is the dream of many marketers.

In fact, I'm all for advertisement. How would I know about cool gadget X without it? But the invasiveness and complete obnoxiousness of the current crop of ads really gets under my skin.

Re:Reform

[tchuladdiass]

From what I understand, FedEx didn't pay to be featured in Castaway. The producers did have to go to FedEx for permission to use their logo, etc., since they wanted to give the film an added bit of realism. But they purposely refused to take money for it, because they didn't want FedEx to become another "creative partner" in the film.

Re:Reform

[bani]

by the time you go ballistic, it will be too late. they will already have legislated it to be illegal to ignore advertisements. it will be illegal (max-headroom-style, or 1984-style) to not have a tv in your house, or to have a tv with an off switch.

Re:Reform

[PabloJones]

But the director still had to get permission to use their trademark. They probably made sure that they weren't portrayed in a bad light before giving permission. At the end, he buys all the stuff he used from the packagaes, and drives around the country returning it to the proper owners, showing that Fedex is a trustworthy company.

Re:Reform

[dj245]

Will it become like tv where the movies get shorter just to make room for more comercials and how long until there are comercials in the middle of movies

Product placement in movies. The Ipod segment in the middle of Blade Trinity smacked of blatent product placement. Everyone drinks one brand of beverage. Billboards are strategically placed and get "extra" screen time. Commercials in movies are already there, you just haven't noticed.

Re:Reform

[flink]

Once ads become super-invasive to the point where a normal person cannot walk outside without hearing and seeing them, people are going to start going ballistic (or at least I will).

Have you been to a large city in the US lately?

Re:Reform

[rbochan]

u are, of course, correct - but only for now. Once ads become super-invasive to the point where a normal person cannot walk outside without hearing and seeing them...

You mean like billboards clutter the highways and city buildings, bell-ringers, and those fuckers wearing the "Honk if you..." sandwichboard signs?

Re:Reform

[IANAAC]

I actually didn't have a problem with either movie's "ads", particularly I am Sam. He worked in a coffee place. Starbucks just happens to be the most recognizable in the US. If Peet's or Caribou coffee were bigger than Starbucks I wouldn't have had a problem with them either.

You just go with what everyone knows.

Re:Reform

[John Courtland]

Live in Chicago. It's not so bad here. I could do without the billboards, but there's nothing like Times Square here. I went there about a year and a half ago and almost threw up right on 6th. What a disgusting waste of power and man-hours that place is.

I'm more referring to the device that lets people send an audio tone straight into your skull (sorry, no link, at work), where you have no choice but to hear it. If that is ever used on me, I seriously guarantee that I will go to jail over what happens.

Re:Reform

[corbettw]

how long until there are comercials in the middle of movies?

It's already happening in some places. In Turkey, they normally have an intermission during movies, after which they show more commercials before getting back to the feature. I thought it was a neat feature when some friends and I saw LotR:TTT*, but it really sucked during Catch Me If You Can.

*Interesting sidenote: the movies were shown in English with Turkish subtitles. Which worked fine, except for all the scenes in Quenya. I had no idea what anyone was saying until I saw the movie on DVD!

Re:Reform

[spiko-carpediem]

Some pause to get popcorn would be nice. But I prefer a musical intemezzo.

Re:Reform

[MMaestro]

Start creating. Stop consuming.

I know. Unrealistic hippie talk. Lay off the crack pipe. Blah blah blah...

Actually, I would say "This is already happening, look at the machinima scene. Three words : Red Vs. Blue." People are already looking away, just not enough... yet.

Re:Reform

[shark72]

"So, the MPAA is putting comercials in the movies, sueing people that might help support the effort for movie sharing."

The MPAA is a trade organization that represents the film studios. If you see an advertisement before a film, that is the choice of the theatre owner, not the film company or the MPAA. If you see an advertisement during a movie, such as product placement, that is the choice of the director and producer, not the film company and certainly not the MPAA.

"Are they hurting for money????? I have not seen any reports on it."

I am not sure how that is relevant. Assume for a second that the MPAA has the same moral rights as you and I to protect their business. Is the morality of taking steps to reduce losses contingent on how much money you make? For example, if you own a store, is it less wrong to install a security system if you're losing money, than if your store is profitable? I see this argument made a lot on Slashdot (even when it's implicit, as appears to be in your post) -- that the better a company or an industry is doing, the less of a moral right they have to take steps to protect their financial interests. This rationalization is not one that we would apply to our own financial situations, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up.

At any rate, to answer your question, some film studios did well this year, others did not. The MPAA represents many film studios.

The reform that you speak of is best handled by a free market economy (and remember, class, piracy is not part of a free market economy). I don't like ads before my movies, so I go to theatres which don't show them. I don't like cheesy product placements in my films, so I tend to see art house and indie films, which generally do not resort to these tactics.

Re:Reform

[WIAKywbfatw]

Yeah, but FedEx sure did get a lot of advertising from the movie, didn't they? Millions of people around the world, some of whom wouldn't even know what a courier firm is, watching a film that, because of a quirk of nature, is one big advertorial.

Don't get me wrong, I liked the film (I'm a fan of a lot of Tom Hanks' work) but it's not as if you can miss the fact that FedEx gets a lot of coverage in it. And, as they say, the best advertising is free advertising.

Re:Reform

[neoThoth]

Last time I saw MTV Cribs there weren't any movie pirates on there. Just a bunch of overpaid anorexic actors.

Re:Reform

[mpe]

So, the MPAA is putting comercials in the movies, sueing people that might help support the effort for movie sharing. Are they hurting for money????? I have not seen any reports on it.

IIRC both the MPAA and RIAA groups of companies are continuing to make healthy profits. Even extreremly healthy profits compared other industries.

Re:Reform

[mpe]

I predict that the old adage "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" will hold true. The more restrictions on copyrighted movies are created, the less people will want to see them, and the more chance for smaller copylefted films will be created.

Or the more people will tend to ignore copyright completly. Which appears to already be happening.

Re:Reform

[Skinny Rav]

Product placements in movies have been on the rise over the past few years. If you've been to see National Treasure, then you know what I'm talking about. Good lord that had a lot of placement in it.

True. But "on the rise" is a good word: product placement was around always. Or, if not product placement then sponsor placement (like a face of a rich merchant among the Twelve Apostles - and accidentally the merchant paid for the painting)

But I must say that I prefer clever product placement to commercial breaks. Examples: Mercedes and BMW in "Transporter", mobiles in Matrix, main character fond of some drink (be it Martini, Coke, whatever), or just some designer's clothes. If it is not too much in the face, if it just leaves good impression about some product/logo/designer/whatever - then I am all for it.

Raf

Re:Reform

[HaydenIV]

"Once ads become super-invasive to the point where a normal person cannot walk outside without hearing and seeing them, people are going to start going ballistic (or at least I will)."

You would think that that would be the case but yet how many of us are paying over two dollars for gas these days. . . Yet we still are being taxed all over the place and last I heard the gas companies weren't hurting for money.

They have a point.

[CrkHead]

I can see that the tracker sites are providing information that can only be used for getting copyrighted materials.

I do not see this as a threat to bit torrent as it is not removing the arguement of having other, valid uses.

Re:They have a point.

[NekoIncardine]

I pretty much have to agree with this statement; This is the same reason that filesharing is legal even if a major use of it (Okay, THE major use) isn't, thus why the RIAA is suing individuals now.

Who wants to bet that this won't do a damn thing other than make trackers a little harder to find?

Re:They have a point.

[nacturation]

I can see that the tracker sites are providing information that can only be used for getting copyrighted materials.

Tell that to The Pirate Bay... see their legal page for some great reads! For a somewhat serious response, check out this one.

SWAP in person!

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

Again, I must proclaim this awesome website I found a few months ago:

WWW.MEDIACHEST.COM !! It's awesome. You can catalog (even use a CueCat if you got one) your entire movie, book, CD, game collection, and place the titles online for others to browse. Meet people in your neighborhood, get together with them, and swap your stuff. Watch each other's movies, read each other's books. Last I checked there is no law against that. (Yet).

And you get to venture outside, and blink haphazardly at the bright yellow object in the sky that you may not have seen in a while. And maybe make a new friend with like interests.

(Check my sig for a link to the website)

Re:SWAP in person!

[CdBee]

offtopic, and this is too.. but I'll point out to you that this site is of no use whatsoever to anyone who has the good luck not to live in the USA, nor is it actually P2P.

Re:SWAP in person!

[hrieke]

Interesting idea, but the web site needs work.
Half of the search parameters refused to work (rows returned, type, distance, etc).

Re:SWAP in person!

[Lord_Dweomer]

Hrrrm....while your posting history doesn't suggest it, I can't shake the feeling that you are an astroturfer. Only someone like that would sound so damn enthusiastic about something.

Either that or you're trying to get a free ipod out of this somehow.

Re:SWAP in person!

[kfg]

Dude, sneakernetting is the ultimate P2P process.

And who doesn't have at least a couple of CueCats hanging around. I just hope Jack Welch appreciates the junkmail and spam.

KFG

Re:SWAP in person!

[siskbc]

that this site is of no use whatsoever to anyone who has the good luck not to live in the USA,

So, what, he shouldn't have mentioned it unless he can solve the problem for the entire freaking world?

nor is it actually P2P

Actually, it is the most P2P method of sharing imaginable. It's Person 2 Person without the computers in the way.

Re:SWAP in person!

[Arcanix]

Has anyone else noticed that people who have "the good luck" to not live in the US also enjoy ranting bitterly about things being "too US-centric" or "this is useless to me because I don't live in the US"?

Re:SWAP in person!

[imrec]

It's fast too! I let my buddy borrow a wallet of 50 cds of The Simpsons... transaction only took about a second... 35GB/s!!!

Re:SWAP in person!

[SilentT]

...and if you're into impersonal, points-based swapping, I've found barterbee to be a great resource.

Re:SWAP in person!

[Flower]

And some enterprising person in the EU or Japan or where ever couldn't blantantly rip off this idea and make a localized version for themselves? Guess it's easier to bitch instead of do. Must be a perk for being so lucky.

I also assume that the P2P bit is a play on words. You know I believe I've seen that technique used on some comedies I watch on BBC America.

Re:SWAP in person!

[masterQba]

Nice initiative. Other similiar thing that's been going on in Poland is a non profit site (well it's hosted by a game store, but it doesn't charge for anything) is Swapzilla. People can catalogue their game collection, set up a list of the things they want, the things they want to get rid of. Mainly it's game related, but it's nice to see that people try to make swaping things easy.

Re:SWAP in person!

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

Actually, if you bothered to sign up, there are quite a few people on that website that are located in Japan and Europe.

Re:SWAP in person!

[meringuoid]

And some enterprising person in the EU or Japan or where ever couldn't blantantly rip off this idea and make a localized version for themselves?

If they did, it would probably work better than in the US. The US is a huge country with a relatively small population; Japan and Europe are much more crowded, so you can expect to have a greater number of prospective traders within a given radius of each other.

What if...

[vivin]

But the sites themselves do not carry the files. They only have information about the trackers, and are not involved in the actual distribution or sharing of the files.

So how do they plan to sue them?

As far as the last paragraph in the article... I don't know what to say... Let's say I wrote a new program to copy files from one destination to another and someone used it to copy a bunch of MP3's and movies, I guess the RIAA/MPAA can knock down my door and come get me... even though I had the totally benign idea to simply copy files from one place to another...

I guess they should attack any file transferring program no-matter how benign it is? That's like saying let's put the gun in prison instead of the guy that fired it.

Re:What if...

[garcia]

I thought it was illegal to do that (the whole DeCSS case and all).

Re:What if...

[botzi]

They won't sue anyone(in this case). They just make life more difficult.

Re:What if...

[TellarHK]

What they're going to argue is that the tracker sites are designed and operated specifically for the distribution of copyrighted materials. We might like to think they're on shaky ground with that kind of argument, but legally they have a pretty good chance of winning if certain things are evident.

1: Jurisdiction.

2: Intent.

Jurisdiction is something the MPAA has been good at manipulating for years. They'll find a way to get jurisdiction over anyone they actually sue, or mirrors, etcetera. Intent will be really easy in case of sites like Suprnova that have entire sections named off for things like Movies, Comics, Music, Games, etcetera. The sub-grouping of categories, show titles and other such breakdowns within those areas I listed above will be the most presentable evidence used to show "Hey, these people knew they were distributing copies of X TV show or music by this specific artist - they have a section with X's name on it.".

Re:What if...

[Sc00ter]

to facilitate a crime is still a crime. If you knowingly let drug dealers use your vacation home you never go to, it's still a crime, even if you're not the one dealing the drugs.

Also note that they are going specifically after trackers that are putting up torrent files to movies. Not after bittorrent, or torrents sharing, say, linux CDs.

People that post torrent files to say "The Incredibles" know exactly what they're doing.

Re:What if...

[FlunkedFlank]

I tend to think the idea is to use their muscle to scare the sites into shutting down, regardless of who has the law on their side. Who's actually behind these sites? I always pictured suprnova as being run by a teenager in Norway or something. In any case, probably not people with enough capital to defend a case like this, no? Expect to see another drawn-out international court case ala Sharman Networks.

Re:What if...

[jo42]

> So how do they plan to sue them?

Is there a 'conspiracy to infringe on copyright' type law?

Re:What if...

[Anonymous Coward]

Suprnova is located in Slovenia, who apparently doesn't care or has yet to care about what they do.

Re:What if...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, since the people at Microsoft have provided the O.S. to facilitate storage/creation/manipulation of these illeagal files they also are liable. Furthermore, Segate and Western Digital (sorry if I didn't name your brand) are also liable because they are actually providing medium to hold illeagal files. You know, if we really get down to it, they need to be suing all the energy companies for providing the electricity to allow the pirating of these files. We wouldn't have digital piracy without electricity now would we?

If someone shoots somebody with a pistol.... does the pistol maker get sued?

Re:What if...

[advocate_one]

they'll attack the .torrent files themselves as unauthorised derivative works.

Re:What if...

[Anonymous Coward]

But the sites themselves do not carry the files. They only have information about the trackers, and are not involved in the actual distribution or sharing of the files.

But they do host the torrents, don't they? And the torrents are specific to a certain file? So specific that they even have a cryptographic hash to prove that they are talking about the right file?

It seems to me that they are as liable for the copyright infringement as somebody who posts an encrypted tarball full of MP3s to usenet and hosts the decryption key on their own server. In short - they aren't specifically doing the copying, but they are deliberately helping specific cases of copyright infringement.

This isn't an analogue of Napster - they were simply running an indexing service and didn't promote specific copyrighted files.

This doesn't mean the developers of BitTorrent are next - they aren't promoting specific instances of copyright infringement either.

The copyright goons are suing the right people for once.

Re:What if...

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

So how do they plan to sue them?

Contributory copyright infringement, I believe it is called.

I hosted a decss mirror back in 1999 and received a C&D letter. That was one of the accusations on it, along with the DMCA violation.

Re:What if...

[OverlordQ]

1 Well placed RIAA Funded Cruise Missle would solve that :)

Re:What if...

[crankyspice]

But the sites themselves do not carry the files. They only have information about the trackers, and are not involved in the actual distribution or sharing of the files.

So how do they plan to sue them?

Look up "contributory liability" (and possibly "vicarious," depending on the fact pattern). If you make a material contribution to a direct infringement, with actual or constructive knowledge, you can be liable for copyright infringement; likewise, if you benefit financially from the infringing activity or by providing the site and facilities for others' copyright infringement, and you have the ability to police (e.g., you can take a look at the contents of your server and see what people are using it for), you can also be liable.

Re:What if...

[blackmonday]

They're not going after Suprnovs, their going after the sites that host the trackers. And for god's sake, the tracker has a copy of the file, they call it a seed. It has to start from somewhere, doesn't it?

Re:What if...

[Relic of the Future]

Mod Parent Up! (Actually, it's already at four... so nevermind.)

The Law(tm) isn't like source code; slashdotters seem to have trouble understanding that. It is open to interpretation, and it can ask questions about intent (what you MEANT instead of what you DID). And it's pretty clear that suprnova's INTENT is to contribute to copyright infringement.

Re:What if...

[Michael Spencer Jr.]

They will sue them using 17 USC 501. Google for Vicarious Copyright Infringement and Contributory Coypright Infringement.

Contributory copyright infringement requires that the MPAA can prove there is reasonable expectation of knowledge of infringement (they can see filenames) and there is material contribution to the act of infringement (they're a tracker). Someone has to be guilty of direct infringement for contributory copyright infringement to be possible (so a dead torrent, where everyone's at 0% and nobody knows where the seed is, can't make anyone guilty of direct or contributory copyright infringement.)

Vicarious copyright infringement requires also that direct infringement happens somewhere, but also that there's some financial or material gain (pay from ad impressions) and some right or ability to supervise (ability to delete torrents, ability to block torrents at the tracker).

So yeah, once again the index service (like Napster's central servers) is vulnerable. We need to split up the file descriptions from the method of transfer. There are many ways to do this, but here's the first one that comes to mind: site A publishes information that 8BC288EF.torrent contains Return of the King, and site B is a tracker for 8BC288EF.torrent without knowing what it is. Site A then blocks (firewall, policy, etc) sites like site B from accessing it. Site B therefore has no way of knowing what it's hosting. They still must respond to takedown notices, but if they are responsive they don't have to worry about contributory or vicarious copyright infringement.

I had a slashdot story a few years back regarding an email exchange about this very subject. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/10/204922 5

--Michael Spencer

Re:What if...

[morgue-ann]

Mmmm... I thought the purpose of the INDUCE (IICA) act was to add vicarious liability to copyright law, implying that it doesn't have such a thing now. Sony v. Universal (Betamax case) theorized contributory infringement, but the test is much narrower and Sony and Diamond (v. RIAA) won.

One of the arguments against INDUCE was that it wasn't narrowly constructed like the vicarious liability provisions in patent law.

Hmmm... where was that?

Ah! patent law requires specific intent to induce infringement of a specific patent

Re:What if...

[northcat]

Let's say I wrote a new program to copy files from one destination to another and someone used it to copy a bunch of MP3's and movies, I guess the RIAA/MPAA can knock down my door and come get me.

They can, but they won't. Because they have more important stuff to do. They'll only try to stop things that are actually 'hurting' them. *AA aren't mindless zombies sitting around all day with a badger waiting to make a programmer's life a living hell. Fighting a programmer/user/ordinary-person is only a means for an end - not an end in itself for them. And don't worry - they won't make your ipod illegal - unless there is some really piracy going on because of it. In fact, all the time I hear people crying foul because *AA are fighting against something that can be used for legitimate purposes but is used almost exclusively for piracy. People don't want to look like pirates but they want their free movies/porn/mp3/warez. Why doesn't anyone grow some balls and tell them the truth - that they dont want to pay. Before you start modding me down read my post again - its not trolling or a flamebait. If you think it is then get a fucking dictionary. Just because a post has something that you don't agree with or it uses strong words doesn't mean its trolling or a flamebait.

Re:What if...

[gmhowell]

The tracker has md5 sums and a pointer to the seed, rarely a seed itself.

Re:What if...

[vivin]

No, that's not what I meant... My issue is more with holding the developer responsible for any program that may have a benign intention, but that can be used for piracy. Why hold the developer responsible for what the users are doing? I agree that there are people who want their free movies and pr0n, but why hold the developer responsible? Let's say this scenario had already come to pass, before BitTorrent, then they could hold Cohen responsible for people trading movies over BitTorrent.

Re:What if...

[Tibor the Hun]

Considering that they're a member of the EU, they probably need to watch what they're doing, as opposed to their Balcan neighbors, or the remnants of the USSR.

Re:What if...

[alexo]

> But the sites themselves do not carry the files. They only have
> information about the trackers, and are not involved in the actual
> distribution or sharing of the files.
>
> So how do they plan to sue them?

You can sue anyone for anything and, if you have good lawyers and enough resources, you can drag the process until it is cheaper for the other party to give in to your demands than to keep fighting you in the legal system.

Abstract concepts like "justice" or "right" never enter the equation.

That's the beauty of the system.

Re:What if...

[MassacrE]

Yes, but trackers themselves do not put up torrent files. Actually, all they do is coordinate peers based on a hash of the original file. There is no way technologically to know as a tracker what files are being traded.

Now, trackers can limit access to a specific set of files, which I suppose could be equated to having a public meeting place where people could conceivably deal drugs, without taking adequate precautions. But as far as I know, this is not a crime in the physical world.

Re:What if...

[TellarHK]

That's exactly the point right there. It's all about "Knowingly" in this case.

Offtopically, I find the Signull reference in your sig interesting. On my commute home from work many nights I see a silver VW with SIGNULL as a license plate that heads along 101 to I93 like I do. I drive a green Mazda with NRDCORE. Probably not you, but I figured I'd say something anyhow. :) I live in Manchester, NH and I know Salisbury, MA isn't -real- close by, but.

Re:What if...

[TellarHK]

What you need to keep in mind is the second of the qualifiers for the MPAA to be likely to bring a lawsuit. They'll initially only target places that have blatant demonstration and claims of offering the "best warez" and the like. I think you'll see a lot of those blatant places get hit first, and fast. Once your Torrent site offers categories including the titles of movies or genres, you're gonna get nailed.

Re:What if...

[hetz]

OK, I'll bite..

I'll give you my local example: Here in Israel, my Cable service provider decided to "play muscles" with Warner Brothers, and decided that they don't want/can't pay the price for new seasons of TV shows like The West Wing (they did it cause they, stupidly enough, invested in things that caused them to loose huge amounts of money). Me, the consumer, was left watching only seasons 1,2,3 and I couldn't watch anything newer since they didn't buy the newer seasons. Do they care about the subscriber? not at all, and there isn't any other cable provider that I can switch and watch this series..

To make a long story short: the only way for me to watch TV shows that aren't aired around here, is to use those torrents. I cannot buy season 4,5,6 in DVD's because they're still not available here (and each of the old seasons costs around US $60 to buy!)..

If someone at the MPAA was smart enough, they would have created some shop to buy a chapter for $2 (or $1 with 3-4 commercials inside) with DRM. I'm sure many people would love to buy this kind of stuff, but hey, it's easier to sue then to think out of the box, isn't it?

Re:What if...

[crankyspice]

Vicarious liability is a pretty well-established concept in copyright law as well...

Here's just one recent example:

"The Copyright Owners rely on the two recognized theories of secondary copyright liability: contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement." MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 380 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2004)

Here's a much older one: " . . . the imposition of vicarious liability in the case before us cannot be deemed unduly harsh or unfair. Green has the power to police carefully the conduct of its concessionaire Jalen; our judgment will simply encourage it to do so, thus placing responsibility where it can and should be effectively exercised. Green's burden will not be unlike that quite commonly imposed upon publishers, printers, and vendors of copyrighted materials." Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H. L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304, 308 (2d Cir. 1963)

Re:What if...

[Tim C]

If I incite someone to shoot someone with a pistol, do I get sued?

Re:What if...

[DarkAce911]

And it's not like they havn't tried to take suprnova.org and Pirate's bay off the net.

Old news, kept the downloads coming.

Darkace911

Re:What if...

[northcat]

Every rule has an exception. So you're (one of) the exception. Big deal.

Re:What if...

[cpt kangarooski]

1) Contributory Infringement
If you materially contribute to the infringement of another, knowing of the infringement, then you are liable for it.

2) Vicarious Infringement
If you have the right and ability to control another's infringement, and you profit from it (even indirectly), then you are liable for it.

This is how they got Napster -- which also wasn't involved in distribution or reproduction (those were the infringements of the users), but was nevertheless held responsible.

I guess they should attack any file transferring program no-matter how benign it is?

Well, the mere fact that a technology could be used for infringement, if it is also capable of potential, substantial noninfringing uses, isn't enough to impute knowledge, so contributory infringement fails. And if the software is entirely in the hands of another, then you, the developer, cannot prevent them from infringing, so vicarious infringement fails.

But if you had actual knowledge, or if you could take down links to infringing trackers, etc., then you probably are an indirect infringer.

These are not novel theories -- they've been around for a long time, and have been applied a lot.

Re:What if...

[cpt kangarooski]

2: Intent.

I hate to break it to you, but copyright infringement is a strict liability offense. It doesn't matter what your intent was. The best you can hope for, if you absolutely had no idea that you broke the law, is that you won't get sued for very much. But you can still get sued.

Re:What if...

[schmiddy]

I've really been wishing that some big name site like the old Sharereactor (for the edonkey network) or now, Suprnova, would move offshore, specifically to the neat little country of Sealand. To make a long story short, Sealand is really only inhabited by one dude, occassionally with a few family members, but they've got a great deal with an ISP, so they have mega-bandwidth.

Also it's in their Constitution that they basically have no copyright laws. No reason for them to give a fuck if foreign nations won't play ball. You can basically pay Sealand a nice chunk of money per month, and have them host whatever you want other than kiddie porn.

If someone were to figure out a way to cover the bandwidth costs (those fat microwave links they've got to the mainland aren't cheap) you could have an interesting site and not worry about silly lawsuits. Not that I'm advocating anything of the sort, of course.

Re:What if...

[Artifakt]

You're right, this can fall under various "facilitation" or "conspiracy to" type laws.
Your analogy to drug dealing looks valid as an interpretation of what the law says can happen (IANAL).
With that said, remember almost no one actually knowingly lets drug dealers just use their vacation home for free, so this is not what usually does happen even though it theoretically can. When this kind of thing comes up in a real world drug case, the investigators look to see if the neighbors made complaints about the number of vehicles stopping for five minustes out front, and audit bank accounts and such, so that they end up going to court able to prove that the property owner both knew of specific crimes, and got financial kickbacks from them, making him a drug dealer too and not just a facilitator.
Maybe 1 time in 1,000, the law actually gets used to make the claim that someone facilitated without themselves profiting, because there is probably someone that is either stupid enough to do it, or smart enough to cover the finacial traces to where a better case can't be made, but still, in many jurisdictions, it has never come up this way.
This makes (some of) the RIAA/MPAA type actions near unique, in that they have been willing to try and get convictions commonly on a legal basis that is rare to non-existent elsewhere.
A jury, knowing that property owner a 'coincidentally' seems to be leasing to several groups running crack houses and 'coincidentally' has several hundered thousand more in assets than his reported income would suggest, will easily decide it's all more than coincidence.
How will juries deal with the idea that the accused people for this crime are commonly crooks who aren't making any money from their act? What's their motive? Should be interesting to see how this turns out.

Re:What if...

[starman97]

Ebay does all this and more..

They make money on fraud and refuse to identify
the perpetrators. So they are party to it.

If you get ripped of and use Paypal they will not
give you the identity of the person who ripped you off, but yet they do know since you can not get a paypal account without providing some sort of traceable ID. They make money on the transaction
so they are profitting from criminal activity and
are fully aware of it.

Re:What if...

[gordgekko]

I hate to quibble but Sealand is not a country...just some idiot occupying some old English WWII structure. If Britain wanted to end his daydream of nationhood it would be over in five minutes and no one would care.

Re:What if...

[danila]

So how do they plan to sue them?

They don't need to sue them. They only need to ask police to raid them, seize the servers (and often conviniently time the raids so that the admins have just bought some shiny new hardware using donations from the users) and keep them indefinitely. In the Internet Age a few years are an eternity. Ask anyone (any alleged hacker, pirate, etc.) whose computers were seized by FBI as evidence, when did they return them (if at all). So if RIAA/MPAA can neutralize the link sites for a year or two, they would happily go for it.

We know from the experience with ShareReactor, that they don't need to press legal charges or do anything. Just raiding the ISP and seizing the server can usually stop site admins (people, who do it as a service to the community, for free and in their free time) in their tracks.

Hopefully, some countries (we need just one) would not succumb to the legal pressure from the MPAA bastards and technological measures will be developed to combat the brutal police force.

Re:What if...

[Matej Barac]

I'm not sure about this, but I think we'll have elections about the EU copyright laws. If it passes - suprnova will probably move to our south neighboors :)

Re:What if...

[Snaller]

But the sites themselves do not carry the files. They only have information about the trackers, and are not involved in the actual distribution or sharing of the files.

So how do they plan to sue them?

Because that's not the way it is: Their sole purpose is to break copyright law and they are helping people do this.

Re:What if...

[psyon1]

Yeah, it would be like if someone started using FTP and HTTP to distribute warez, mp3s, and movies... oh wait.

So much for the web, the *AA is gonna shut it all down! So long.

Re:What if...

[Tibor the Hun]

Ahh, yes, the fine, quick-buck-making south neighbors;)

(I can make fun of them, because I'm one of them)

Re:What if...

[Reziac]

"The Law(tm) isn't like source code; slashdotters seem to have trouble understanding that. It is open to interpretation..."

Well then, The Law[tm] should get a better compiler!!

Re:What if...

[DarkEdgeX]

Intent will be really easy in case of sites like Suprnova that have entire sections named off for things like Movies, Comics, Music, Games, etcetera. The sub-grouping of categories, show titles and other such breakdowns within those areas I listed above will be the most presentable evidence used to show "Hey, these people knew they were distributing copies of X TV show or music by this specific artist - they have a section with X's name on it.".

Right, because only the MPAA releases "movies(TM)" and only the RIAA releases "music(TM)"... nobody else could possibly release movies or music and want to spread them as far and wide as possible to gain the most audience potential.

Right?

Re:What if...

[deblau]

Distributing copyrighted materials isn't a crime. It doesn't matter if you have intent, and it doesn't matter what jurisdiction you're in. What makes it a crime is if you don't have permission. Duh.

Trading songs online that you don't own is illegal. Guess what, trading songs offline that you don't own is illegal too. Big surprise, right? If you need the latest of whatever passes for music these days, swap CDs with a friend. Or pay the RIAA. Or go without. Or, get sued and try to convince a judge that swapping stolen goods isn't a crime. Good luck!

So did Sollog see THIS one coming?

[TellarHK]

I did, so nyah!

But seriously, this was something I think everyone could see from the very first time you saw "0 day" movie warez on the trackers. Suprnova may be a hard target to get, due to jurisdictional issues, but there're a lot of other sites that're out there that may well become really big bullseyes for the MPAA.

The real threat is going to be from Suprnova in round three of the file sharing wars. A distributed torrent network like WinMX but without a central server? Holy crap. Once that's on the loose, the MPAA, RIAA and BSA are pretty much boned.

Re:So did Sollog see THIS one coming?

[ryanr]

Nah, they can just continue going after the individual traders. A list of all IPs trading a given file is built into the protocol, and it crytographically verifies that a particular IP is giving out valid pieces. If an MPAA rep bothers to download enough to verify that it is something copyrighted by someone they represent, they've got all the info they need to proceed. A handful of BT users have posted to the bittorrent_help mailing list indicating that they have received violation notices via their ISP.

Re:So did Sollog see THIS one coming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please let there be no new "Did Sollog see this one?" meme. Let it die faster than the old people in Korea meme.

In Sollog's name, amen.

Re:So did Sollog see THIS one coming?

[halivar]

Please let there be no new "Did Sollog see this one?" meme. Let it die faster than the old people in Korea meme.

Just as soon as you stop using the "meme" meme.

Guess You'd

[The Dobber]

rather pay even higher ticket prices. See, the advertisers defer some of the cost of the movie, be it at the production level, distribution or showing.

Don't want to sit through some commercials, tough tittie, still doesn't give you the right to steal it.

Re:Guess You'd

[hsmith]

all they have to do is stop making shitty movies and that would defray a good bit of the cost.

Re:Guess You'd

[bhima]

Actually, I bet I could talk the local punk bar into showing bootlegs from 9:00 to 11:ish when it's quiet

No problem and they'd be sticking it to the 'man'.

Gotta go, need to find my dreadlocks wig

Re:Guess You'd

[garcia]

rather pay even higher ticket prices. See, the advertisers defer some of the cost of the movie, be it at the production level, distribution or showing.

I pay a monthly fee to Tivo so I don't have to watch TV with ads. I'd be willing to spend even more money to remove the fucking things from movies too. Why not?

Don't want to sit through some commercials, tough tittie, still doesn't give you the right to steal it.

They also shouldn't be allowed to FORCE you to watch them when you buy the movie later either. If you buy a DVD from say Disney... Depending on your DVD player you may be literally FORCED to wait for the commercials before the movie starts.

I think that if they can do that we should be allowed to know exactly when the movie will start after those fucking ads.

Fair enough?

Re:Guess You'd

[Nodar]

I used to be a movie theatre projectionist, so, I have a slight amount of insight into this. The AD ads, such as pepsi, coke, etc, are a function of the theatre owners going for profit, the trailers are a function of the movie studios that refuse to give you movies unless you put so many trailers on it (and the DO check). The new anti-piracy ads, however, were not in place when I worked in this field, but I can suggest they probably come from the studios as well. So remember kids, buy that 1000% markup popcorn!

Re:Guess You'd

[doormat]

Or just not make such shitty movies. Mary-kate and Ashely, Olsen, Mandy Moore, etc. Hell, even Alexander tanked at the box office.

Re:Guess You'd

[TellarHK]

Actually, I'd rather the movie industry started to do something about making the experience of going to the movies more fun than hassle. I've gone to damn few movies in theaters, simply because the seats suck, the theaters are always crowded, and morons (particularly in the theater in Methuen, MA) talk through the whole fucking movie all the time. No shit, last time I was there some kids started talking shit to me for simply looking behind me when I heard someone yelling.

Yes, they were black. I hate seeing stereotypes reinforced like that.

I'd also prefer them to run the commercials -before- the start time, as some chains do now. Trailers are one thing, but 15 minutes of "Let's all go to the lob-by!" type stuff is fucking ridiculous.

Re:Guess You'd

[lubricated]

> steal it.

nothing is getting stolen, you dimwhit.

It's not exactly someone's right to sell you a product, but before you get it, you have to sit through their shit.

It's like buying some electronics but before you can use them you have to sit on the phone and listen to telemarketers before they activate it for you. And by the way no where on the packaging does it say that this is the case.

If I pay for a ticket that says a movie will start at 9:30 it better start at 9:30 otherwise the movie theater is in breach of contract. And if they feel like they can skirt the law, they shouldn't be upset when others are also skirting it.

Re:Guess You'd

[Anonymous Coward]

The article was about downloading movies, not stealing them. You should read more closely.

Re:Guess You'd

[slapout]

When the movie was advertised, the ad didn't see "ads and a movie." When I bought a ticket, the ticket didn't say "Ads & ".
The theatre and I made the deal that I buy this ticket and in exchange I show up at the theatre at the time listed to get to see the movie. Nowhere did they say anything about ads.

Re:Guess You'd

[TerranFury]

> See, the advertisers defer some of the cost of the movie, be it at the production level, distribution or showing.

...Because we all know movie tickets are sold at cost, right? God knows the studios are just trying to pay their bills.[/sarcasm]

It's called profit. It's what a corporation is legally obligated to pursue above all other, nobler goals. They show ads because it makes them more money, plain and simple. Don't take out the violin yet.

Re:Guess You'd

[pete-classic]

I think you mean defray.

-Peter

Re:Guess You'd

[downbad]

unless your DVD player pins you to the couch and holds your eyes open, i don't see the big deal.

Re:Guess You'd

[dynamo]

uh, yeah right. sure, buddy.

And CDs cost $15 because that's just how much it costs to produce, reproduce, and distribute them. And the burgers at Disneyland are really worth $12 each.

Movies would still exist without the advertising. They are the PRODUCT, they should not have advertising on them. Products that are themselves advertising, suck.

For the record, I agree that not wanting to sit through the commercials doesn't give you the right to steal it. But sometimes pissed off people do things they don't have the right to do, and I'd say it's a bad idea to piss them off if you don't want them trying to circumvent the propaganda. I've never copied a DVD of course, but if I had, it wouldn't even be for savings, or revenge. It would be because it's cool. I like playing with gadgets.

Re:Guess You'd

[The Dobber]

Psst, guess what, those ads on the DVD? Defer the cost.

And if you press the fast forward button you can zip right thru em.

Damn life is tough.

Re:Guess You'd

[Salsaman]

Yes that is a very good point.

Re:Guess You'd

[ti.payn]

two wrongs may not make a right

Why don't they? It seems like the only thing some corporations understand is backlash. The entertainment industry has more or less been following the philosophy of "Suck It, Bitch" for a while now (especially when it comes to new technologies). If it weren't for piracy you wouldn't see iTunes, etc.

It's an ugly way to do it, but progress is like that at times.

Re:Guess You'd

[advocate_one]

If I pay for a ticket that says a movie will start at 9:30 it better start at 9:30 otherwise the movie theater is in breach of contract.

The ticket doesn't say the movie starts at 9:30, it states that the screening will commence from 9:30... which includes all the trailers. Same way as the pop acts can get away with lip-synching their songs at a supposedly "live" performance. It's live, but they don't say in advance or on the ticket that the artist will be singing their songs, they say that the artist will be performing their songs...

Re:Guess You'd

[Andrew Cady]

See, the advertisers defer some of the cost of the movie, be it at the production level, distribution or showing.

... or advertising.

Re:Guess You'd

[lubricated]

Just because the fine print says it's ok doesn't mean it's not bullshit.

So, does this mean

[my moustache]

that the next people they'll sue are the IT guys and tech kids who have to explain to their friends/peers/relatives what in the heck bittorrent is?

Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought the Shrek 2 DVD, and Disney forces you (at least on my non-modded DVD player) to sit through several minutes of adversting under the guise of previews/trailers before the movie starts. Skipping the previews is a prohibited operation. I can understand how they might do this on a $89 rental copy, but not on MY (MY) personal $19.99 copy. I should NEVER be forced to watch previews.

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[lucabrasi999]

I should NEVER be forced to watch previews.

Do you pay a monthly bill to your satellite/cable TV provider? Do they make you watch commercials? In short, you've been paying for the priviledge of advertising for a long time.

Nothing to see here, move along...

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[parvenu74]

And they wonder why users clamor for a tool that will allow them to rip DVD's for backup and conveniently drop all the mandatory commercials from the "backup" copies...

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[Triumph The Insult C]

oh, that's easy. you just didn't read the EULA. you own the little plastic disc, but the $19.99 you paid only entitles you to use the electronic bits stored on said plastic disc

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[Attar81]

Shrek 2 is not a Disney movie!

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[XMyth]

Hey! I like that logic.

Turn it around and it's OK to pirate DirecTV since you have to watch the ads anyways!

=)

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[Ours]

Yeah sure Disney. Shrek 2 is a DreamWorks picture distributed by DreamWorks, Universal or United (depending on the country).

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298148/companycredits

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations! This is the kind of garbage YOU bought into when you went out and supported the DVD standard! And now that it IS the defacto standard, there is no way out unless you "mod" your DVD player, which is arguably illegal under the DMCA.

Really, stop bitching. Every one of you that bought a DVD player guaranteed that this stupidity would triumph.

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[SoSueMe]

You bought the Shrek 2 DVD?

You poor sod. I feel your pain. I only rented it and was sorely disappointed.

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[Erpo]

I should NEVER be forced to watch previews.

Well, from a techincal perspective, you're not forced to watch the previews and commercials. If you were tech-savvy enough and you valued the time it would take to create a back-up of the dvd without the prohibited user operations less than you valued the pleasure of watching a dvd without opening commercials, then you could rip them out. Nobody can ever stop you from doing anything you want to content on a medium that is physically in your posession if you have sufficient time, technical skill, desire, and resources.

From a more realistic perspective, though, that is a lot of work (and added expense) that not a lot of people are willing to go through, and personally the practice offends my sensibilities as well as yours. I think the statement, "I should NEVER be forced to ..." is an interesting one. I'm sure there are people who believed that they should never be forced to watch commercials on tv. These people are still around, of course, but I'm talking about way before TiVo back when subscription tv with commercials was first invented.

This is all just part of the larger push to make more and more money off of consumers. If publishers could get away with it, they would stick commercials in the middle of DVDs or add those branding logos/advertizements to the content like TV stations do. Maybe they will eventually do this once people are comfortable with the idea of commercials at the beginning (and end) of the feature.

I guess the stock advice of, "If you don't like it, don't buy it," applies here, although just boycotting something in order to make it go away is about as stupid as just voting in order to change who gets elected. You have to go way further in order to make a real difference. Start by not buying so you have some credibility when you speak, and then convince others to join you. I'm not slamming you here. I empathize with your problem. It's just that I'd very much like it to be solved.

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the stock advice of, "If you don't like it, don't buy it," applies here

It's a glib answer, but it doesn't solve anything. Boycotting is a valid reaction for a generic commodity - that is, if you don't like Wal*Mart's practices, it's easy to buy your groceries from some other store - a potato is a potato. But if your kids are clamoring for Shrek 2 on DVD, there's only one version you can buy them, and they aren't going to be too happy if you come home with some other movie instead "because it doesn't have as many ads".

It's easy for someone who doesn't want to own Shrek 2 to suggest boycotting it. But if you do want to own Shrek 2, and you don't want to own unskippable ads, you DO face a genuine dilemma. "Suck it up or don't buy it" is NOT a helpful response, and it's rarely intended as one.

You seem to recognise that, which is a refreshing change. I just wish you'd gone far enough not to think of mentioning the unhelpful response at all. ;)

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[Our Man In Redmond]

Boy, I bet the people at Dreamworks are pissed off. Here they go and create a movie like Shrek 2, and then a totally different studio forces you to watch ads on their DVD.

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[sploo22]

From a more realistic perspective, though, that is a lot of work (and added expense) that not a lot of people are willing to go through

"mplayer -fs dvd://1". Yeah, that took a lot of work.

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

Me too ... and it's enough to make me figure out how to hack the copy protection so I can get JUST the movie and not the inane previews.

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[Erpo]

"mplayer -fs dvd://1". Yeah, that took a lot of work.

Unless the -fs option causes mplayer to copy the dvd to your hard disk, remove the prohibited user operations, automatically remove all commercials/previews (or walk the user through this with a friendly interface), resize the dvd image if necessary for a 4.7GB recordable dvd, and burn the image to a blank disc, it doesn't solve the technical problem I described.

Not having used mplayer to play dvds on my computer, I'm assuming that this command simply causes mplayer to play the dvd and ignore prohibited user operation flags. This solves a part of the problem for the very small subset of people who are willing to use mplayer (implying using an OS on which it runs well) from the command line and are willing to read the manual in order to figure out that command (or have read the parent post). Running that command will not take us all back to the days when DVDs were commercial-free.

Besides, even if a program did exist that would make solving this problem easy enough for the average dvd viewer, there's no way to get around the fact that it takes time and the added expense of a blank recordable dvd. No technical solution is really as good as a social solution to the social problem of dvd producers believing it's OK to put commercials in with the content, or to try to make it difficult for users to access data on media they own in any way they please.

Re:Shrek 2 DVD (kinda OT)

[Erpo]

It's easy for someone who doesn't want to own Shrek 2 to suggest boycotting it. But if you do want to own Shrek 2, and you don't want to own unskippable ads, you DO face a genuine dilemma. "Suck it up or don't buy it" is NOT a helpful response, and it's rarely intended as one.

I don't disagree with most of that. I really don't care about owning or watching Shrek 2, so it really is very easy to suggest boycotting it. If the object of the discussion were a graphics accelerator or a computer video game, I'd probably balk at boycotting as a solution. It would be ridiculous to claim that boycotting is always an easy solution for everyone.

Whether or not that is a "helpful" response, though, varies depending on who hears it. I think most of us think we need more than we really do. We all need food and water and shelter to stay alive for any reasonable amount of time, but beyond that there are few necessities. If I believe that I really need something that I can only get from one entity, that makes me a slave to that entity. Whatever they do, I must accept in order to get what I need. Of course, there are boundaries to how far that entity can go. I wouldn't sacrifice a kidney for a movie or a video game, no matter how much fun it might be. But if I decide I am willing to accept the consequences of giving money to an organization that believes it is OK to control a user's home hardware in order to make commercials on a dvd unskippable, but I am not willing to accept the consquences of losing a kidney, that reveals much more about my priorities than it does about my "needs."

But if your kids are clamoring for Shrek 2 on DVD, there's only one version you can buy them, and they aren't going to be too happy if you come home with some other movie instead "because it doesn't have as many ads".

DISCLAIMER: I am not a parent.

My opinion is that part of raising children is teaching them how to deal with disappointment. This doesn't mean that they have to have an unhappy childhood--just that when something doesn't go their way it's not the end of the world. I also think that it's important to raise socially conscious children. It would be really, really nice if they understood the concept of voting with their dollars. Imagine what it would be like if all of the ex-children living in the world understood this.

Choices...

[lucabrasi999]

...followed by a 100-minute movie.

Of course, the 100-minute movie was filled with dozens of product placements (actor A holding a can of "Pepsi" while actress B says "I have to check my AOL account").

Michael, quite your whining. You chose to go to the movie. No one forced you to do this.

Re:Choices...

[FunWithHeadlines]

"Michael, quite your whining. You chose to go to the movie. No one forced you to do this."

Actually, it's just the opposite. Since Michael paid his money, he has the right to comment on the service. And since the customer is always right, his voice should be heard.

Re:Choices...

[lubricated]

But michael did not get what he purchased. He purchased a ticket for a movie with a clear starting time printed. It's a simple case of breach of contract.

Re:Choices...

[lucabrasi999]

Since Michael paid his money, he has the right to comment on the service. And since the customer is always right, his voice should be heard.

People have been complaining about the pre-movie advertising since the early 1980's (I remember watching The Star Chamber at a theater in Columbus, OH and being shocked that their was a 30 second commercial running beforehand).

If it has been at least 20 years and theaters are still showing commercials, the complaints aren't working. You want to have an impact on the number of commercials you see before a movie? Stop attending the movie at a theater. Wait six months and buy the DVD, instead. Admittedly, you still may have some adverts on the DVD, but it's better than sitting at a theater. And, you can always do some mods to avoid the adverts on a DVD.

Re:Choices...

[lucabrasi999]

It's a simple case of breach of contract.

Go ahead and file a lawsuit. Let me know how it goes.

Re:Choices...

[lubricated]

Lawyers are the weapon of choice of rich corporations.

Filesharring is the weapon of choice for others.

Re:Choices...

[Dhalka226]

You want to have an impact on the number of commercials you see before a movie? Stop attending the movie at a theater.

Why? Then the MPAA will bitch and moan about how it must be these illegal filesharers and bootleggers biting into their profits. I mean after all, they're FALTLESS! It couldn't be their product or their presentation. Nope, not a chance.

Maybe when movie (and music) companies realize that people are starting to get sick of their shit, rather than finding whatever conveinient excuse happens to be at hand, such a logical action would work. Until then? *shrugs*

Suprnova now a pay site

[alta]

I just went to check on Suprnova to see if it's been taken down because of this, but today it has become a For Pay site! Sad day....

Re:Suprnova now a pay site

[Karma Sucks]

eh, no. you went to the wrong suprnova. The real one is suprnova.org.

Re:Suprnova now a pay site

[alta]

Opps, wait, no. I mistyped... that's supErnova.org. That's pretty crappy of them to steal suprnova's good name...

Re:Suprnova now a pay site

[evanfrey]

no it hasnt. suprnova.org is the same. were you checking suprnova.com or .net by chance?

Re:Suprnova now a pay site

[DHalcyon]

There happens to be a difference between suprnova.org and .com/.net. (See .org title)

Re:Suprnova now a pay site

[Dogers]

a drug dealer selling crack is gonna have a better name than someone selling salt..

Trailers?

[Folmer]

When i go to the theater i like watching the trailers, and judging by the download count of the big movie trailers i'm not alone. I really dont see any problems with that, and if you have a problem you can always arrive late and miss them. When i was in the states a couple of years i could swear that they showed at least 15 minutes of commercials on tv. Every hour!

Re:Trailers?

[yamla]

This link shows that there is considerably more than 15 minutes of non-programming time per hour on American t.v., as much as 20:53 minutes per hour in some time slots.

It is bad enough that people are actually stopping watching television, choosing instead to download t.v. shows, watch it on PVRs that allow them to skip commercials, or taping the shows and ff-ing through commercials.

Re:Trailers?

[carpe_noctem]

I like trailers, too... it's the ads that get me. You already pay 7$ to see the movie, so why should I have to watch limp bizkit drinking mountain dew?

Re:Trailers?

[nebaz]

15 - 20 minutes of commercials per hour on US tv.

Re:Trailers?

[NekoIncardine]

And that right there is why you watch people make asses of themselves on the DDR Machine out in the lobby for the first few minutes of the scheduled film time. Captive audience. Yeah. I'd like to note that not all theaters do these ads (I've yet to see more than ONE non-trailer, non-MPAA-bullshit ad at any movie I've seen up here in Alaska) - try to support those ones by getting extra popcorn and such (That's where the theaters themselves make money - the ticket costs go STRAIGHT to the MPAA or the studio itself, thus why they don't allow outside food).

Re:Trailers?

[Lord_Dweomer]

No kidding. People bitch about the trailers, but I actually enjoy that part of a movie. Now, the other ads I don't like, but I don't really see what is wrong with showing you what movies are up and coming. I mean, since I've started consuming most if not all of my media on my computer, I haven't really seen any trailers on TV since I watch so little of it. And I can't be bothered to always go to Apple's website to see whats new. I wonder if there's a notification feature.

How long until Apple works out a deal with studios

[Tibor the Hun]

Although I'd hate to see torrent trackers get sued, this might have a positive side-effect:

Movies on torrent sites are generally of sub-par quality, the field is ripe for a good distributer to fill the void between the content and paying consumers.

Apple has 2 things going for it:
- they have an acceptable DRM policy, and
- they have shown users don't mind paying reasonable prices for copyrighted content.

Not to mention that with all the bandwidth apple has, they probably could offer such a service (movies for download).

With a few advances they could start offering movies to be downloaded to iPods, and then played on the TV.

great!

[SoupGuru]

just goes to show how superior kazaa is f**blip**blip**blip** **bleeep** **blip** **blip**

movie commercial database

[KevDude]

That gives me an idea... Do most movies get distributed with a standard set of commercials or do the theaters tack them on on their own? It would be nice if people could start a database listing go see movie x, 24 minutes after start-time to avoid the commercials. Well I guess you would still get the tacked on local commercials, and only work in areas where movies don't always sell out, but I think the theater managers would get the hint if lots of people started doing this...

Re:movie commercial database

[jesseraf]

My guess is that it would be specific to the theatre, and not the movie.

As someone points out below, some cinemas don't have ads, while some others do.

Re:movie commercial database

[MaxQuordlepleen]

But you can't do this for desirable or popular movies, because you will miss out on a decent seat.

Re:movie commercial database

[DoctorDeath]

Many years ago, when I worked in movie theaters as a teen ager... The individual movie theater hs the projectionist splice in all the trailers and concession teases when they put the movie together. The film distributers send out trailers and recommendations for what film to put them on, but whoever is splicing the film has the final decision as to what gets added. As a side note, the film arrives in the theater on reels in cans and is spliced together into one long continuous film onto a "platter". There aren't really film or projector changes anymore. They might have to change lenses at the start of the actual movie since the trailers may be in a different aspect ratio but it is all one piece of film.

Re:movie commercial database

[musikit]

call the movie theater and ask what time the movie ENDS, and how long the movie is.

if the movie starts at 6pm and is 88 minutes and ends at 8:42 then you can go buy your ticket and get in at 7:15 and not worry about watching the 75 minutes of commercials.

Re:movie commercial database

[Espectr0]

f the movie starts at 6pm and is 88 minutes and ends at 8:42 then you can go buy your ticket and get in at 7:15 and not worry about watching the 75 minutes of commercials.


And be forced to take a seat on the first row?

You do that.

We should applaud this...

[which way is up]

The fact that the RIAA and MPAA are now going after the people breaking copyright law instead of writing legislation aimed at crippling technology and suing service providers is a good thing.

Now, of course there are still some stupid hybrid technological/legal measures they're pushing like 5C encryption and the broadcast flag. But if unlawful uses of file sharing/copying/archiving diminish due to fear of individual suits, then legitimate fair use will become a significant part of what is being prevented by these measures and they'll hopefully stop or be forced to stop them. Hopefully.

Re:We should applaud this...

[grumpygrodyguy]

We should applaud this...

The fact that the RIAA and MPAA are now going after the people breaking copyright law instead of writing legislation aimed at crippling technology and suing service providers is a good thing.

No, a good thing would be lawmakers suing congress for allowing copyright law to be extended to 120 years.

Re:We should applaud this...

[KarmaOverDogma]

That's a GREAT IDEA! Why don't we applaud all methods of making more use of the internet illegal, like sharing legal non-copyrigted files of the following type:

* non copyrighted music
* non copyrighted videos
* " stories
* freeware
* shareware
* non copyrighted pictures
* " research papers
* insert your favorite legal item here

After all, all I want to do is CONSUME, CONSUME, CONSUME! I dont have a creative thought in my head! I can only enjoy the creativity (such as it may or may not be) that passes muster of the corporate entertainment industry! Oh THANK-YOU, MPAA!

I know the sites are heavily populated by traffic of the illegal kind, but that is not all they do. If the MPAA wants to be progressive about it they should sue the illegal file sharers themselves, like the RIAA was finally forced to do, not servers that can and do provide for legal activity as well.

Sites of any real legitimacy would then survive (and the rest go underground until the next method of file sharing takes off) and be free to post purely legal content.

The internet continues to morph into a place for consumption by the masses. This is just another lame attempt by the industry to further this trend.

Unfortunately I think it will continue.

.

Sue without proposing a solution?

[parvenu74]

Why is the MPAA going after "the problem" without proposing "a solution" to go with it? Do they think that crushing BitTorrent will be the end of their troubles? Did they not see what happened when the music industry crushed Napster? Instead of having one point of distribution that can be monitored, they created the situation that cutting off one head causes dozens more to pop up. What they *should* do is come up with an online video store to offer a legit alternative. Heck, they could even use BitTorrent for distribution...

Disclaimer

[DHalcyon]

A bittorent tracker disclaimer:

None of the files shown here are actually hosted on this server. The links are provided solely by this site's users. The administrator of this site cannot be held responsible for what its users post, or any other actions of its users. You may not use this site to distribute or download any material when you do not have the legal rights to do so. It is your own responsibility to adhere to these terms.

Can anyone who knows about legal stuff probably explain to me if such a disclaimer is of any use for a BT tracker?

Re:Disclaimer

[Zed2K]

Disclaimers or not. That doesn't stop a really large group of companies from attacking a site run by a small fish and freaking the small fish out enough to get the fish to give them a ton of money to go away.

Re:Disclaimer

[kelnos]

Can anyone who knows about legal stuff probably explain to me if such a disclaimer is of any use for a BT tracker?

In a word, no.

Here's another disclaimer: "People are free to walk through this door, but I often enjoy shooting people that walk through this door. I cannot be held responsible for the result if you walk through this door."

Sure, that's a bit absurd, but the fact still remains that suprnova.org is facilitating copyright infringement. I believe the reason the original Napster was brought down was because it was proven that the administrators of the Napster servers *could* monitor and control the content of the network. For a website, it's trivial for an admin to police the contents of the site.

Of course, IANALBIKABALS (I Am Not A Lawyer But I Know A Bit About Legal Stuff).

Re:Disclaimer

[Lord Kano]

I believe the reason the original Napster was brought down was because it was proven that the administrators of the Napster servers *could* monitor and control the content of the network.

Not exactly. It was "found" as in by a judge that they could do such filtering. As I'm sure we know the "finding" of a judge doesn't always have a basis in reality, in practice it was proven that they couldn't. People who were determined to swap copyrighted material using the site were able to do just that. Napster filtered by file name so people started naming their files in reverse. 3pm.enO - acillateM would evate the filter. Then if they added reverse filtering, people would do things like ROT13 their filenames. Or shift the order of the letters by one or encode them with 31337 5p34k and post them that way.

In the end Naptster was NOT able to control what was traded over a P2P network. No one can. The only way to stop it is to stop ALL P2P trading, but that isn't likely to happen.

If it becomes hard enough, people will go underground and trade in private rings.

Re:Disclaimer

[gordgekko]

You realize that all those signs in a restaurant that say "Owner not responsible for stolen items" in the coat check area don't make it necessarily so, right?

Apropos

[SilentChris]

"Apropos of nothing..."

True, that is apropos of nothing. Myself, (apropos of nothing, of course) I like mittens.

Re:Ok, Michael

[stonedonkey]

I've noticed that the first few negative responses to Michael's in-story soapboxing are typically rebutted by ACs.

Rolling the same joke just once more...

[Lead Butthead]

MPAA: What happen ?
Minion: Somebody set up us the Tracker.
Minion: We get packet.
MPAA: What !
Minion: Packet Sniffer turn on.
MPAA: It's you !!
Torrents: How are you gentlemen !!
Torrents: All your MOVIES are belong to us.
Torrents: You are on the way to destruction.
MPAA: What you say !!
Torrents: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Torrents: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
MPAA: Sue every Tracker!!
MPAA: You know what you doing.
MPAA: For great PROFIT.

Re:Rolling the same joke just once more...

[thief_inc]

AYB its been a long time...
It never gets old.

China here we come...

[CdBee]

All that will happen is that torrent sites will move to Chinese servers where Western laws are nothing more than an amusing concept. I'm looking forward to it, should make it much easier to get files.

Re:China here we come...

[superpulpsicle]

The streets of Hong Kong and many parts of China are swamped with illegal CD sales. I think MPAA is hunting the wrong folks.

Re:China here we come...

[vasqzr]

And then they'll sue anyone who allows their traffic to come to their servers. Nothing but spame and WaRez comes from China.

Completely Useless - As Usual

[nihilistcanada]

How hard is it to set up a server in a country with shall we say less then aggresive copyright enforcement? Not hard at all. We still have all of eastern Europe, Asia and other places. That assumes the legal issues in their attempt to shut stuff down even works, and I doubt that. I remember in my old edonkey days all the servers were located in Turkey to avoid hassles from the man. And all the users were from Germany. Foreshadowing? Nahhh.

Century Theaters

[readams]

Century theaters do not show TV ads before their movies. AMC is absolutely intolerable because of their advertising practices. I absolutely refuse to go to AMC theaters because of this. Century has all the same movies with a much better experience.

Re:Century Theaters

[bm17]

Is there some way of finding out, online, which theatres include ads? I would be willing to use that information to boycott certain venues.

Re:Century Theaters

[fishbowl]

"Is there some way of finding out, online, which theatres include ads?"

Call the manager and ask? And if they refuse to talk to you, you already have enough reason to boycott, regardless of their ad situation.

Bram Cohen

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sources say the MPAA is not necessarily going after BitTorrent's developer, Bram Cohen, only the server operators."

Why don't they go after the creators of ftp and http too while they're at it...
He hasn't done anything wrong.

Haven't these people heard of NetFlix?

[physicsphairy]

Quite frankly, BitTorrent is the less convenient way to 'steal' movies. I think there have been advertisements here on slashdot for it, but NetFlix is a business where you pay a monthly fee and they mail you movies, and you mail them back and pick new ones as often as you like. If I had the harddrive space, I could easily rip a hundred dvds with much less hastle than downloading them.

What I can't get is TV episodes. If I knew where to buy them, I would (Invader Zim, anyone?) but I can't find any.

So it's really a shame to have the tracker services shutdown.

Re:Haven't these people heard of NetFlix?

[bhima]

If Netflix was here I'd have it!

What's stopping them?

Re:Haven't these people heard of NetFlix?

[darkgumby]

Netflix carries 2 (maybe more) DVDs with Zim Episodes.

Re:Haven't these people heard of NetFlix?

[rhombic]

Invader Zim on netflix, as requested.

Re:Haven't these people heard of NetFlix?

[CrankyFool]

It's actually tremendously difficult to achieve 9 movies a week on the 3 movies at once plan -- in my experience, it requires no shipping screwups and for you to actually return the movie on the same day you got it:
Monday: Netflix sends you three movies
Tuesday: You get them, send them back
Wednesday: Netflix gets them, sends you three more
Thur: You send them back
Fri: They get them, send you three more
Sat: You get them, send them back
Monday: Repeat

The additional problem is that it means you have to rip all three movies on Saturday before your post office stops pickup (which is typically earlier on Saturdays). The only time I managed to approximate 9 movies a week was when I was unemployed for a while -- and on average, during two of those months, I still only did about 24 movies a month, or a movie every 1.mumble days. I did have a month I managed to achieve >30, but it's not at all reliable.

I live pretty close to two distribution points for Netflix, and it still takes one day -- I've not heard of anyone who gets their movies from Netflix the same day that Netflix sends them.

This, of course, only disagrees with a specific supporting fact of your case -- I still agree with your overall assertion regarding the usefulness of Netflix. As a point of reference, in the 418 days since I became a member, I've rented 260 movies. If I was at all inclined to pirate movies (which of course I'm not, because it's illegal and immoral and I wouldn't want to deprive starving artists like Tom Cruise and Will Smith of their fair wages), why, I'd have one of those huge CD wallets STACKED with DVDs, and already have additional CD wallets on order from Amazon!

Re:Haven't these people heard of NetFlix?

[LazyBoy]

The local library has DVDs too.

Re:Haven't these people heard of NetFlix?

[Adrenochrome]

"What I can't get is TV episodes. If I knew where to buy them, I would (Invader Zim, anyone?) but I can't find any."

Ahem. http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=600375 72

Re:Haven't these people heard of NetFlix?

[subz503]

Been doing that for quite awhile. In fact, it's why I bought my DVD burner. Very efficient way to copy movies. Highly reccomended.

Re:Haven't these people heard of NetFlix?

[julesh]

For me, it seems to actually be faster to download movies from bittorrent (I often get about 30K/sec on my connection, which tends to come out at about 8-12 hours downloading for a feature length movie) than to rip & reencode (which seems to take 14-18 hours for a feature length movie on my 450MHz celeron).

Not to mention I don't have the inconvenience of having to wait around for the disks to be delivered, etc.

Plus there's the chance to download screeners before the rental DVD is released.

So even if netflix did operate in my area, I don't think I'd use them.

No it's not

[scheme]

just went to check on Suprnova to see if it's been taken down because of this, but today it has become a For Pay site! Sad day....

You probably went to suprnova.com or suprnova.net which are pay sites pretending to be suprnova. Suprnova.org looks like it still is the same as usual.

Solution

[Bad Dude]

Get a girlfriend and make out during the commercials...

Oh wait, never mind...

How to avoid liablilty?

[10000000000000000000]

only one solution.

begin hosting the trackers off of compromised machines by running p2p discovery apps.

Bounding

[jdaytona]

Advertising works, right after I saw The Incredibles I went out and bought some sheep because of the advertising before the movie... Man that sheep was happy-go-lucky! I would like to sue for false advertisment though, my sheep just lounge around chomping grass and the like all day, bad sheep.

Question to all those who will bash the MPAA

[RedK]

How many of you went out to buy the ROTK EE DVD set today ?

Re:Question to all those who will bash the MPAA

[KidHash]

Downloaded it 2 weeks ago from suprnova

Re:Question to all those who will bash the MPAA

[jo42]

And The Incredibles DVD Screener?

Re:Question to all those who will bash the MPAA

[Nightreaver]

Bought it from Amazon yesterday at a price of £44 ~ 500 DKK it's about half price compared to danish prices. So yup, me for one.

actually, vote with abstention...

[AbraCadaver]

Someone suitably creative could create a website that tracks how much time commercials and crap take out of a movie, and POST it for all to view. The idea being that people know how many minutes they can skip before the feature starts, and avoid all the commercials. I think the very existence of a site like this, and a good amount of traffic to it, could send a powerful message: "We are NOT a captive audience!". The caveats being A) someone has to initially watch the commercials to time it, and B) you could lose a good seat :P

Re:actually, vote with abstention...

[fubar1971]

and a good amount of traffic to it, could send a powerful message...

Just think of all the revenue you could generate with popup ads on the site.

Re:actually, vote with abstention...

[Torgo's Pizza]

Already been done. Sorta. It's called ClearPlay. Sure it doesn't take out commercials, but it is adjustable to remove content based on the user.

Re:actually, vote with abstention...

[slashrogue]

My wife and I went to London about 2.5 years ago and one night we were there, we didn't have anything to do so we went looking for a movie. Browsing the ads for local playtimes, each movie had two times listed: when the lights went off and commercials started, and when the movie actually started. I don't know if it was just that theatre or what, but it would be nice to have over here.

Re:actually, vote with abstention...

[Txiasaeia]

Fucking brilliant. Absolutely fucking brilliant. If any movie theatre did that where I lived, I'd actually go to the theatre again.

Re:actually, vote with abstention...

[Da Fokka]

You might consider using the following formula:

Tactual_start_of_movie = Tlisted_start_of_movie + 20 minutes.

This Will Work Real Well...

[rsmith-mac]

Oh yea, this will work real well. I mean, you can only host a tracker on a top of the line server in an American(or American friendly) high-bandwidth facility; it's not like it can be run on cheaper hardware in a non-copyright friendly nation like Russia, right?

Legal Distributors have some major obstacles

[casuist99]

I agree - there's room for growth here. The prices the MPAA will demand distributors charge for movies will be outrageous, however, and they'll never allow current theatrical releases to be distributed online until they're in rental stages.

The biggest problem for a distributor will be getting the MPAA on board. The second biggest problem will be developing an application (and protocol, perhaps) to allow downloading of the files. Bittorrent won't work since DRM won't work like this. The popularity of bittorrent makes the file transfers as fast as they are - no central server from Apple could really rival that.

Perhaps bittorrent could be used if you downloaded an avi file wrapped in an executable which locked the DRM to your own machine?

Of course I have no doubt what would then happen - someone would figure out that it's only 2-bit encryption holding the avi file inside the executable wrapper, and release a "tool" to unwrap the avi.

Distributors aren't going to win in this field, I think. The MPAA won't let them, and information (movies included) want to be free.

Re:Legal Distributors have some major obstacles

[roju]

Actually, I ran into Information last week, and, funny story, turns out she's a submissive. Who knew? But that's not all of it. Apparently want she really wants from life is to be a firefighter. Go figure.

Re:Legal Distributors have some major obstacles

[Tibor the Hun]

there's no reason why torrent wouldn't work with DRM. Apple could use the h.264 compression and wrap DRM around it.
sure, someone could hack it and unwrap it, like they can with iTunes, but there's not that much of that going on.
and for the right price, say 9.99 per movie, and after a 4 hour waiting period (while the movie downloads) majority of people would not boter trying to crack it and share it with their friends.

i think apple has more than enough swing behind its name to be the movie torrent tracker.

Problem Number One

[$eth31]

IF you live in a small town, or even a larger area where few people have things of interest...Then via this method, you're just up a creek.

In Person swapping really can only work on a comperable scale to P2P apps when large pools of people available, and unless the cows are hoarding something I don't know about, you just cannot find large pools of traders in a smaller community.

Re:Problem Number One

[Joe Tie.]

My thoughts exactly. Wooo, I can borrow books about farming, the rapture, and the book of mormon. I'll stick to 'borrowing' from netflix.

Re:Problem Number One

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

Problem solved, I currently swap with a person in PA (I'm in FL) through the mail... he sends me 5 CDs, I send him 5 CDs, and we continue swapping through the mail like that.

$2.38 for postage for 5 CDs isn't too bad.

(Your mileage may vary if you choose to swap with someone who doesn't return your stuff...)

How deep a linking?

[SuperKendall]

So say they can sue these guys for posting tracking links...

Can they also sue someone linking to the tracking sites?

Could they sue the tracking sites if the sites did not display links without first requiring you to go through a referring link from another tracking site?

I thought this whole "deep linking" issue was covered by the DECSS trials.

Finnish Police & BSA Busted BitTorrent Site

[petril]

Tuesday, 14 December 2004

Early this morning National Bureau of Investigation and BSA have busted finnish BitTorrent link site Finreactor for distributing copyrighted material worth of million euros.

According to sources, NBI raided the admins homes today and seized all the computer equipment and storage media for further investigation, but released the suspects shortly after the raid. The site itself has been down since early hours of today. Site had over 37,000 registered members and had links to more than 6,000 pirated releases on BitTorrent network.

Read the Full story.

PS. If you are finnish, read this.

Re:Finnish Police & BSA Busted BitTorrent Site

[B.D.Mills]

According to sources, NBI raided the admins homes today and seized all the computer equipment and storage media for further investigation, but released the suspects shortly after the raid. The site itself has been down since early hours of today.
This is why a good disaster recovery plan is essential, along with offsite backups. If you lose your equipment by fire, theft or a police raid, then you can use your disaster recovery plan and offsite backups to get back online quickly.

Re:Finnish Police & BSA Busted BitTorrent Site

[grumpygrodyguy]

NBI raided the admins homes today and seized all the computer equipment and storage media for further investigation, but released the suspects shortly after the raid. The site itself has been down since early hours of today.

Way to bend over and take the ol' 12" USofA.

It's sad when multi-nationals can buy congress and the whitehouse, but it's appaling to see it happen in countries like Finland.

All of you US hating europeans should wake up, it's happening to you too.

Re:Finnish Police & BSA Busted BitTorrent Site

[JeThR0]

Just goes to show that rent,rip and shrink is the safest if you want movies.

what do you want to bet

[RealAlaskan]

Motion Picture Association of America is planning to begin a legal assault on websites that host BitTorrent trackers for copyrighted movie files.

What do you want to bet that the MPAA is going to put the emphasis on ``begin a legal assault on websites that host BitTorrent trackers'' rather than on ``BitTorrent trackers for copyrighted movie files ''?

The shotgun approach would be easier, and have about the same chilling effect, so it would be win-win for the MPAA.

Which would work great, except...

[kwertii]

.. that the BitTorrent trackers will just migrate to places like Russia and China, where there are no intellectual property laws to speak of, and where the Clerk of the Court would laugh if a lawyer for the MPAA tried to file a lawsuit against people for running trackers.

What are they going to try next? Snooping on people's personal net connections at home? They'll add a trivial encryption layer to BitTorrent - just try and prove what's being transferred over that link to Russia. Firewall China and Russia off from the rest of the Internet? Make encryption illegal? I don't think (or rather, I desperately hope) that people will accept such measures.

The information genie is out of the bottle. Business models that rely on the sale of information are doomed. It may take 50 years for them to finally give up on these models - they'll fight tooth and nail to save them, since they essentially rake in mountains of cash for doing nothing except copying digital media, which is now practically free. The long, slow decline of the viability of selling information has begun.

On the other hand, the active propagation of disinformation in schools has successfully managed to convince many people that "drugs are bad, mmmmmkay..." in the absence of any rational logical supports for the arbitrary classification of certain drugs as "bad", and others as "not drugs". (Only certain drugs - caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol are socially acceptable and legal; marijuana is (somehow) not, even though alcohol clearly has far more deleterious social and personal health effects).

Perhaps they'll wage a similar disinformation campaign to indoctrinate our children to believe in the sacredness of intellectual property, and thus get people to accept that encryption should be illegal, to prevent information piracy....

Re:Which would work great, except...

[Tim C]

The information genie is out of the bottle. Business models that rely on the sale of information are doomed.

Then the movie industry is doomed. It costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to create a modern feature film. Even if you managed to cut that down by an order of magnitude, that's still millions of dollars you need, up front, to make the film.

How do you propose that money is made, if the film (which is just information) cannot be sold to consumers?

Perhaps they'll wage a similar disinformation campaign to indoctrinate our children to believe in the sacredness of intellectual property

There's a reason why intellectual property is considered important enough to be treated specially - it takes time, effort and quite often money to produce it. Musicians can tour, but what of artists, actors, authors, etc? Would you pay to hear an author read out exercepts of their work?

Even if you would, would you donate a sum of money (say $20) to a fund to have a film made, with little or no guarantee of the quality of that film?

At least with the current system, if you think a film sucks, you don't have to see it. If you had to pay to have the film made, you'd not have that choice; good or bad, you'd already have paid.

Re:Which would work great, except...

[Eil]

Make encryption illegal? I don't think (or rather, I desperately hope) that people will accept such measures.

Funny, they have once before.

Re:Which would work great, except...

[Interrupt18]

Perhaps they'll wage a similar disinformation campaign to indoctrinate our children to believe in the sacredness of intellectual property, and thus get people to accept that encryption should be illegal, to prevent information piracy....
Don't you remember the copyright weasel ?

Re:Which would work great, except...

[radixvir]

i dont understand. why would you add encryption to bittorrent? wouldnt they just use a modified client to connect to the tracker and to peers to find out who is downloading a file? how good is encryption when they use the same system. Also they wouldnt need to monitor your connection. the MPAA could simply ask ISPs to ban the IP addresses of known trackers in China.

Re:Which would work great, except...

[abertoll]

The sure-fire way for them to make money is to be LESS restrictive, more reasonable (with price), and make people feel guilty about making copies. As long as they're aggressive with their customers, people will copy.

Re:Which would work great, except...

[normal_guy]

I don't think the best way to quicken the demise of IP is to compare it to "drugs, which are totally cool and the man is trying to tell kids they're bad." Keee-rist. Enjoy the bong, laugh at the megacorps as they try to stay above water, but don't compare bong hits to bittorrent clicks.

Re:Which would work great, except...

[kwertii]

The thing is - the collapse of the viability of IP business models isn't a value judgement. It doesn't matter whether I or anyone else thinks that it's a good thing that nobody will be able to make money from selling information anymore. It is simply a logical consequence of human behavior combined with a prolific mechanism to transfer large amounts of information around the world cheaply and quickly.

People want to share things with other people. If there is no significant cost involved in doing so, people will always pass the information along to a friend. Nobody cared when it was taping an album for a friend; but now there is no degradation in the quality in the copy anymore, nor any time/effort expense involved in making the copy. Thus, the media consumer thinks it's great, and the media manufacturers think it's horrible, because technology has evolved to make their entire (highly profitable) role in the information transfer chain obsolete. Which means no more stacks of money for copying and distributing tangible media encoding others' work for the RIAA/MPAA honchos.

Whether this elimination of the middleman is ultimately going to have a detrimental effect on the quality of available media is an altogether different issue than whether it's going to happen. It's already happening. And, short of severely restricting the cheap, fast, and free (as in speech) flow of information between people somehow, there's no way to stop it. Vested telco interests don't want that to happen, and they have as many high-priced lawyers as the media guys do.

Certainly, there will be a huge shakeup of the content-production industries (e.g. the record industries and film studios). My guess is that they will evolve their profit making methods somewhat, somehow, eventually, but only after a long and futile fight to preserve their current now-obsolete business model as long as possible. Probably they'll have to do something like start charging $5 for a CD that costs them 50 cents per unit to produce the content for and then a tenth of a penny to manufacture, instead of $20, and also sell subscriptions to their own online media download service. Who wouldn't pay a few bucks a month for legal access to the entire RIAA catalog hooked up to a few parallel T3 lines?

Re:Which would work great, except...

[cliffski]

Business models based on information are dead?
bullshit
I write computer games for a living. I guess according to your high and mighty views I should work for free or go work as a bricklayer?
Half lfie 2 is just information, I guess you think all of valves employees shouldnt be paid?
what do you do for a living that makes you so special in comparison with us guys working on 'outdated' business models?
this is pseudo intellectual bullshit that arrogant people spout to justfy theft to themselves.

Re:Which would work great, except...

[kwertii]

It doesn't matter whether you or I think that it's right or wrong that people are trading information freely. It is what is happening already, whether you personally approve of the change or not, and it's a trend that's only going to get stronger as home internet use increases and home bandwidth increases. Welcome to the Information Age.

Short of not allowing people to transfer information freely, cheaply, and fast amongst themselves, there's absolutely no way to stop it. Environmental conditions are changing. Evolve, or you'll be out-competed and pushed out by others who do.

(Fortunately, the current intellectual property model will take a while yet to die, so you've still got plenty of time to come up with another means of supporting yourself..)

Re:Which would work great, except...

[westlake]

As long as they're aggressive with their customers

In business, the word customers is usually associated with the word paying.

Re:Which would work great, except...

[XFilesFMDS1013]

What are they going to try next? Snooping on people's personal net connections at home?

Say goodnight to your telephone....

Re:Which would work great, except...

[deblau]

What about the Berne Convention? Russia and China signed it. The US has been a member for 15 years.

Re:Which would work great, except...

[a24061]

At least with the current system, if you think a film sucks, you don't have to see it. If you had to pay to have the film made, you'd not have that choice; good or bad, you'd already have paid.

Under the current system, try getting your money back after buying or renting a DVD or watching a film in the cinema because the film stank!

Re:Which would work great, except...

[TiggsPanther]

In business, the word customers is usually associated with the word paying.

I pay.

I pay to go to the cinema - and get blasted with anti-piracy propaganda and adverts for cellphones (I have one I'm fine with thankyouverymuch) or Tampax (I'm a guy. Advert not giong to influence me somehow). Then the trailers, adverts and propaganda are all done with the lights down - so can't kill time with a book or non-backlit PDA.
I'm actually paying to watch their material but I hardly feel treated like I'm a valued customer. More a captive advert-target and/or potential pirate.

I pay to buy stuff on DVD. With FBI (or geographically equivalent) splashscreens and non-trivially-skippable "This Video Is Not For Rental" messages embedded at the beginning. Some include adverts that are difficult to skip though.
Again this hardly makes me feel valued for parting with my money for a legitimate version.

Remember that the people who actually see these agressive tactics are generally the ones who have paid. So this does seem to be rather counter-productive as you're making the people who bother to legitimately pay feel undervalued.
This does not sound like good business practice to me.

Re:Which would work great, except...

[rlanctot]

Doesn't anyone find it ironic that people in a Democracy are forced to resort to moving servers to communist (or previously communist) countries to ensure their freedom?

Re:Which would work great, except...

[cliffski]

oh how generous of you. nice rationale for stealing peoples hard work. what do you do for a living?, I need some of your hard work and I dont intend to pay for it.

Re:Ok, Michael

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

> Why not just quit paying actors millions per film?

Because the presence of those actors almost always has a direct correlation to the amount of money the film brings in. I know, I know - you're one of those people who thinks that they should cast an unknown shlub in every movie that comes out, thereby slashing the budget and enabling you to go see movies for $.50. But eventually one of those shlubs is going to be interesting/talented/attractive enough that more people go see *his* movies than anyone else's and *then* some crackpot capitalist will realize that casting that guy = more box office and offer him more money than the unknown shlub that nobody cares about - but not you, no-sir-ree! You go see movies based solely on how low-paid the actor is, because that's the kind of appreciator of fine cinema you are.

Stupid hippie...

But what about

[vivin]

This part:

the heat is going to be on any technology, no matter how benign the intentions of its developer, that nevertheless makes piracy possible.

I mean... that's just obtuse - and that's putting it nicely. That covers such a wide range of areas. A simple cp command can facilitate piracy... so can ftp - so are all these commands going to be illegal? What if someone wrote an app that employs brilliant compression and some other novel technique to transfer large blocks? This could theoretically be used to pirate movies and music. Basically ANYTHING that can move data from one place to another can be used to pirate something...

Re:But what about

[Decessus]

But if next July's anticipated Supreme Court ruling in the MPAA/RIAA vs Grokster/Streamcast goes in favour of the movie and music industries, the heat is going to be on any technology, no matter how benign the intentions of its developer, that nevertheless makes piracy possible If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the music and movie industry, wouldn't that set a pretty big precedent? Any company could be held liable if their product can be used for illegal purposes.

Re:My opinion

[pnatural]

Write down all the ads/sponsors, and boycott every one of them while encouraging friends to do the same.

That's not enough because the company won't ever notice the lost sale, nor will they know why they lost your business.

Much better to write them a nice, polite letter explaining that you won't buy their products and services so long as they advertise in such an offensive manner to you. Then sit back and watch as... nothing changes.

host your site out of jurisdiction

[golgotha007]

If anyone needs to host their tracker site out of jurisdiction of American and European law, you might be interested in hosting it on one of my servers here in Russia.

write to sale (at) winlink.ru. We'll provide a great rate with unlimited traffic.

Re:host your site out of jurisdiction

[pla]

you might be interested in hosting it on one of my servers here in Russia.

You know, I think you just posted the most on-topic ad of all time.

And even in a topic whose introduction begain with a rant against advertising.

I don't know how you'll do in moderation, but +5 for chutzpah.

I call BS...

[meanfriend]

>14 minutes of commercials (Pepsi, hair mousse, cologne, etc.) followed by
>13 minutes of movie trailers (which are also advertising, of course), followed by
>a few minutes of junk

30 solid minutes of ads?? Sorry, I don't buy it (no pun intended). I might see a one or two movies a month, and while I've never put a stopwatch to it, there is no where near an entire sitcom's length of ads before a movie.

While I admit that the trailers and ads are getting more pervasive, I think I'd notice if there were *28* consecutive 30-second spots, and a dozen 1-minute trailers shown before a movie.

Re:I call BS...

[glwtta]

I've consistently seen 10-15 minutes of TV ads before the previews, depends on where you live I suppose. Some are significantly longer than 30 seconds.

Don't really mind the previews though, all too often they end up being much more fun than the movie itself.

Re:I call BS...

[PeterPumpkin]

It depends on the theater I guess. The theater by me is next door to a high school, so there is absolutely nothing they could do that would put them out of business. So, there are literally 25 minutes of ads and trailers before each movie. Last time I went, the movie "started" at 6:30. I got there, and got to bask in the glory of all the ads. Most of the people who ended up watching it came in at 6:45 or so. It's that predictable, and that bad. :)

Re:I call BS...

[mopslik]

30 solid minutes of ads?? Sorry, I don't buy it

At the last movie I saw, there were 7 commercials followed by 6 previews, for a total of 19 minutes. While not half an hour, it's still frightening.

Re:I call BS...

[happyfrogcow]

Come to NYC and see a movie at one of the "megaplexes" or whatever you want to call them. 20-30 minutes easy. $10.50 for a movie and advertising. We're lining someone's pockets very quickly.

At places outside of manhattan and it's still 10-20 minutes depending. Less are "ads" and more are trailers. Prices still $$

Re:I call BS...

[Kaa]

30 solid minutes of ads?? Sorry, I don't buy it (no pun intended). I might see a one or two movies a month, and while I've never put a stopwatch to it, there is no where near an entire sitcom's length of ads before a movie.

It really depends on the theater.

Near the place I live there are several movie theaters. One is an oldish small theater. One is a big shiny megamultiplex or whatever they are called. Obviously the megamulti has bigger screens, better sound system, etc. etc. Yet I don't go there to watch movies. Why?

Because in the oldish small place they'll show me two-three trailers and then show me the movie. That's what I came there for.

In the megamulti I'll have to sit through tons and tons and tons (yes, 15-20 minutes) of commercials before they even get to the trailers. Really stupid and obnoxious ones, too. So I stopped going there.

Re:I call BS...

[dustman]

30 solid minutes of ads?? Sorry, I don't buy it (no pun intended). I might see a one or two movies a month, and while I've never put a stopwatch to it, there is no where near an entire sitcom's length of ads before a movie.

It really depends on which movies you see. Although it's still noteworthy (meaning I bitch to my friends) for there to be a full half hour of crap before the movie, it's not unheard of.

Conjecture: Some of the stuff is "official trailers", that's how you hear "the new Matrix trailer is playing with Harry Potter" or whatever. I think some of the ads are put there by the specific theatre/chain (Hoyts in my area).

Re:I call BS...

[rapett0]

Well maybe not 30, well, actually...yeah. I have not timed it. But down here in OC we have a thing called the Twenty, its 20 minutes of ads before the movies. Add the trailers, and yes, its over 30 minutes of stuff before the movie.

Personally, it does not bother me, at least its something instead of muzak. I still get to see the movie and its all run before the movie time so I don't see a huge issue there. I can understand it bothering some people though.

Re:I call BS...

[Ubergrendle]

For Blade: Trinity, I timed it on my watch -- 27 minutes before the first scene from the movie started. I include 6 layers of promotional Movie Studio logos as commericals.

The way they trick you is through having 2-3 minute commercials... you're expecting a 15-30 second spot like TV, but in the theatre you're a captive audience...you can't flip channels. You're very unlikely to get up and leave in fear of missing the start.

In fairness, I sometimes enjoy the movie trailers...but they're still advertisements.

Re:I call BS...

[Shadwhawk]

We've got 'The Twenty' up here in Washington, too (presumably all Regal theaters have them), except they're just a cycling batch of ads and inane things that take up the time between showings. They end The Twenty at showtime, then start up the usual sequence of ads and trailers.
The Twenty replaced still ads of what were usually local businesses, which replaced a black screen with crappy music playing over the speakers.
Nowadays I just bring a book or gameboy along to amuse me until the movie itself actually starts.

Re:I call BS...

[Scrameustache]

30 solid minutes of ads?? Sorry, I don't buy it

Including the trailers, I second the observation.

I might see a one or two movies a month, and while I've never put a stopwatch to it, there is no where near an entire sitcom's length of ads before a movie.

In what timewarped, backwards place do you see these movies?
All the newfnagled cinemas have a metric ton of ads. Around here it's more than 30 minutes, because they have ads running on screen before the lights dim, intermingled with movie trivia to keep our eyes pointed at the screen (if I go alone I bring a book and an iPod to ignore them, in groups you can chat).

While I admit that the trailers and ads are getting more pervasive, I think I'd notice if there were *28* consecutive 30-second spots, and a dozen 1-minute trailers shown before a movie.

That's why then. They have the 2 minute ads and 3 to 5 minutes trailers. They sneak in 5 ads when you expect 28.

Re:I call BS...

[nkh]

May I add myself in the list of those who often see 30 minutes of commercial before a movie? Of course if you go to weird theatres with only 50 seats and a black and white japanese movie (like I did a week ago) you won't have much ads but it's a very bad example of what's happening right now!

Re:I call BS...

[nkh]

$10.50? It soon will be cheaper to wait for the DVD than driving my butt to the theater! That's disgusting...

Re:I call BS...

[BenjiTheGreat98]

If you buy a ticket for 2 or more people than it already is.

Re:I call BS...

[BenjiTheGreat98]

I liked how the Passion of the Christ started in the theater I went to. Everybody was seated and the movie just started. No commericials, no trailers. Just the opening credits.

Re:I call BS...

[foo fighter]

There's at least 20-25 minutes of ads before the feature presentation at all of my local Carmike Cinema's shows. That's not counting the cycling local advertising slide show of course.

It's easily 30 minutes if there's a couple of extended length trailers or a couple more than the usual 5-6 trailers.

I'm not exagerating.

I very rarely go to the theater anymore unless it's a movie I think will look great on the huge screen but won't hit the dollar theater in a month. When I do go, I always leave home about 15 minutes after it's scheduled to start and I haven't missed the beginning of a feature yet.

Re:I call BS...

[TheAdventurer]

It's true though. Last week I was 30 minutes late for a movie and it had JUST started. The opening credits were still playing.

Re:I call BS...

[jimmcq]

Not every movie has that many commercials/trailers, and not every theatre in every city shows that many either, but go see a blockbuster movie in a big city... and actually count the ads and trailers before the movie.

It's not uncommon to see 7-8 30 second commercials, followed by 7-8 two minute trailers.

Re:I call BS...

[Joe Tie.]

I can verify that it's pretty close, at least in the theaters I went to. Before I gave up on theaters, unless I was trying to seem 'not crazy' for the sake of a girl I'd usually go in about 20 minutes late. Even then would often catch a bit of commercial. Or trailer, whatever the kids are calling movie comercials these days.

Re:I call BS...

[Petronius]

Wrong. At every large theatre where I live (western NY) you get at least a solid 1/2 hour of commercials.

Re:I call BS...

[bnenning]

In fairness, I sometimes enjoy the movie trailers...but they're still advertisements.

Sure, but they're advertisments done *right*; relevant and usually entertaining. That's why Apple uses them as a way to push Quicktime and iTunes, a double marketing combo. (Note to self: download Elektra trailers tonight).

Re:I call BS...

[MoOsEb0y]

Actually, I timed the ads when I went to see American Wedding with a stopwatch. From lights down, to the Universal logo appearing, it was 22 minutes. It's only gotten worse. To the point where I bring a gameboy or similar entertainment device with me into the theatre. I would NOT be surprised to hear 30 minutes now. (This was well over a year ago). Regal my ass.

Re:I call BS...

[SpecBear]

I've seen a half hour of dreck appear before movies, but only on certain showings of really big name movies. It happened when I went to the midnight showing of Fellowship of the Ring.

The lights went down promptly at midnight, and people applauded. And then the ads started. It was terrible. They weren't doing 30 second spots. These were commercials that went on for several minutes. It was like they somehow fused the DNA from an infomercial, a music video and a really boring SNL sketch. After a few extended-edition commercials, I checked my watch. Twelve past midnight. I checked again when the movie actually started, almost exactly at 12:30AM.

The fun part was the whole place was filled with fanatics who really wanted to see the movie, so many of us in the audience entertained ourselves by heckling the commercials. Nobody seemed to mind. My favorite: during an overly long commerical for cell phones, somebody shouted, "Why don't you call someone who cares?"

But I've never seen anything that bad during a movie during normal hours. At the theater I usually attend, it's almost always 15 minutes of commercials and previews before the movie.

Re:I call BS...

[zsau]

Depending on which cinema you go to, they generally range between twenty and thirty minutes, starting with mostly ads and finishing with mostly previews, but they're normally interwoven to a degree. Personally I don't mind the previews so much (after all, they show the best bits of movies you might like to watch), but the ads often get annoying...

Re:I call BS...

[bloodstains]

The great thing about "The Twenty" is the layers of ads invoilved. First you have the primary ads, usually for a sitcom or a music video or sometimes a mini behind the scenes making of for a movie. Then you have the ads for the primary ads. "Comming up on the Twenty, See how the writers for Van Helsing come up with blah blah blah..." Then they take you into the third level of ads which is the more standard Powerpoint type ads for the local Chevy or Ford dealer, which they treat as a commercial break from "The Twenty" My favorite of course is the reminder at the end of "The Twenty" letting me know that if I missed any of these craptacular ads I should show up sooner. and the final ad. "This edition of the Twenty has been brought to you on Christy Digital Projectors"

Re:I call BS...

[68K]

Lucky you.

I sat through 45 minutes of adverts and movie trailers before the latest Harry Potter movie started showing. Blood was about to burst out of the top of my head.

There were 5 of us in the theatre. Yeah, the ads they showed us are going to generate *oodles* of revenue.

Re:I call BS...

[Eudaemonic Pie]

Sorry, you are incorrect at least at my Edwards Theatre located Weslayan at I-59 here in Houston, TX. They run the 'TNT 20' *before* every movie and true to its name, the 'TNT 20' is 20 minutes long. The "trailers" part of the movie starts at the published movie start time. I have personally timed the trailer blocks using the clocks on pager and cellphone. More than once I've seen a movie start *15* minutes after the posted start time. That's 35 minutes of commericals my friend. My wife and I regularly show up 15 minutes late to every movie now to avoid this phenomenon. We rarely miss any of the movie.

Re:I call BS...

[Our Man In Redmond]

Trailers are routinely 90 seconds to 3 minutes long, and there's no rule that says an ad has to be 30 seconds. 30 minutes of ads and trailers does seem like a lot, and I haven't timed it either, but I'll bet it's close to 20 minutes and probably more.

Re:I call BS...

[meanfriend]

Wow I didnt expect my post to generate so many responses. To clarify, I usually see movies in a big multiplex with stadium seating. There is a chain of them called Silvercity up here in Canada.

While I've never timed it that accurately, I always glance at my watch just as the movie starts and I usually experience ~15 minutes of ads and crap. Maybe a bit more, but never as long as 30 minutes, which would be very abnormal (at least in my experience) and what prompted my original comment.

Of course every theatre/city/country is different, and those of you reporting *45 minutes* of ads before a feature have my sympathies. The next time I go to a blockbuster new release, I'm definitely going to be timing the ads from now on :)

Re:I call BS...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

At Hoyts (Regal) cinemas there's something called "The 20" it is 20 minutes of crap before the "Get Snacks" which comes before the 10 minutes of trailers to movies you will not see and after that is the 92 minute action packed suck-fest.

The 20 is basicly.. "Check out *television show*" for 5 minutes. "Check out *video game*" for 5 minutes. "behind the scenes of Meet the Fockers" for 5 minutes and "Check out *reality television show*" for the last 5. With a re-cap of what you just sat through at the end.

It used to be a slide show for local shops which I liked, mixed in with movie trivia which was actually fun.

I download most of the movies I want to see now.

Thanks Hoyts (Regal)!

Re:I call BS...

[DarkEdgeX]

I went to a theatre here in Spokane, WA, about 8 or 9 months ago. Here was my experience--

Got there early, auditorium was open, went and grabbed a seat. Auditorium was lit but slightly dim, advertising with full audio was playing on the screen.

One to two minutes after the movie was supposed to begin the lights dimmed to nearly total black. The first thing that came up was a good 10 minutes of advertising and/or public service announcements from the MPAA about the ills of movie piracy.

Following this was another 10-12 minutes of trailers (which I actually like, FWIW, especially if the trailers are either universally appealing or in a similar category to what I've come to see).

Finally the movie began, but not before a 1-2 minute theatre chain "intro" ran (which was horribly crappy quality, seemingly it'd been played a million times and never been replaced). It looked like something that may have been produced back in 1994 based on the quality of the 3D graphics. It consisted largely of a roller coaster ride perspective with product placements throughout (I recall distinctly seeing a Coca-Cola cup, as well as some candy). I believe I was in a Regal Cinema if that jogs anyones memory about what I was seeing.

Then the movie.

So let's see. Advertising while I was justing sitting there waiting for the movie. (Why not let the audience sit in silence so they can discuss things prior to the movie?) At the time the picture was to start I was blasted with advertising and PSA's for a good 10 minutes. After that we got to the trailers, also about 10 minutes.

So maybe not a half hour, but if you arrived early enough, I could see how you might feel like it'd been a half hour.

A few more observations while I'm at it:

I'm nearly 30 years old, and have gone to theatres off and on for the past 20 years. I recall at my earliest theatre experience, before the movie, they'd have a local ratio station playing music (the screen was fully covered by a curtain at this point which retracted once the movie was to begin). At the time the movie was to begin they'd show 2-3 trailers, then go directly to the movie.

Then I recall them adding the franchise logo/gimmick thingie (the roller-coaster ride I mentioned above). I think they also tacked on an extra trailer at around this time (bringing it to 3-4 trailers, not bad considering I enjoyed seeing previews for other movies I might be interested in; obviously not everyone enjoys this).

Then we got to a point where, in addition to a radio station playing prior to the movie, we also had the screen partially visible/opened with a slide show playing with visual advertising (which you could look away from and still talk to your companion during because the radio station volume was kept quite low). IIRC the number of trailers and the length of the theatre franchise advert remained about the same.

The next time I went they began including a Will Rogers PSA before the trailers asking me to buy a specific combo-pack of candy/sodas to help donate money to some institute to help kids or something. This seemed acceptable since it seemed charitable, and the ad was a short 30 seconds.

After this they started including (and I confess, it may have been awhile between theatre trips so it may have been more gradual) 2-3 minute commercials. Full blown productions. IIRC the one I saw was some Britney Spears Pepsi commercial. This was very annoying. I recall thinking to myself "I'm paying for this?", then going over in my head how ticket prices have gone up since I was a kid-- I recall being able to see a movie for $2, then $3.25, now a matinee costs $4-5 I believe.

Then they started adding the ads with the movie production crew people talking about how movie piracy makes it hard for them to make ends meet. I recall thinking it might have been better to just have Tom Cruise up on the screen discussing with us the harms movie piracy cause him-- such as his inability to buy a new yacht, or to

Re:30 minutes of pre-movie crap...

[kryogen1x]

See, even coming a few minutes late to miss the commercials will not stop the advertising. Nowadays, the advertising is embedded within the movies. Some do it pretty seamlessly, but I would hate to watch a good movie ruined because the producers had to go out of the way to mention Nike shoes.

Next thing you know

[hankthetank]

The MPAA will sue stores that sell vcr's, why not go further and sue companies that make the storage medium most people use to copy data onto? CDr's and DVD's! When is it going to end!

Re:How long until Apple works out a deal with stud

[Zeal17]

This is the best thing said yet. I also think Netflix was on its way to offer movies for download, so it really is just a matter of time.

What this is about

[frovingslosh]

This is not about lawsuits against someone who is only publishing information about files, rather than publishing any (potentially) copyrighted information themselves. What it is about is someone with a lot of money filing lawsuits against someone who can't aford to fight them.

another approach

[j1m 5n0w]

The way to deal with it is vote with your dollars.

Or yell "BOO, BOOOOOO!" at the start of each commercial (at least for movies seen in the theatres).

I haven't tried this. I wonder how many people would think it rude, versus the number who would join in? Might the theatre kick you out?

I wonder how much the theatres get paid to advertise. I know they actually have to pay quite a bit for some of the trailers.

Re:another approach

[bludstone]

I normally shout out during the "dont steal movies" commercials "WHY ARE YOU TELLING US?! WE ALREADY PAID!!!"

It usually gets some chuckles from the audience.

Re:another approach

[WormholeFiend]

When I go see a movie at a theatre with other people, we usually talk (not quietly) about stuff during the commercial and generally ignore whatever's on screen until the trailers.

Re:another approach

[Ianoo]

I find that taking a flash photograph of the "cameras of any kind are banned in this theatre" notice usually gets some laughs.

Re:another approach

[true_majik]

i believe there is a website about this civil disobediance act. in fact, i came across it here on /. i don't remember the site, but it had a picture of what you're talking about and asking visitors to submit similiar pics.

Re:another approach

[MayorDefacto]

Am I the only one who has ever snuck in to see a film I didn't pay for?

No, but this being /., you'll have a barrage of replies from indignant goody-goodies who will wag their moralizing finger at you and proclaim to all who care to hear it that they "never, ever do such things"...

Re:another approach

[sl4shd0rk]

Those commercials always make me feel guilty........So guilty in fact that I put my camcorder away.........for a few minutes.

Re:another approach

[Toasty16]

If you did that in a theater in my neighborhood you would get a few multicolored contusions.

Re:another approach

[crizh]

+100 Most Insightful comment in Thread.

"TacoBell won the franchise wars."

[Bob_Robertson]

I think _Demolition Man_ made the best use of the paid commercial.

"Hey, I like Mexican food and all, but 'Dinner and dancing a Taco Bell'??"

"Taco Bell won the franchise wars. Now all restaurants are Taco Bell."

Or if James Bond is more your style,

"Here is your new BMW 310i, double-oh-7. Do try to bring this one back intact?"

Re:"TacoBell won the franchise wars."

[mkro]

Actually, in the European release of the movie all references to Taco Bell were changed to Pizza Hut. Guess because Pizza Hut is so much bigger than Taco Bell here.

Re:"TacoBell won the franchise wars."

[julesh]

Actually, in the European release of the movie all references to Taco Bell were changed to Pizza Hut. Guess because Pizza Hut is so much bigger than Taco Bell here.

Not in the version I saw (on UK television, not sure about DVD releases, etc.) it wasn't.

Re:"TacoBell won the franchise wars."

[julesh]

Do you think Taco Bell actually paid to have S.B. announce that in the bland and flavourless future all restaurants would be run by them?

If I'd seen that script, there's no way I'd have paid for a placement.

I vote at the command line

[poptones]

mplayer dvd://1 --dumpstream --dumpfile...

Seiously. Evne if I'm just going to watch a movie once I don't even bother with the DVD, because if I fall asleep (which I sometimes do) I end up hearing the damn menu loop over and over and over and over...

Last time I paid to see a movie at the theater it had like ten minutes of ads. It pissed me off and I haven't been back. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go get Hero from the newsgroups and only have about another hour and a half to do it...

Re:I vote at the command line

[lowrydr310]

I have given up on mainstream theaters. I found a local gem that I regularly support: http://www.losangelesmovietimes.com/movie-theaters /3694.php?date=0 They get some decent movies a few weeks after they hit the big screens, but its only $2 or $3 for a ticket.

I saw Bourne Supremacy there, and the actual movie started exactly when it should have, with no ads or previews. What a great experience! The only downside is they don't have stadium seating, so it can be uncomfortable if you're close to the front.

Oh, it looks like they're showing Team America. I just might go see it tonight!

Century is no better than the competition

[casuist99]

Unfortunately, Century Theatres (their preferred spelling) has an asanine pricing scheme. They don't offer student ticket prices (compare to AMC, for example), charge full price on holidays (AMC actually discounts tickets on holidays), and worst of all, charge $9.25 for full price to see one movie.

For 10 dollars, I can see 2 movies at my local drive in. For 7 dollars I can see full price movies at other theaters. Century claims they're chargin "New York ticket prices," but after a visit to NYC, I can officially say that tickets are cheaper there than 9 dollars for full-priced showings.

Century is all about being a monster theater chain, driving the competition out of business, and charging an arm and a leg for one movie.

Support your local theaters. Forget AMC or Century. If down at the corner, there's a local theater showing a mix of hollywood and indy movies, try them out. The theater isn't as nice, might be a bit shabby, and the floors might be sticky. The reason is that their income has been depressed because everyone goes to your local century or amc theater instead. Think about it.

Re:This looks

[fishbowl]

>Also, the MPAA itself only has jurisiction in the US

They don't actually have any Jurisdiction, as it were, because they are not a law enforcement agency or part of the judicial system. As an organization they have the rights of any other organization, which means they may have standing to sue or to ask a court to prosecute a crime. As a group of individuals, they have the exact same rights, no more or less, as any other group of individuals would have. If you have any rights at home or abroad, so do the members of the MPAA.

Re:You apparently don't understand BT

[which way is up]

Apparently neither do you...

Yes the tracker will direct me to each pieces, but those pieces all belong to a SPECIFIC file, be it an illegal game or movie. That torrent tracker becomes tied to that illegal activity by aiding the distribution of that specific illegal download.

So to user your analogy... the person who sets me up with johnny breakayoulegs(hitman), knowing that he's a hit man and knowing what i want him for, is also guilty of a crime under U.S. law.

In other news

[mkro]

In other news, Icculus just announced America's Army 2.2.1, "for the first time (..) hosting a BitTorrent". As the number of legitimate uses increase, attacking the technology itself becomes harder. It is a race, really. Harder for draconian ISPs to have a "No bittorrent" policy too if a number of customers can point to their legal use of it.

idiot

[Rombuu]

Apropos of nothing, I saw a movie in the theaters a few days ago. At the official start time, the lights dimmed. Then there were 14 minutes of commercials (Pepsi, hair mousse, cologne, etc.) followed by 13 minutes of movie trailers (which are also advertising), followed by a few minutes of junk, followed by a 100-minute movie. I can't imagine why people would want to download movies when they have that great theater experience to compare against.

Great.. that gives you the right to steal movies online? Boo fuckin' hoo.

New solution...

[kenthorvath]

...why not just use already legal p2p services to swap torrents, and introduce a new ability to bit torrent to only allow transfers between trusted users? A file sharing community set up similar to the facebook, or friendster, or something, where you only get an invite by an already trusted member. Is there some way of excluding undesirables from a network, while still allowing enough leeway to implement filesharing at a decent scale?

I don't understand this.

[StarKruzr]

Why should it be surprising to ANYONE that a PAID EDITOR OF SLASHDOT gets a certain amount of leeway in editorializing in articles?

Guess what? This website doesn't just have editors around to pick and choose which articles are allowed to go to the front page. A well-written script could do that.

Jesus Fucking Christ. If you don't like it, LEAVE. Slashdot is NOT a part of the commons.

Re:I don't understand this.

[American AC in Paris]

Jesus Fucking Christ. If you don't like it, LEAVE. Slashdot is NOT a part of the commons. ...so why should we listen to you? Are you an employee of OSDN, or are you just another Slashdot stringer like the rest of us?

If you'd rather not hear certain opinions, it's a simple matter of marking these people as "foes" and auto-tanking their scores in your preferences. Hell, feel free to start with me--I'm one of those jerks who thinks that Slashdot is a great thing that could be even better, and I don't hold my tongue about it.

If this seems like too much work for you, then you're welcome to simply not read the comments. Or, if more drastic measures are necessary, you could always leave.

Don't act so shocked that people express interest in improving the quality of Slashdot. We're not all like you; some of us would rather act to improve things than give up and walk away.

Re:I don't understand this.

[daniil]

The job of an editor is not only editorializing, but also (and more importantly) editing the articles submitted. Unfortunately, they seem to be lacking in both departments.

Jesus Fucking Christ. If you don't like it, LEAVE.

Noone's asking the editors to stop doing their work -- i personally would only like them to get some training. How about them taking a few short courses in journalism? Hey, i bet they could even find one online, so that they wouldn't even have to leave their comfy chairs!

Re:I don't understand this.

[feloneous cat]

Jesus Fucking Christ. If you don't like it, LEAVE. Slashdot is NOT a part of the commons.

Unless you are part of some wierd college program, no one is sticking toothpicks in your eyelids and forcing you to read Slashdot articles.

If you don't like what is posted, just wait a few minutes. Something new will come along...

aiding and abetting

[KalvinB]

The tracker sites are knowningly assisting people who break the law. And an illegal torrent tracker is good only for one single illegal purpose. It's not like Kazaa where the owners of the network have no way to control what gets shared so the RIAA/MPAA go after those who are hosting the files. Tracker sites have direct control regarding which torrents they post and have the ability to remove torrents for illegal files and the ability to screen files. Hosting the torrent is just as bad (or at least bad enough) as hosting the file itself.

And that's why the MPAA/RIAA have legal legs to stand on to shut down torrent sites that operate in the US.

This is no way affects the whole BitTorrent concept. Just don't host torrents for illegal files. I don't know why the article submitter is pretending it does. The MPAA/RIAA aren't attacking the network. They're attacking specific trackers which point at specific files. This is exactly what they should be doing.

"That's like saying let's put the gun in prison instead of the guy that fired it"

False analogy due to not understanding the point of this. This is like putting the guy in prison who hired the hitman who fired the gun.

Re:aiding and abetting

[XchristX]

"False analogy due to not understanding the point of this. This is like putting the guy in prison who hired the hitman who fired the gun. " No, it's like putting the guy in prison who carried the letter from the guy who hired the hitman to the hitman. The "guy who hired the hitman" is beyond the reach of your laws, and the "hitman" is smarter than your law enforcers and gets away (usually) by using ip address blocklists that are updated dynamically, so your wealthier countrymen do what they've been doing for nearly 100 years, bully the little guy. Not that it'll make much difference. There are plenty of trackers in Eastern Europe, Mainland Asia and Central Africa in countries that the members of the MPAA never learned about while studying in their public schools, and there is no way they can sue these guys. I can guarantee that any MPAA letter to a tracker in my country demanding payment will be met with massive bouts of ridicule and then the nearest receptacle for refuse. The only thing that will happen is that users in the US will have to rely on trackers in other countries and might slow things down just a tad. The MPAA, in the final analysis, are a cabal of medieval thugs who need to be disemboweled in variously grotesque methods, not being the brightest cats of the litter, shouldn't be able to put media sharing by p2p to a halt.

Hint to michael

[HeghmoH]

If you don't want to see the trailers and advertising, wait until after they're done to enter the theater. Nobody forces you to show up at the exact time that's listed, especially since you know that the first twenty minutes is going to consist of trailers and ads.

Re:Hint to michael

[Tazzy531]

Either show up to the movie early or walk out of the movie with a sore neck...that's the rule around here at least.

Movie theaters in NYC get pretty packed even before the movie starts. If you're not there on time or early, don't even think about sitting with your friends...

Re:Hint to michael

[TiggsPanther]

Either show up to the movie early or walk out of the movie with a sore neck...that's the rule around here at least.

Oh yes. That's about right here in the UK too, especially in the opening week or so of a popular film.
Plus in my case I get severely freaked out in crowds. Not entirely useful in cinemas, but unavoidable if I want to legitimately watch a film before the DVD release date. I have to sit in the outside of a row and/or at the front of the block (in theaters with an obliging layout). Arrive too late and I've got no chance.

Plus you never can be too sure on exactly how long the pre-show gumph is going to be. Some films (like The Incredibles) had 25 minutes worth of adverts and other rubbish. First time I saw Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets I arrived 5 minutes after the advertised time and the opening sequence was already in full swing.

Plus some things happen no matter how early/late you turn up.
"Is this seat free?"
"'Scuse me, I need to go buy popcorn."
"Can I get back to my seat plase."
"My kid needs to go to the toilet, can I get past please."
Etc. Etc. Etc.

About the only thing that might work to avoid all of the pre-movie rubbish is a pair of headphones and a GBA SP. (Or an eBook on a backlit reader)

Hypothetical Future

[KrackHouse]

What if in 5 years it is possible to share files completely anonymously at very high speed? Does copyright law just become a relic of our pre-digital past? Is it possible that our economy will resemble shareware? Donations requested if you like the content? We would become minority shareholders in production companies simply by donating what we find acceptable to content producers we like.

Re:Hypothetical Future

[russotto]

Copyright law is ALREADY a relic of our pre-digital past. The only question is whether or not the MPAA and RIAA will be able to kill the technology to rescue it. My bet is on "yes"; I expect the Betamax decision to be overturned in 2005.

Re:Hypothetical Future

[a24061]

Current copyright law is already a relic of our pre-digital past.

Two hundred years ago, printing books was expensive and required special equipment and skills, so it made sense for the public to give up the freedom to reproduce written works for 20 years in order to encourage authors. In effect, copyright was a restriction on publishers to the benefit of authors with little adverse impact on the general public.

Copyright now, however, is a severe restriction on the public in order to benefit publishers (media companies) and---to a much smaller extent---authors.

Tired of the lawsuit mentality

[nurb432]

Screw them all, see if they get any more of my money..

Treat Yourself to a Free Movie

[Matt Perry]

Then there were 14 minutes of commercials (Pepsi, hair mousse, cologne, etc.) followed by 13 minutes of movie trailers (which are also advertising, of course), followed by a few minutes of junk, followed by a 100-minute movie.

My personal policy is that:

1. If I've paid to see a movie, and
2. The theatre shows me commercials (Pepsi, hair mousse, cologne, etc.)

Then I'm entitled to one free movie via Kazaa, BitTorrent, or whatever, for each commercial that I've been shown. My reasoning is that I've already paid to see the film. By showing me ads you are capitalizing on my captive eyeballs, much more captive than if I were at home watching TV and could change the channel or mute the TV. Therefore, my watching your commercial is worth more in the theatre than it would be elsewhere, at least $10 per ad. $10 is a small price to pay for the attention of someone who can't easily ignore your ad, nor easily go away and return at the cost of missing the beginning of the movie.

I don't count movie previews. I also don't count the still slides that are shown before the lights dim because at least there's no loud sound and you can still chat with your friends.

In Socialist Canada...

[AusG4]

Here in Canada, when you go see a movie (at least, downtown Toronto at the Paramount or some of the larger "Famous Players" theatres), they are screening a short, 5 minute film before the feature presentation.

The film, at first, looks kind of interesting. It shows a portly teamster-looking gentleman talking about rigging up explosives to place on the back of cars in order to accomplish the spectactular car crash stunts seen in many movies (the example they show is in Enemy of the State, when the Will Smith and Gene Hackman characters are being persued by the NSA agents along the railway tracks). He talks about different special effects techniques and how dangerous, yes rewarding it can be both for the stuntmen, and ultimately the viewer.

This, of course, promptly degrades into a sermon about how "I'm such a nice portly man and I put in all this time and then someone makes a few clicks on their computer and STEALS all of that hard work.", followed by the new catch phrase of a movie industry that recently made this piece of shit: MOVIES: THEY'RE WORTH IT.

Then, following this propaganda, we were all warned warned that staff equipped with night vision technology would detain, violate and then charge anyone caught with any technology being used to record the film.

When I returned home, i stole 3 movie off the internet... and I never download movies from the internet.

When, oh when, is the MPAA going to notice that even the foolish RIAA is way ahead of them? At least the RIAA has tried to "meet us halfway" with things like the iTunes Music Store and Napster 2.0, etc. The MPAA is still locked into their early 20th century mentality and shows no signs of change. Perhaps when the current crop of studio execs retire and the younger, more enlightened next generation takes over, things will start to improve.

Then again....

Re:In Socialist Canada...

[xotx69]

I live in Ottawa and I see the same crap. "I'm a carpenter who works hard on the set, blah, blah, blah"

It's like they're using human shields or something. I now dread going to movies because of the lame messages and commercials that they bombard me with. The last 2 years, I've had a membership at the Bytowne theatre (one of 2 remaining independant movie theatres in Ottawa) to watch movies. It doesn't have the greatest sound/video system, but the movie selection is better and those annoying MPAA messages are not there. P.S. I download movies all the time. It's within my right, so screw off MPAA.

Re:In Socialist Canada...

[Pugflop]

Same propaganda bullshit happens here too. I live in Regina.

Re:In Socialist Canada...

[lowrydr310]

"I'm a carpenter who works hard on the set..." and I make $6.00 an hour busting my ass. Meanwhile the executives and bad actors/actresses make millions for doing half the work I do!

Re:In Socialist Canada...

[spitzak]

The biggest lie with these ads is that all the types of workers they are showing are paid scale. They do not lose anything if the movies is pirated, every single penny they would get for their work they have already received.

Their only concievable worry is if piracy would make movies unprofitable and thus stop being made and thus put them out of a job. However realistically the threat of this is only about 1/10e9 of the threat of productions running away to a foreign country for tax or labor savings and thus depriving the worker of their job.

Re:In Socialist Canada...

[rlanctot]

...staff equipped with night vision technology would detain, violate and then charge anyone caught...

Oo.
"Sir, please put down the video camera and bend over." (snaps rubber glove)

Re:In Socialist Canada...

[MikeBabcock]

That's what makes me laugh whenever I see those ads; they're lying (to keep their jobs). If the executives upstairs weren't the ones losing money, then why would they spend that much money on a trailer to tell us how they're not losing money?

Yeah, the little guys need jobs. I *paid* to see this movie, I'm in the theatre, shut up.

RTFP

[xgamer04]

Nowhere in the GP's post does it state that that site is "p2p".

Re:RTFP

[nacturation]

Nowhere in the GP's post does it state that that site is "p2p".

True, unless you consider the signature part of the post:

"Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM [mediachest.com]"

If you read with sigs disabled (I enjoy them for sheer entertainment purposes), I could see why you'd miss that.

Re:RTFP

[N0decam]

You must have sigs turned off - his sig is:

Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM

Re:RTFP

[Ced_Ex]

Check out his sig.

Michael, quit your whining.

[siskbc]

That's like asking him to stop breathing.

OTOH

[russint]

The pirate bay hit a new record last Sunday. Over 100.000 registered users, and over 1.000.000 peers.

Here's the great irony

[Hershmire]

Ah, but you forget that they need encryption for their DVDs. And here's the beautiful part: once they add an encryption layer to BitTorrent, it will be impossible to sue anybody over movie sharing. Thanks to the DMCA, if they sue you, they obviously illegally broke encryption somewhere along the line and would be liable themselves (as well as nullifying their evidence). So they're heading to an oh-so-delicious Catch-22. If they lobby to repeal the DMCA, it will become legal to crack DVDs. If they don't lobby, they can't legitmately find out who's actually trading movies.

Of course, they'll then sue for the movie rights.

Re:Here's the great irony

[TrentC]

Ah, but you forget that they need encryption for their DVDs. And here's the beautiful part: once they add an encryption layer to BitTorrent, it will be impossible to sue anybody over movie sharing. Thanks to the DMCA, if they sue you, they obviously illegally broke encryption somewhere along the line and would be liable themselves (as well as nullifying their evidence).

The DMCA does not make breaking encryption illegal; it makes breaking access control mechanisms illegal.

You're going to have to convince a judge or jury that the MPAA breaking an encryption layer on a P2P client to prove you are illegally trading their copyrighted works is the same as you breaking their encryption so you can illegally trade their copyrighted works. Good luck on that...

Jay (=

Re:Here's the great irony

[imogthe]

That was my initial thought. But think about this:
What if you could make the BT client enforce a click-thru license like other commercial/free software does. This "license" could stipulate something like "If you are a member of RIAA/MPAA/?? you may not use this software... etc"*. Surely, if a MS/Oracle/whatever click-thru license is enforceable, this will be too?
This may apply the access control mechanism you pointed out in your post..
This access control mechanism could be bolstered by a mandatory encryption layer like CSS. The BT/p2p author could then license this method to the users by way of the click-thru license.
Feel free to shoot me down on this one.. it seemed like a good idea at the time :)

*> I saw a film at some point (8mm?) where a doorman had to ask every patron wether they were a member of a law enforcement agency. Something to do with entrapment?(I may have dreamt this one, and as with many things films do not always reflect the reality).

Re:Here's the great irony

[claytongulick]

Very well, I'll bite. BitTorrent Inc. Membership annual fee of $.01. Paid subscription entitles you to access BitTorrent content. Any attempt to circumvent our access control mechanism will be dealt with harshly, and those responsible prosecuted to the full extent of the law under the DMCA.

Re:Here's the great irony

[Eil]

What, you expect people to reason?

Re:Here's the great irony

[acramon1]

Even with paid subscriptions, "BitTorrent Inc." will still be vulnerable to MPAA, et al: if illegal goods are being distribued, contracts dealing with them (membership contracts for example) are void and unenforceable under US law. Thus in this example, "attempts to circumvent our access control mechanism" may not be punishable by law.

Of course, dubious contracts may buy precious time to hide away when the lawyers come a knockin'....

Re:Here's the great irony

[sploo22]

Ah, but you forget that they need encryption for their DVDs. And here's the beautiful part: once they add an encryption layer to BitTorrent, it will be impossible to sue anybody over movie sharing. Thanks to the DMCA, if they sue you, they obviously illegally broke encryption somewhere along the line and would be liable themselves (as well as nullifying their evidence).

No offense (seriously), you have a good idea, but it needs a reality check. From the DMCA itself:
to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner -- 17 USC 1201 (3) (A)

People often quote the most famous section of the DMCA out of context.

Re:Here's the great irony

[stmfreak]

But I'm sure the DMCA only applies to the pursuits of profit vs. your pursuit of piracy. So the pirate's encryption is unprotected whereas the MPAA's encryption (no matter how weak) is sacrosant.

We already know who's pocket the courts are in.

Re:Here's the great irony

[swillden]

Ummm, READ and UNDERSTAND the previous article on the MD5 vulnerability, rather than just the summary, and you'll see that identical hashes still do prove that the content is identical.

The vulnerability allows collisions to be generated, not found. Big difference.

Re:Here's the great irony

[cpt kangarooski]

Besides which, civil copyright infringement uses a preponderance of the evidence standard. So as long as it is even marginally more likely that the works being traded are the ones in question, and not whatever random noise would happen to have the same checksum, you're still liable for it. And who would seriously be so stupid as to think that people are trading around noise, with filenames that match movies and such?

What's up with all these people who think they can game the system? Don't they realize that it's never going to work?

Re:Here's the great irony

[Abcd1234]

Hmm... apparently you need to spend some time READing about and UNDERSTANDing hash algorithms. If a hash algorithm has collisions (and they all do, it's just a matter of how *likely* a collision is), then it is technically true that identical hashes do *not* definitively prove that the content is identical, since the whole *point* of a collision is that H(A) = C = H(B), and A != B, thus given C, you cannot know if the input to the function was A or B.

Re:Here's the great irony

[zeromemory]

So they're heading to an oh-so-delicious Catch-22. Or, they could just pay some senators to *fix* the DMCA and make it even more ridiculous...

Re:Here's the great irony

[imogthe]

Well.. IANAL :) I just thought it would be worth exploring that option. I am by no means advocating the infringement of other people's copyright. If it's the law, it's the law (Yes, it can be changed but I don't have that kind of money).
My point is, I suppose, that if the lawmakers dish out these tools the community should make use of them to the best of their abilities. When one of these policies blows up in someone's face (with a bunch of the aforementioned money) we just might see some changes, hopefully for the better. Having seen how things are progressing I think it's going to get a lot worse before that happens.
In the mean time, I'm not an American citizen so whatever happens over the pond does not directly apply to me (until someone in the EU parliament gets a bright idea ... *shudder*).

Too bad you posted AC... for that insight I'd add you as a friend!

Re:Here's the great irony

[Snaller]

And here's the beautiful part: once they add an encryption layer to BitTorrent, it will be impossible to sue anybody over movie sharing. Thanks to the DMCA, if they sue you, they obviously illegally broke encryption somewhere along the line and would be liable themselves

That only works if nobody can download from BitTorrent. If someone can they must have a way to decrypt, ergo the industry just get a key that way.

Re:Here's the great irony

[SiliconEntity]

Thanks to the DMCA, if they sue you, they obviously illegally broke encryption somewhere along the line and would be liable themselves (as well as nullifying their evidence).

Sorry, this won't work. The DMCA makes it illegal to decrypt without the copyright owner's permission. In this case, it would be the copyright owner himself who is suing. He has his own permission to do the decryption. The DMCA will not stop this.

Re:Here's the great irony

[St. Arbirix]

Many of the files I get that have been packaged by more specific groups requiring membership have been RAR files with password protection, so yeah, they're already encrypting stuff that goes over BitTorrent.

On compressed files, don't they even without passwords stand as a form of encryption? Quake3 packages everything in .pk3 files which are essentially .zip files. It stands to reason that they once upon a time intended to use that naming scheme to prevent people from accessing their data. (Warcraft II used some oddball compression scheme for what appeared to be just that reason) Granted *they* don't care if modders and whatnot do it now, but if the compression was originally intended as a way to disguise copyrighted data then it can be argued that un-"encrypting" it with pkzip or winzip or whatever would be a protection circumvention mechanism which is prosecutable in criminal court.

Re:Here's the great irony

[makomk]

But how do they know it's their copyrighted work before they decrypt it?

Re:Here's the great irony

[julesh]

I've replied to and discussed this suggestion before. It doesn't work, and here's why:

1. You need to have copyright on some of the content that has been decrypted to sue under the DMCA. The workaround is to add some of your own content to the file.

2. Only the copyright holder can sue, so anyone else sharing the file you modified is out of luck.

3. Adding your own content establishes that you intended to do this, rather than that you're sharing as a side effect of having downloaded. This potentially makes any charges against you more serious.

4. Even if you do succeed, what would happen is damages would be awarded based on the commercial value of the two infringed copyrights. The MPAA'd get some huge award, probably in the region of $10,000, whereas you'd get something tiny. Maybe $100. It doesn't help you very much, does it?

Re:Here's the great irony

[JeThR0]

I think they ment that since the network traffic is encrypted they would be breaking the law to find out what is being transmitted. I'm not a lawyer but since the police need cause or a warrent to check your car, house etc. to investigate I would think this would be true. I can't see encripted traffic as cause enough.

Re:Here's the great irony

[fraudrogic]

I asked myself this same question and then answered myself (schizo maybe? ;))

They decrypt to their hearts content. They don't have to publish the results of the decrypted "copyrighted works" they don't own, only the ones that they do own. So if they illegaly decrypted my independant film, who's going to know right?

I admit it...

[deszaras]

Yes, I do steal candy bars too, Manny...

PirateBay

[mqRakkis]

I wonder if this will finally mean the end of http://www.piratebay.org/ (not that I'd wish that) ? They putting up their legal threats up for ridiculing and all...

Re:PirateBay

[Lord Kano]

I wonder if this will finally mean the end of http://www.piratebay.org/ (not that I'd wish that) ?

Probably not, the Pirate Bay is located in a country where it's legal do what they're doing.

I suspect that the *AA will start lobbying and suing ISPs to blacklist their address though.

LK

They don't do that instead of

[kfg]

That's like saying let's put the gun in prison instead of the guy that fired it.

They do that as well.

KFG

Re:zerg

[Run4yourlives]

Doom is in the works... by UNiversal studios

Re:You apparently don't understand BT

[Overzeetop]

If you were trying to stop hitmen, would you go after the guy who can tell you where to find one, or would you go after the actual hitman?

No, of course not. You'd make firearms and ammunition illegal. But that's not [popular,constitutional]. If we had a NTA (National Torrent Association) with a bazillion members all willing to fork over big buks to play with torrents on the weekends, BT sites wouldn't have to worry either.

The old days

[gr8_phk]

I agree. There isn't quite that much advertising. It was nice in the old days when there were NO commercials, a cartoon (like the Pixar shorts) before the movie, some previews (why they call them trailers I'll never understand) and the movie started at the posted time. Oh, and the popcorn butter didn't give me the worst possible headache for 2 hours after the show. Yes, those were the days....

Re:The old days

[Control Group]

A bit OT, but:

They call them trailers because they originally replaced the newsreels and such that played after a film and before the next one to fill the time. Once people started showing up early to see them, they were switched to before the film.

Re:The old days

[drew]

i tihnk the name came from the fact that they used to play them after the movie instead of before.

but i might be making that up....

Re:The old days

[TYC]

No, in the old days, you would have two projectors, and switch between them at each reel change. Some places still do this. If it's done right, the audience doesn't notice.

No, that was the "not-so-old-days". In the "real" old days, many movie theaters couldn't afford two projectors, or their owner wouldn't be bothered with the expense of a second projector.

If you went to a theater in rural America twenty five or thirty years ago, you'd still have a decent chance of finding a single projector screen.

I remember being refused both a refund or a replacement ticket by one grizzled old bastard theater owner when his only projector broke down ten minutes before the end of some crappy Disney movie and he couldn't get it fixed after what seemed like an hour of him fussing with it. (The movie was Witch Mountain, Love Bug, or Digby the dog, or some tripe like that.) It didn't end pretty, but it sure was more entertaining than the end of the Disney film!

I also recall hearing that George Lucas was one of the ones who helped eliminate single projector theaters by refusing to allow his films to be shown in them, so even if you hate him for cursing us lately, you should also thank him, too. (I could be wrong on that, though. I'll have to check.)

DMR in Your Operating System and Hardware

[nodehopper]

Once DMR is embedded into operating systems and hardware firmware this little problem will be solved. Ever since the printing press became the technology of mass communication, we have been dealing with finding a way to put this cat back into the bag. Finally, the large corporations are on the verge of getting control over a situation that has run rampant as newer technologies have developed. I, for one, will be happy when I won't have all these complex choices to make and can sit back and enjoy what I am told to consume, when and how I am told to, with out having to worry if I am somehow taking food out of starving artist mouths. Soon my computer,DVD player, CD player, etc will make those decisions obsolete and I can sleep with out worry. Thanks Corporate America. Don't change your business model to take advantage of new technology. It is so much better to just take those decisions away from your customers and keep on producing what you always have! BLEH! I feel sick now!

Licensed encryption: DMCA version 2, ca. 2010

[kwertii]

If you're a big corporation with a "legitimate" business use for encryption, you'll be able to buy a license - much like they license radio waves. For $500,000 per year, you can encrypt your DVDs all you want.

But if you're an individual, with no encryption license, using an encrypted link will bring jail time....

Good luck sueing suprnova

[mcryptic]

Its hosted in slovenia.

Re:My opinion

[Antony-Kyre]

Get enough people to boycott, and it might make a nice little dent.

not going to happen

[RyLaN]

It's an interesting court case, much more so than the P2P cases. First off, they're suing the people who operate the web sites, not the seeders // leechers of the files.

Second, the three major sites (btmusic, suprnova and pirates bay) are all located entirely outside of the United States, where our wonderful copyright system does not apply. The folks at Pirates Bay are on the record as saying that in no uncertain terms to Sega's lawyers, after they received a C&D.

My favorite is the fact that more than 90% of the trackers I've seen are passed out over IRC. BT doesn't require anything more than a small file with hashes and a list with at least 1 other peer before it will work correctly. The seeders themselves have blocklists that are updated about once a week with any known **AA subnets. And then, once you get the file, you have to get the key from someone that trusts you. Generally people use the GnuPG password encrypt.

The final interesting point is, the RIAA suits are succeeding because they have thousands of incriminating files all on one user's computer. For this to happen in the BT world, they would have to start watching trackers and recording each time they saw your IP. The chance is astronomically small, but still there.

I don't think they can practically achieve a lockdown or manage to scare people off. Perhaps it will stop casual piracy, but anyone who's looked at the BitTorrent system is laughing at them.

A logical first step

[crashnbur]

This makes perfect sense. The legal precedents set in the last few years have demonstrated that it's not nearly as illegal to possess a copy of copyrighted material as it is to share it. And since the trackers themselves are the keys to any file being shared, it only makes sense to attack anyone who shares trackers for copyrighted material until/unless they disappear.

After all, BitTorrent is a perfectly legitimate and very effective protocol for sharing data, mainly because it allows for faster download speeds as more users attempt to download the file. The technology will therefore stick around for copyright owners to serve their own material (music, video, software, etc.) while worrying less than ever before about bandwidth limits.

I don't think Bram Cohen (BT's creator) has much to worry about here. But Suprnova.org and other torrent-serving sites do.

Solution?

[xgamer04]

So if i put up my legally owned movies onto a tracker, they can't touch me. This is assuming i can get them into digital format without breaking the sacred CSS and the holy DMCA.

Make out, chit-chat, etc. -- how hard is it?

[IronChefMorimoto]

I noticed the submitter was a wee sarcastic (and humorously so) about the movie experience that includes 10-15 minutes of commercials, another 10-20 minutes of trailers, and a 100 minute movie.

Sure, the commercials and the trailers MIGHT be annoying, but the last time I checked, there wasn't a cattle prod installed in each theater seat that zapped you if your head deviated to the left/right or your eyes closed during the commercials/previews. NO ONE IS MAKING YOU WATCH THEM!

Advertisers will be advertisers -- they have a captive audience -- a room full of people who often invest nearly $50 - $75 to take a family to the movies w/ popcorn and drinks. Unless a family can throw that money away and leave out of disgust, or wait out the commercials and still expect to find decent seats after the lights go down, then the advertisers have the perfect group of people to throw ads at for 10-15 minutes before they release the desired entertainment from the depths of the projection room.

As for previews -- what's the problem with those? Unless they're for teen movies or Julia Roberts mushy flicks. If you don't like the previews, then do what you could've been doing during the first 10-15 minutes of commercials -- make out with your date, chit chat like everyone else is doing during the boring commercials/previews, etc. Again -- the advertisers haven't wired the theater seats to shock you into submission. Yet.

The complaint about the pre-movie crap that only takes 20-30 minutes of your time (if you have to be the first to sit down in a theater) reminds me of a news story that came out about a year ago. Sadly, none of the news websites still carry it, but basically, a guy sued theater operators for taking up his time with commercials and useless previews. He wanted to sue them for damages of lost time incurred while having to get to the thaeter early, sit and watch the pre-show, then the commercials, and then the previews -- all before the movie. He argued that his time was valuable and worth monetary compensation because he lost that time to stuff that he didn't pay for.

All I could think was, "Is the dude going to the movies during his lunch hour?" When the f--- did ANYONE's entertainment time become valuable enough that a business had to recompense them for consuming more than their fair share of said time? It's a CHOICE to go see a movie, and unless you're losing wages because you were gone from work for 30 minutes longer than your lunch hour when you saw a 1 hour movie (hypothetically speaking, of course), your TIME is yours to spend, waste, fart away, etc.

People who CHOOSE not to deal with losing that time are downloading movies on the Internet -- the whole point of the post. And people can also CHOOSE not to give their money to theater operators, show up late and get shitty seats, etc.

I'd be concerned that theater operators would come up with some nutjob scheme to weed out those who wait until the last minute to skip the commercials/previews. If you pay $8, for example, you can go on in and sit through all that crap. If you want to loiter or not go into the theater, or if you show up 2 minutes before the show starts, you pay $15 to compensate for the lost "viewership" of the ads/previews before the movie. It COULD be worse, people.

Now, go enjoy a movie.

IronChefMorimoto

Re:Make out, chit-chat, etc. -- how hard is it?

[badzilla]

the last time I checked, there wasn't a cattle prod installed in each theater seat that zapped you if your head deviated to the left/right or your eyes closed during the commercials/previews.

Umm, I was thinking, did you want to come in on a kinda "patenting" thing with me...?

oblig south park

[sucker_muts]

MPAA:

fase 1: Sue random servers acting as trackers
fase 2: ???
fase 3: profit (returns) !

Speaking of Lawsuits...

[ele7ven]

I'm surprised Red Swoosh isn't getting sued by Nike.

not the trackers! the .torrent hosts

[adpowers]

All the articles on /. mentioning going after the server operators say they are going after BitTorrent trackers. After reading TFA, I didn't see any mention of going after tracker operators, instead they are going after the websites that host the .torrent files. Please be more clear about this in future. I host a tracker on my website that has been used primarily for legal torrents (I can't think of any illegal torrents that it has hosted, but I don't watch too carefully). I hosted the Maestro torrents and someone unbeknownst to me hosted a NASA video on there. There is no way I can be held responsible for what people use my tracker for, I can only ever see the MD5. This article says that the MPAA is going after people hosting the .torrent files. I host some of them, but they are all illegal. I don't host any illegal .torrent files on my server, even if someone did set me as a tracker for their illegal file. I am in the clear. These articles need to make that distinction, it sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't know how BT works.

Andrew

PS: My BT server is http://andrewhitchcock.org:6969/.

What I find interesting...

[scootr1]

... is that they are attemptiong to go after the transport mechanism and "traffic guide" of digital files.

Imagine, if you will, cops make a bust of somebody selling bootleg DVDs on a Manhattan street. These DVDs were made in China, and shipped through UPS to NYC. Would the RIAA sue UPS? The UPS men that drove the trucks used to transport the bootlegs? The companies that made the maps followed by the UPS truck drivers to get the bootlegs to their destination? How are these any different from trackers and the BitTorrent system?

Re:What I find interesting...

[binford2k]

If UPS knowingly shipped bootlegs, you can bet your ass they would be sued!

Re:What I find interesting...

[scootr1]

yes, but trackers can plead that they don't know what they are tracking.

Re:What I find interesting...

[binford2k]

Heh. Yeah, and that bong that I sold? It's for educational purposes. Yep.

Gee, I haven't seen any of that money...

[rbird76]

I don't know about you, but ticket prices here in Columbus have only increased over the past few years as these commercials have increased as well, along with revenue. If the added commercials are subsidizing the movies, that would mean without them prices would go up and fewer people would see the movies; depending on the rate customers stop showiing and how fast ticket prices increase with decreasing customer flow, they might make more or less money or stay even. Of course, the commercials also help to drive away movie viewers, so they may cost money in the long run (probably not, but...). In addition, the benefit to me from watching a movie hasn't increased - I've stopped going because there's nothing I want to see. So, the goad of "if we didn't shove these commercials down your throat, this crap would cost even more" doesn't really sound like an effective tactic - if you make it more painful for your customers to give you their money, they will stop and give it to others instead.

A better approach might be to make movies that can actually make money - you know, movies that cost less than $150 M and that don't suck. The cost of hyping the movies and the cost of hiring big names wouldn't be wasted if they could actually write better stories, but they can't, and they don't really seem to care. Hollywood seems to breed and coddle incompetents and to reject people who can actually do their jobs, because otherwise their workers wouldn't need the "assistance" of untrained hacks mascarading as studio officials. Furthermore, studios are willing to give pliable incompetents large sums of money, a strategy which resulted in every major movie studio flirting with (or dating, or married to) bankruptcy at one time or another. Changing this might help their profitability more than throwing more ads (that your customers don't want) at your viewers.

This doesn't justify copyright infringement on any scale, but the more you decide that you have an inherent right to your customers' money and that they'll eat whatever crap you serve, the more your customers will feel justified in robbing you blind.

Re:Okay, guys, let's hear it

[AndrossUT]

Well, there are just some movies out there I never planned to buy or rent or even have anything to do with that I downloaded, then actually liked and bought. Also, I'm a cheap bastard and would gladly screw over a faceless conglomerate of corporations by downloading a movie, rather than giving my hard earned $7.50 to watch it in a crappy movie theatre, only to be interrupted by that jackass with the cell phone three rows ahead.

How to make bittorrent more "secure"

[awolk]

This is offtopic, but I just came to think of, that if you add a feature to anonymize bittorrent through proxying to the bittorrent programs, the RIIA, or whoever wants to sue you, would not know who downloaded as it is going through proxies.

Now, this is well-known, and it is also well-known that it would do no good, because it will slow down the whole process _alot_ .

But it would be enough to add the _FEATURE_ (as an option in the preferences) to the program, because then RIIA wouldn't know IF the client they are seeing is a proxy or not, because it MIGHT be that the downloader uses a proxy.
It's enough for the feature to present, not used, and it will become harder for the RIAA to sue people for using bitorrent.

Now this post has nothing to do with the original story (if we do not apply the very same idea to webservers), and I'm sure alot of people have already had this idea, and that they have already found at least 10E99 technical and/or legal problems with it.

Re:30 minutes of pre-movie crap...

[jlebrech]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=i_ robot

Finnish Police & BSA Busted BitTorrent Site

[petteri_666]

finnreactor down:

Police is investigating major Internet copyright violation crime

(original finnish article here, and press release from police)

Published 16:01 (14.12.2004)

Central criminal police is investigating a illegal sharing of copyrighted materials, including movies, music and other applications happened in Internet. They have done several homesearches around Finland.

Police says that the material was being shared using BitTorrent -peer to peer application. In peer to peer networks the files are shared among users. Network in question required user registration.

Four people are suspected as being head administrators of the network and 30 other for assisting the network operating. The network had approximately 10 000 users, which were all finnish.

Maximum punishment from copyright violation is 2 years in prison. Also the copyright holders have possibility to ask pay for damages.The network had about 6 000 different products downloadable, like movies, music, applications and games. One product could have been for example a cd disc, artist's whole production or multiple movies.

Estimated damages are starting from several million euros. One euro is 1,31 US dollars.

Processing the whole case will take months.

P2P, Fair Use, Etc.

[Pitr]

Ok, so, there's copyrighted stuff available illegally through various P2P clients. There's 3 types of people involved:

1) People with copyrighted content, illegally aquired and/or being shared.

2) People with copyrighted content, legally aquired, and not being shared.

3) People/agencies that opperate public communications that can be used for legal and illegal purposes.

People in group 1) are breaking the law, and should be held accountable(within reason, not for inflated damages). However, prosecuting the offenders should not be any easier than prosecuting people in the non-virtual world. If someone decides they think I'm pirating music or videos, and goes to some law enforcement agency, my PC goes bye-bye, without any proof. No good. Further, privacy rights must still be upheld. It might prevent some pirates from being caught, but it's the same for drug dealers, and murderers. "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." "Due process." Why should the entertainment industry be above these concepts?

Group 2) needs to be protected by very clear fair use laws, or they'll always be vulnerable to the entertainment industries definition of "fair".

Group 3) includes P2P programs. It also includes ISPs. It also includes the phone company (for those pirating over dial up). Funny how no one's tried to sue Bell or AOL yet. They're "just as guilty" as Kazaa et all, which is to say, they're NOT responsible.

To draw a tired parrallel, we don't hold firearm manufacturers accountable for gun murders, so why is p2p software accountable for piracy?

We were there first!

[Pad-Lok]

MPAA is moving too slow. Here in Finland, the local MPAA/RIAA, Teosto, and the Finnish Central Criminal Police busted a BitTorrent network, Finnreactor early this morning, at the request of Microsoft, BSA and Teosto.

More interesting are the claims that the police had planted backdoors in the shared files to gather information about the users. IANAL, but apparently this isnt illegal here in Finland.

Re:We were there first!

[Pad-Lok]

Oh dang, I really need to learn how to type faster that 1CPM so I wont dupe things...

For-Profit Piracy

[un1xl0ser]

Whenever I am in the city, I see tons of people selling pirated cds and DVDs. This is mainly in the subways and on street corners.

I know what subways and what corners they are at, so why don't the cops and the MPAA break up that racket?

They changed it for the VHS/DVD release too.

[Bob_Robertson]

It's interesting to watch Sly's mouth say "Taco Bell" and hear him voice-over "Pizza Hut". Also, the Pizza Hut sign didn't quite fit into the scenes it is seen in. Just that little bit off that screams "FAKE!"

I wonder if the voice-over was included in his original contract? Hmmm..... Paid by the word?

Bob-

Re:They changed it for the VHS/DVD release too.

[corbettw]

I wonder if the voice-over was included in his original contract? Hmmm..... Paid by the word?

I have a hard time imagining that Stalone's agent would let him sign a contract where he's paid by the word. Unless it's $5mil a word.

"Yo, Adrienne!!"

And don't forget

[Anita Coney]

The moron behind you who feels he has to explain the movie point-by-point to his girlfriend. And the parents who feel it's appropriate to bring a crying baby to an R rated movie. And the over-priced popcorn and soda.

I love movies but I hate seeing them in the theater.

Where am I going to get my Sci-Fi fix? ;(

[WizardRahl]

I live in Canada and I don't get SciFi or any of those other root 'merican channels so I download Atlantis, Sg-1, andromeda, battlestar off suprnova... if they went down... what would I do! ;(

Re:Where am I going to get my Sci-Fi fix? ;(

[bigjnsa500]

If you're really good. You don't use the popular trackers. Any since of reality will tell you the big ones are definitely monitored. What you have to do is find the hidden or locally run trackers. They will never be found.

Re:Advertising MTV commercials on MTV

[denis-The-menace]

I have MTV (MTV Canada mind you) and instead of REAL commercials
I get these stupid brain-dead "This is not an add for MTV" commercials.
Talk about preaching to the converted!

BTW: I don't watch the videos. My Wife watches one or 2 shows, that's it. The rest of the "content" is total crud!

I feel a rant coming on

[turgid]

What they're going to argue is that the tracker sites are designed and operated specifically for the distribution of copyrighted materials.

Slackware Linux is copyrighted. It is also freely redistributable (sp?). I downloaded Slackware 9.1 and Slackware 10.0 from Bittorrent.

I wish people would get this straight: "copyrighted" does not mean I can't (legally) freely copy something.

I wish someone high-profile, respected and in posession of a clue, would stand up and shout loudly in public about this, and make the MPAA (and RIAA) look liek the bunch of vindictive, greedy, incompetent morons that they are.

Anyone read the beginning?

[Hypharse]

The Motion Picture Ass. of America (MPAA) will today launch a legal attack on BitTorrent users in a bid to prevent ripped DVDs being shared across the network.

You can bet your big fat Association that the abbreviation was fully intended.

Easy to avoid product placement...

[poptones]

Only go see period films. Kinda hard to work the Nike swoosh into Hero or The Age of Innocence.

Re:Advertising-C-Band.

[Tripster]

In the "good old days" of c-band they also had unscrambled porn channels, now that was a selling feature :)

Useless...

[grubber33]

I'm anti-piracy and all but this is the equivalent of charging someone with theft because they know where stolen materials are. Unless they're charging a server's owner based on what the server contains (ie: illegal movies) then they have no basis for going after any torrent-tracking websites.

Napster

[Chazmati]

Napster (the original) didn't carry any files, either. It had the potential (probably never realized) for non-infringing use. But it was shut down.

I thought maybe Napster could slide by on that argument alone. You know, like why don't they outlaw email or ftp, too? You can send an .mp3 file through e-mail. You can also send a picture of your kids to your parents. Apparently, if the usage is 99.9% illegal, the non-infringing use part isn't important. That's what's happening here. IANAL.

Suprnova-out of US juristdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

It think it is in Slovenia (or maybe Slovakia).

If MS Search links to Goolge...

[Darth23]

Which links to Slashdot, which links to suprnova(.org), then isn't Bill Gates guilty of massive copyright infringement?

And what if AOL (Time-Warner-AOL-Turner) then links to Microsoft?

Eventually we will reach the Event Link Horizon, and the MPRIAA will be entitled [b]1to all the money in the world[/b], plus court costs.

good luck...

[c0nrad]

i doubt this will go far at all, because they arn't dealing with little kazaa kiddies this time..

Apropos of nothing, I drive a car...

[eno2001]

...and gas stations charge me money for gasoline! Makes you think. No? :p

Apropos of nothing...

[solune]

...Oh, and don't forget those loser production houses that make a DVD that FORCES you to watch trailers and ads before even seeing the menu!

jurisdiction y'all

[DarthVain]

Mental note:
1)Move servers to hosts somewhere like Cambodia.
2)Give MPAA or whoever the finger.

I always think this is funny... It must be Bit Torrent that is making all these bootleg copies! Never mind, I could just rent the damn thing for 3$ (6$ if blockluster), rip it myself. I could also do the same and tape it VHS syle...ohhhh. If i was really cheap I could just 'barrow' from a friend, do the same. I could also copy it off TV.. I could tape it to VHS, or pipe right into computer... could edit out all the stupid commercials that way as well. Hmmmm, of course thats a lot of work right... Guess I will just order it from over seas where they have a bajillion bootleg copies of everything for a 1$ (sure it might cost 10$ shipping but thats still like what 20$ less than the exorbant price they are asking for most). I digress though, it must be bit torrents fault as they made electronic standards.... might as well sue webpages that host those as well... and all their links... as they are the cause of all my illlllllssss! :) As I said some funny stuff. How about this for a buisness model. STOP TRYING YOU BEST TO RAPE YOUR CUSTOMERS AND MAKE A 7000% PROFIT! I bet if they just sold them a bit cheaper, people would buy more... I don't want a 40$ DVD thanks.

Re:jurisdiction y'all

[Scott Wood]

3) MPAA bribes ISP (or admin thereof) in Cambodia to receive customer information
4) Your ass, which you did not move to Cambodia, gets hauled into court.

Oh, and how many people are going to go to the hassle and expense of setting up a server (and getting enough international bandwidth to be worthwhile) overseas just in order to copy some movies for free? Some, perhaps, but many wouldn't bother.

To Sue BitTorrent Trackers like suing Public Buses

[Ced_Ex]

How are they going to prove that BitTorrent trackers are allowing copyright infringement?

You can argue it this way. A criminal robs a bank and later gets on a public bus for the getaway. It is not the bus driver's business to ask why the criminal gets on the bus as long as the criminal doesn't cause any problems. Are they going to sue the public transportation company for assisting the criminal?

Or how about the Yellow Pages having entries for fraudulent businesses? Are they suppose to check every listing to see if it is legit lest they want to get sued as well for abetting a bad business.

This is getting way out of hand. Let's hope it just gets stuck in court forever.

Silly People

[Christopheles]

Obviously, the movie "start" time is the time at which you are supposed to "start" leaving your house to go to the theater.

please inform further

[sacrilicious]

it's pretty clear that suprnova's INTENT is to contribute to copyright infringement.

(Honest question, I'm not trolling or flaming.) Does "suprnova's intent" refer to the intent of the administrators of suprnova, or to individuals who post links there? I think the distinction is important. If it's the administrator(s) we're ascribing intent to, how is it obvious that they intend that copyrighted materials be shared, as opposed to any materials? If it's the individuals posting to suprnova to whom we're ascribing intent, then maybe it would be more accurate to say "Some users of suprnova clearly intend to share copyrighted materials". I'm not trying to split hairs; it's these specific distinctions on which related legal cases will hinge.

Re:please inform further

[badasscat]

(Honest question, I'm not trolling or flaming.) Does "suprnova's intent" refer to the intent of the administrators of suprnova, or to individuals who post links there? I think the distinction is important. If it's the administrator(s) we're ascribing intent to, how is it obvious that they intend that copyrighted materials be shared, as opposed to any materials? If it's the individuals posting to suprnova to whom we're ascribing intent, then maybe it would be more accurate to say "Some users of suprnova clearly intend to share copyrighted materials". I'm not trying to split hairs; it's these specific distinctions on which related legal cases will hinge.

Well, no, they won't.

Judges are not stupid, and neither, generally, are juries. It's obvious upon your first visit to suprnova that there is a huge amount of copyrighted content - it's right there on the front page, the most updated list, every day. It would be pretty difficult for the site administrators to claim ignorance in this case, or to say "we can't control what our users do". Well, yes you can - you can ban ip addresses, you can ban submitters, you can take the freakin' site down if that's what it takes. We're not talking about an actual p2p application when we're talking about a web site - this is not a case where "the genie's out of the bottle" and you can no longer control it. Somebody owns that site, somebody runs that site, and what's going on at that site is obvious for all to see.

Now, that doesn't mean I think suprnova's toast. But if they're not toast, it won't be because of the "it's not my fault" defense. It's going to have to be something more than that, like the site being hosted in a different country where linking to copyrighted content is not illegal.

What strikes me as odd is that the first step in this battle is just a bunch of lawsuits. No C&D's? No warnings? I think someone could legitimately make the case that they didn't realize posting tracker links was illegal (I'm not so sure it's absolutely clear-cut that it is, actually), which doesn't provide a legal defense, but you'd think some warning letters would be in order first if for no other reason than public relations. I have a feeling that'd scare most of these sites into submission without the costs of a legal fight. Those sites left still standing would be the tough ones to crack anyway; those in other countries, for example.

Re:please inform further

[sacrilicious]

It would be pretty difficult for the [suprnova] administrators to claim [they don't know about the infringing uses of their site], or to say "we can't control what our users do".

Agreed. I point out that the above statement is different from saying that the suprnova admins intended (or intend) the service to be used specifically for distributing copyrighted materials. Unless they have made a statement clarifying their intent, we don't know. Suppose someone puts up a site with the (truly intended) mission statement that they want to "facilitate the exchange of information, helping people get around the hurdles previously posed by bandwidth constraints and advertising costs"... it is still possible for such a site to consist primarily of copyright-infringing posts by its users. It is dangerous to equate "not preventing copyright infringement" with "intent to support copyright infringement"... confusing the two would be akin to confusing "not in favor of the patriot act" with "not against terrorism".

Re:please inform further

[julesh]

It's easy to show that suprnova's administrators intend the site to be used for copyright material, seeing it is they who created the categories on the site, into which visitors subsequently post links.

It's hard to see how categories like "TV Shows/24" (to pick a category from the top of the list) are intended to be used other than for copyright infringing purposes.

I believe this is called "contributory infringement" in many jurisdictions. However, I'd be unsurprised (to put it mildly) to find that suprnova is hosted in a country that doesn't have such a legal concept.

Re:please inform further

[sacrilicious]

It's hard to see how categories like "TV Shows" (to pick a category from the top of the list) are intended to be used other than for copyright infringing purposes.

This is a good point. I agree that the "TV shows" category does deserve to be examined with regard to how the suprnova admins intend the site to be used.

To play admin's advocate for a moment, here's a line of thought I think also deserves consideration. Suppose I start a website with the mission of helping people overcome data distribution problems... essentially a copyright-agnostic mission. I then notice that the kind of material that people post falls into various categories e.g. "movies", and "applications". So I write scripts that present these categories to site visitors so that they don't have to sort through movies if they're looking for applications. Am I *obligated* to try to cull out copyrighted material? If so, then the defense of suprnova can go no further. But if the answer is not so obvious that one must look further for supporting evidence of intent (which is essentially the premise of our discussion at this point in the thread) then the next question is: am I obligated to avoid creating categories that have higher correlations with copyright (e.g. "TV shows") than those that do not (e.g. "14th century literature")? Even if such categories help visitors sort through material? What if I use copyright itself as the categorizer, and do a best-effort attempt to sort things into two categories: "probably copyrighted material" and "probably not copyrighted material"... it may even be my intent with such categories to help copyright-abiding downloaders avoid infringement.

I'm not necessarily saying this is the mindset of the suprnova admins. What I'm saying is that there is a difference between "intent to promote copyright infringement" and "choosing not to censure, even when material is copyrighted"... and that in the latter case, some copyright-correlated categories do have functional value.

It's true!

[ShadeARG]

What a coincidence. I saw Blade Trinity on Saturday night and I almost walked out because I thought the advertising was so rediculous. I had never seen advertising pushed so hard before! Almost everyone was talking (scornfully, might I add) through them as well.

I timed it at roughly 15 minutes for commercials (longer than 30 second spots, 2 to 3 minutes each) and 15 minutes for other movie previews, not to mention that the flick was a huge ad for the Apple iPod. The only thing that kept me seated was the sick feeling that I paid $9.25 for the ticket and about $8 for refreshments. This account is NOT an exaggeration.

Perhaps this is a new trend that everyone needs to vote on with their wallets. If people stood together and said that this is intolerable, there would be change. I preached at my friend who thought I was being rediculous, but change is just that easy. Find something else to do for opening weekend and watch the change occur.

Re:It's true!

[Twanfox]

You probably should have walked out to the front desk and politely but firmly informed them that you were outraged and they give you a refund for the ticket. Be sure to be a little loud, but not obnoxious or unruly. It doesn't help the theater's image if there's some guy pissed about the length of ads and previews before the movie. I know I'd avoid going to see it if I saw that display.

Re:Reasons not to have sympathy for MPAA

[phillymjs]

No babies. period.

Good luck. A few weeks ago Philadelphia City Councilman introduced a bill to ban small children from theaters in the city after 7PM, and (though it doesn't say it in the article) the MPAA is threatening lawsuits over it and screaming about unconstitutionality.

City residents have begun flocking to suburban theaters in search of disturbance-free viewing, and besides the quality-of-life issue the city is losing quite a bit of tax revenue from this.

If the MPAA doesn't like it, they can kiss my ass. People who don't want to employ common sense and hire a friggin' babysitter make things like this necessary.

~Philly

get back at them

[macshune]

I detest those ads too. Here's what I do to get back at them:

Caption:Movies. They're worth it.

Me [yelling]: YEAH! WORTH DOWNLOADING!!!

Always gets a laugh and makes me feel better.

Re:get back at them

[tomhudson]

... bring a laser pointer. Have a few friends also bring laser pointers. Play laser tag on-screen, etc.

Re:Ok, Michael

[DeathFlame]

Because the presence of those actors almost always has a direct correlation to the amount of money the film brings in. I know, I know - you're one of those people who thinks that they should cast an unknown shlub in every movie that comes out, thereby slashing the budget and enabling you to go see movies for $.50. But eventually one of those shlubs is going to be interesting/talented/attractive enough that more people go see *his* movies than anyone else's and *then* some crackpot capitalist will realize that casting that guy = more box office and offer him more money than the unknown shlub that nobody cares about - but not you, no-sir-ree! You go see movies based solely on how low-paid the actor is, because that's the kind of appreciator of fine cinema you are.

Stupid hippie...

But perhaps because of piracy that the makers of movies will realise that maybe spending $20 million on an actor is not the way to make people pay to see the movie in the box office, when people are just downloading it for free. I'm sure I'd see more movies if the price weren't $10 a movie, if instead it was half that or less.

While I'll admit that some movies cost hundres of millions of dollars, those that are good make their money back easily (LOTR?), however it would STILL pay for itself at a lower ticket price.

This is one of those supply and demand equations where I think someone is moving the price the wrong way.

Problem: Not making enough money... no one is coming to watch.

Current Solution: Raise the price.

Obviously, with piracy the way it is.. the increased price is not having the affect of making them more money.

Better Solution: Lower the price, entice people to see the movie in the theatre instead. [For reasons of better sound, picture, etc. than say a cam copy]

Re:ATTENTION - Hate About Suprnova

[Nom du Keyboard]

Bittorrent sites here on Slashdot, such as suprnova.org.

What I hate about sites like suprnova.org is the trapping code that attempts to disable your back button when you try to leave the site.

What I wish search engines like Google would do is, when they scan the site, flag all those with trapping code, viruses, attempts to download known adware/spyware/garbage-ware, as well as list how many pop-ups to expect from the page linked to. Now that would be a useful search engine.

Don't let them slow down progress

[RealBorg]

just use one of the privacy enhanced file sharing applications (GNUNet, Freenet, ANTS2P, MUTE, I2P) and leave these dinosaurs alone in their death struggle. I bet the devil has already reserved a nice corner in hell for the intellectual property mafia.

Re:Ok, Michael

[The Bungi]

sims is a reflection of the majority of his readers. Ergo the OMFG teh MOVIEZ it sh0u1D b TEH FREE!!!!!1!!!one!!!!! comment, which of course also works to futher the quaint misconception that he is anything but a mediocre developer who can't spell, let alone "editorialize" (if one can call it that).

Like politics, circumstances sometimes propel people into the least appropriate positions.

Tsing Tao Beer

[igorthefiend]

I'm sure quite a few VCDs a while back used to have an advert for Tsing Tao Beer (sp?)

Buy a ticket and throw it out

[MobyDisk]

I think I'm going to go to the nearby movie theater, pay for a movie ticket, and then download the movie. After I watch it once I will delete it. No ads, no previews, no "turn off your friggin phone!" and "don't smoke!" messages wasting my time. No commercial jingles stuck in my head.

Everyone wins.

Commercials at "The Movies".

[michrech]

Apropos of nothing, I saw a movie in the theaters a few days ago. At the official start time, the lights dimmed. Then there were 14 minutes of commercials (Pepsi, hair mousse, cologne, etc.) followed by 13 minutes of movie trailers (which are also advertising), followed by a few minutes of junk, followed by a 100-minute movie. I can't imagine why people would want to download movies when they have that great theater experience to compare against.

I've already told the local theater owner that if I ever go to see a movie at his theater and get ANY commercials except the movie trailers, I will never go there again, and do as much as I can to make sure no one else does either. When he started to stammer, I told him that if he wasn't making enough to pay the bills that he needed to raise prices, not put advertisements in. It's bad enough that he has a slide show with local ads (but they play before 'start time' so they are easy to avoid if you don't go to the movie on the day it's released) We don't have any of the 'national chains' here. It's a locally owned theater.

If he ever does put the ads in, I'll just wait for the DVD. And before someone chimes in about how they will be in the DVD too, well, let's just say that my modded Xbox doens't care. I can start where ever I want on the DVD. That includes skipping the commercials.

Re:Commercials at "The Movies".

[flynniec6]

let's just say that my modded Xbox doens't care

I want this. How do I get it?

Re:Commercials at "The Movies".

[michrech]

This will get you started.

This is who made the modchip that I put into my Xbox.

I am using Xbox Media Center for all my media playing needs.

Re:Commercials at "The Movies".

[flynniec6]

Much obliged. It seems I have a project for the weekend.

If that were the only source for high movie costs.

[rbird76]

...then perhaps people would be more OK with it, because your logic holds. (People see movies with stars in them, thogh the stars change.) It doesn't, however, explain away the FF movie, Waterworld, The Postman, and (probably) Alexander - movies which failed and cost obscene amounts to fail. None of these movies had any real star power, yet all of them cost more than $80 M (The Postman was the cheapest, at $88 M). The only counterexample I can think of is T2, which was nicknamed Judgment Day because of the amount of time it would take to return its $96 M production cost. (Apparently, we've already been judged - I think it took 2 or 3 weeks to get its money back).

Movies with stars make some sense - at least people can see where the money went. Most of the great money losers have had no such obvious resources. It is one thing to fail trying something orginal which would be laudable, but that's not something Hollywood does well. Even if they were somehow trying to be original, you might want a little more control over the pursestrings - you don't start cutting lumber with the branch you're standing on. It made no sense to risk that much money, since by the time you were done, there was no chance to make it back. Looking at this as an untrained person, I have to wonder, "What the hell were they thinking?"

There is also the bonus that money spent on stars is not spent on writing, thus leading to movies that people see the first weekend (because of the star) and which then drop like a stone (because the story requires drug use by the viewers to gain any coherence). The SNL movies are very good at this (with lower-end, stars-in-training) - they write stories by committee, all of whom should have been committed to either a jail or an mental hospital. Movies without stars spent the money someplace - sometimes on nothing worthwhile, sometimes on a coherent plot and character development - hence the bias against movies with lots of stars.

Re:Ok, Michael

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm...

NOTICE TO ALL CONSUMERS: The price hikes will continue until sales increase!

Shameless promotion of Theater chain

[Yort]

Being shameless promotion: I recently got a job working for Regal CineMedia, which handles the digital distribution for all of the pre-show advertisement. So instead of just seeing slide shows of trivia and celebrities, you see moving pictures trying to get you to buy things.

The good part? With slight exceptions, it's all done BEFORE showtime. Oh, there's still a minute or two of "buy concessions in the lobby" and you still have to watch the previews - but we're talking 10 minutes compared to 25+.

Sue Postal Service, FedEx, DHL and UPS too

[totallygeek]

I don't understand why their services would be any different. You can use their system to send legal items or illegal items.

Re:Sue Postal Service, FedEx, DHL and UPS too

[shark72]

"I don't understand why their services would be any different. You can use their system to send legal items or illegal items."

No worries, it's easy to understand if you think about it a bit. We'll use eDonkey and FedEx for the purpose of explanation, but you can substitute similar enterprises.

Ask yourself these questions:

• What percentage of traffic on eDonkey is unauthorized pirated material? By comparison, what percentage of FedEx traffic is illegal?
• If all the unauthorized material were to instantly disappear from eDonkey tomorrow, would they still have a business model? By comparison, if, magically, FedEx could no longer be used for illegal purposes, would FedEx still have a business model?
• What draws most people to install eDonkey -- is it the promise of downloading copyrighted music and movies for free, or is it for downloading Linux distros and shareware? By comparison, what draws most people to patronize FedEx -- is it for legitimate purposes, or is it to send marijuana and pirated DVDs?

As you can see, the key is to understand the difference between the could be and the reality. Sure, it is theoretically possible that eDonkey could be used primarily for legal, authorized traffic, just as FedEx is used primarily used in a law-abiding manner -- but you and I know that's simply not the case. Piracy drives eDonkey.

There are P2P networks that limit themselves solely to content for which permission has been given. You don't see the rightsholders suing them -- in fact, they're striking deals. It's easy, but intellectually dishonest, to frame this as "The MPAA vs. P2P" when it's really the MPAA vs. pirates. If eDonkey had been designed to allow only authorized content, then there would be no legal action being taken.

If you're still not sure of the distinction, think of it this way: the legal action's been taken against the people who are running the hubs, not against eDonkey itself (yet). A better analogy would not be suing FedEx, but suing the guy who's using FedEx to send pirated DVDs.

Re:Sue Postal Service, FedEx, DHL and UPS too

[Jack Schitt]

quick question:

doesn't fedex cost a lot of money to send something?

I do believe that it's simply a matter of people avoiding the expenditure of money.

FedEx != eDonkey because FedEx is not free. Make it totally free and see what happens.

A little background story: the usps charged me $1.06 (if I remember correctly) to send a cd in a jewel case to a friend in another state. It took five days to get there. (All original media, nothing illegal here.)

It would have been a very simple matter to instead send a DVD with 100+ hours of downloaded music. Even on dsl, usps would probably still be faster than eDonkey or even BitTorrent.

My comparison, on this, btw, works like this:
for DVD of music via usps: friend emails me big list of songs they want. Most songs are already in my collection. I download ones that aren't. Burn dvd, usps it to friend.

for bittorrent: friend has to search for each song or album and manually download it. This may take several weeks or longer (my friend is stuck on 56k)

I have never done this, it is just a hypothetical scenario.

USPS is more efficient and econimical than Kazaa over a 56k modem. Thanks for the idea.

I'm thinking of changing my catch-phrase to "Gee, thanks for making 'going postal' a bad thing."

Isn't there a way to send everything to them

[gelfling]

Only for a week or two. Seriously, hijack Bittorrent and redirect everything to every publically observable server belonging to the MPAA. It's only fair we should all return all of our ill gotten booty to them.

If they want to sue their own customers then we should be free to kill all our suppliers. Its axiomatic.

I remember when...

[badmammajamma]

you would go to a movie and the only thing resembaling a commercial would be a preview. I remember travelling to England and seeing commercials at the beginning of a movie and thinking how odd it was that these people paid to see a movie and had to sit through commercials before they could see what they paid for. This was the mid-80's. Now it's the same way here and it totally sucks.

They always said that television was free only because of the advertising revenue. I pay for my TV stations via Time Warner, however, I still watch the same commercials as the guy watching tv via antenna. So, we get to pay for our movies and pay to watch commercials, and we get to pay for our tv and pay to watch commercials. If you have a TiVo, you also get to pay to send them information on your viewing habits.

Then these fuckheads wonder why we don't trust them and don't like them. I've all but given up on going to movies. I give it another year before I give up watching regular tv broadcasts.

The question at hand

[tacokill]

This is a very simple question for the courts (but not simple for them to answer):

Does linking mean "people breaking copyright law"?


...and I'll be master of the obvious here: whatever the decision, you can bet it will have unintended consequences.

shrill tone of desperation

[Doc Ruby]

The timing of this suit makes the MPAA (and their ilk) look afraid of the upcoming Supreme Court hearing of the "Grokster/Morpheus/Kazaa" case, recently decided unambiguosly in favor of the filesharing network's freedom from liability for the abuses of network users. If the Supremes decide to reverse it, MPAA per^Wprosecution of their customers^Wdefendants will be a lot faster and cheaper. But if the Supremes back the clear, simple and righteous lower court decision, the MPAA will find it difficult to even intimidate these people with their exaggerated lawsuits. So launching the more expensive suit now, rather than waiting the few months it will likely take the Supremes to decide, means the MPAA estimates their days of outsourcing their Accounts Receivable to the cops to be numbered - like the samples in an MP3.

Another easy way to steal movies

[aka_big_wurm]

This last weekend I went and saw Blade, and I was saying to my wife they care so much about downloading but it would be so easy to movie hop and see 2 or 3 movies in a day.

Concessions

[abertoll]

Oh, and don't forget all the "almost-free" food that you can buy at the movies. This is most likely due to the fact that you could buy your popcorn somewhere else and bring it in, so they have to keep it competitive.

Re:You apparently don't understand BT

[farnz]

And how does the tracker get set up? Presumably trackers don't hijack random machines and use them, so there's a person somewhere who set it up; if the MPAA can show that that person intended the tracker to be used for copyright infringement, then they're in trouble.

Re:You don't understand Slashdot

[zod1025]

My concerns lie with the enforcement of overly-restrictive legislation It is my belief that I have the freedom to do as I please with my digital data, so long as I do not attempt personal financial gain from someone else's work.

Surely everyone can agree that downloading a DVD rip of, say, Shrek 2 and selling copies of it on ebay for "cheEp" is horrendously immoral and wrong. In line with that, no one would rightly complain about copyright legislation that prevents such scenarios *through civil remedies, not criminal!*

I see no reasonable argument for preventing my from copying CDs/DVDs/etc for my own personal uses (whatever those might be - stripping off forced commercials, the stupid FBI warning, editing out graphical sex scenes, etc).

Further, I see no reason why I should be prevented from obtaining a work online that is not available through other means (old roms, old movies, etc), especially if I already own a copy in another format already.

I think we all agree that "w00, free movies!" is not the point. Today's reality has brought us criminal punishments for civil crimes, the inability to legally watch movies in Linux, inability to legally even talk about bypassing encryption schemes, and other ridiculous craziness with the DMCA that frankly pisses me off.

The *AA's have made themselves representatives of all of the least-sensible aspects of current copyright legislations, and so it's not surprise that people hate them. If the legislation made sense, and we didn't have to worry that we might face criminal charges or ridiculously huge fines for doing something that used to be Fair Use - well, that'd be nice, wouldn't it?

Re:Actually, yeah...DO lay off the crack, pal...

[corbettw]

Hmm, has an inflated sense of the importance of "artists", uses prolific profanity, and thinks The Tommyknockers is on par with The Godfather and Dark Side of the Moon...

Holy Shit, you're Steven King! Hey guys, Steven King reads Slashdot! Wil Wheaton isn't the most famous slashbot anymore!

Re:Ok, Michael

[Schnapple]

Because the presence of those actors almost always has a direct correlation to the amount of money the film brings in.

Which brings up a point - why does the MPAA care? I mean, it's not like movies are flopping left and right. If the MPAA had a case then Star Wars Episode 2 wouldn't have pulled in $300M, right? Of course movies do flop but there have always been flop movies and movies that do well. If the movie industry was hurting then why do we still have record weekends? Inflation doesn't always answer that. Heck, today a million or so people are going to buy the new ROTK DVD. They can sell movies after they've already been shown in the theater.

Thanks to piracy the RIAA is fucked, and we all know that. But even if 100,000 people download the new Oceans Twelve, it's still nothing next to the amount of money the movie is going to make...

But it CAN be a protection measure.

[Anonymous Coward]

YES, but bit torrent clients are copyrightable too.

And encryption and DRM measures designed to prevent IP harvesting can be considered protection of the method by which that intellectual property accesses the internet.

Thus, encryption would become a technical protection measure under the DMCA, and be subject to all protections.

Re:But it CAN be a protection measure.

[swillden]

And encryption and DRM measures designed to prevent IP harvesting can be considered protection of the method by which that intellectual property accesses the internet.

But not protection against copying of the bit torrent clients.

Try again.

Re:But it CAN be a protection measure.

[cpt kangarooski]

But no one would try to decrypt the client. The thing you're encrypting is the traffic -- which consists of the works of the people circumventing the decryption. And since they're the copyright holders, they're allowed.

Re:But it CAN be a protection measure.

[sploo22]

Fricking please, can you not understand plain english?!
You need to read more carefully before jumping to conclusions.

IT says without the authority of the author..It means the author of the f***ing encryption you dolts, not WHAT is being encrypted......

No it does not. Read it again... "without the authority of the copyright owner". Does it say author of the encryption? No. The technological measure is what protects access to the copyrighted work. No mention is made of that measure being copyrighted itself.

By your logic, every movie studio in the world would have free cracking rights to gain access to every cable companys boxes because they transmit movies.

No they wouldn't. Bear in mind that the cable box transmits movies copyrighted by different people, and no one of them can use something that grants them access to the others' content. ...dumbasses

I think that was uncalled for... ;)

Re:But it CAN be a protection measure.

[cpt kangarooski]

I can understand plain English. It is you that cannot.

17 USC 1201(a) says, in pertinent part:

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. ...

[T]o "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;

This tells us that if you have the authority of the copyright owner, decryption is not a form of circumvention. If you do not have that authority, then decryption would be a form of circumvention. And circumvention, not decryption per se, is what's illegal.

The latter clause refers to 'the copyright owner' and 'an encrypted work.' It therefore appears that the the copyright owner in question is the person that owns the copyright of the encrypted work. This makes sense given the wording of the statute. It is supported by the legislative history of the statute.

By your logic, every movie studio in the world would have free cracking rights to gain access to every cable companys boxes because they transmit movies

No. You evidently have no grasp on logic, and probably no idea what logic even is.

A copyright owner can only authorize acts that otherwise would be circumventions as to the works it itself holds the copyrights to. Thus, leaving aside other laws, it would not be a violation of 1201 for Disney to descramble a broadcast of of a Mickey Mouse cartoon. It WOULD be a violation of 1201 for Disney to descramble a broadcast of a Warner Brothers cartoon.

Here's a nickel -- come back when you've got a clue.

Re:Reasons not to have sympathy for MPAA

[bnenning]

A few weeks ago Philadelphia City Councilman introduced a bill to ban small children from theaters in the city after 7PM, and (though it doesn't say it in the article) the MPAA is threatening lawsuits over it and screaming about unconstitutionality.

And I have to agree with them. Why shouldn't it be the theatre owner's decision?

this is a good thing

[milesegan]

As long as they're only targeting copyright violations and not attacking BitTorrent directly.

Pirated software, music, and films are an addiction we should all try to cure ourselves of. Spend the time and energy instead on creating and supporting free and open alternatives. It's a lot more fun to actively create than to passively consume anyway.

Payback: Republicans Will Screw RIAA and MPAA

[tjstork]

Love them or hate them for all the other stuff they do, and the perenielly evil Orin Hatch aside, there's no doubt Republicans will snooze through any entertainment industry lobbyists.

In this last election, both the film and recording industries had their artists running around the country telling everyone that they thought Republican sucked for being the party of the rich. Now, they are crawling to Washington begging Republicans to save them from a bunch of punks stealing their songs? I see ZERO chance of them getting any sympathetic ear.

Can you imagine Michael Moore complaining before congress that teenagers were bit torrenting copies of F9/11, cutting into his profits? How about Bruce Springstein up on the hill, lamenting how sales of his music for working man got cut down by, um, the working man?

Re:Payback: Republicans Will Screw RIAA and MPAA

[Hassman]

You're funny. The republicans will back anyone who sponsers them.

And for the record Michael Moore (aka socialist slut) said he didn't care if you d/l'ed his movie. He said he didn't care how you saw it, as long as you saw it. I think he even sponcered a site where you could watch it streamed...

And I think you're confusing Springstein and Metallica.

Re:Payback: Republicans Will Screw RIAA and MPAA

[Hassman]

Troll: 1
You: 0

score, I win!

My Rights Online?

[Tim C]

My right to do what? Share copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder?

What right does this action infringe? Please answer without resorting to slippery slope arguments. If they go after trackers that deal only with legal files, then fine, go for the throat. If they're only going after trackers that deal with at least some files that they have no right to be dealing with, then I fail to see the problem. Perhaps that's my failing, though - feel free to enlighten me.

Re:ATTENTION - Hate About Suprnova

[lessthanjakejohn]

your saying suprnova.com?

if not WTF are you talking about?

Suprnova.org is pretty clean.

Put on shoes this morning?

[xant]

You may have noticed the logo.

That's not there to hold the shoe together. We're already in this dread dystopia you seem sure will drive you into a ballistic fury.

Re:Put on shoes this morning?

[John Courtland]

I can still avoid all that bullshit. I buy combat boots for every day wear. I have a pair of Land's End something-or-anothers for loafing around when I'm too lazy to strap up. My shoes have warranties, not logos and ads.

Re:The first few words in TA says it all...

[shadowsurfr1]

He deserves one for that!

Re:Ok, Michael

[karlandtanya]

...quit paying actors...

Well, they have, actually. It's called "reality tv". Basically, you throw out the writers and actors and just churn out themed interaction between performers. You can still call them actors and writers, but there contribution is at a commodity level of talent.

For some reason, people watch it.

Beauty for the producers is that there is no talent. Actors and writers (such as they are) don't like it? Fire 'em and get a new one.

From a business point of view, it's wonderful.

Artistically, I find it lacks appeal.

Was ALL of cable advertised as commercial free?

[swb]

I know that movie channels were specifically intended to be commercial free, since watching movies on TV traditionally meant interruptions for commercials as well as sanitizing to meet some evangelist in Oklahoma's standard for cleanliness.

But were other channels meant to be commercial free? TBS was around from the beginning and I think it always had commercials, since it was beamed up from Atlanta largely as it ran on WTBS.

I think the *perception* was that very early cable channels were commercial free. I think the reality was that audiences were so small and the technology so new that nobody in advertising thought much of it and there wasn't a whole lot of people pay to run ads on it.

Re:Was ALL of cable advertised as commercial free?

[DarkEdgeX]

Seemed to me the promise was that cable (since you paid for it, vs. getting local/network channels over the air for free) would be advertising free.

And honestly, there's no reason it can't be. Shit, you pay $40-50 a month, minimum, in the US for cable television ($12-15 if you go with their "bare minimum" which is nothing more than local channels and a few informational/government channels). They can make ends meet with just that income (especially considering cable television is so pervasive now in the US). But pure greed has compelled the cable channels to go above and beyond that and look for advertising. And not just smallish amounts of advertising but literally the same amount of advertising as the regular over-the-air network channels.

I've pretty much written off television though. The only reason I have cable at all is because if I don't have the basic-basic cable setup (the $12-15 a month setup) the cost of my broadband internet goes up by $10 a month. The basic cable pretty much pays for itself at that point.

Anyways.. yeah, advertising-free cable, it could be a reality if not for greed.

Re:Was ALL of cable advertised as commercial free?

[swb]

And honestly, there's no reason it can't be. Shit, you pay $40-50 a month, minimum, in the US for cable television ($12-15 if you go with their "bare minimum" which is nothing more than local channels and a few informational/government channels).

If that's the case, you'd think that phone service would be free as well, since $40 a month is about the same price as a residential line in the US and they're not even providing any *content* -- you have to connect to some other subscriber to get your content.

I'm willing to give some cable operators the benefit of the doubt about the costs of their environments. Laying a coax plant in a city isn't a small or cheap endeavour (and in Minneapolis where I live, the pre-digital cable plant was a duplex cable -- *two* coaxes to every home). Upgrades for cable modem aren't digital cable aren't cheap, and then there's the ongoing maintenance and customer service issues.

And then there's the greed of the channels themselves, usually sold in some forced package (if you want Channel Z, you have to take 9 other channels along with it, despite the tiny ratings) that drives up the cost of providing channels.

I don't know what the economics are of a cable channel. Channel owners have themselves in a pickle with popular channels that are expensive to operate but bring in good advertising revenue but whose sale at inflated prices in packages has to cross-subsidize unpopular channels that have operating costs that can't be met by the advertising they have.

That's complete bullshit

[Greego]

Try going to a independent cinema some time, local band night, community theatre, etc., there's plenty of good shit out there that's not owned by the **AA. MOST movies at the major cinemas (and music on TV/Radio) is crap nowadays...
And anyway, The Godfather and Dark Side of the Moon are over twenty years old, good luck seeing that kind of quality come from mass media any time soon.

Suprnova looks covered to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on the front page it says:

By using this service, you agree to the following conditions: You may not use this service to obtain or distribute software or any other copyrighted material that you do not have the right to. Any violators must leave this site immediately.

So there.

Ob. Simpson's Quote

[Abcd1234]

[Paul Anka]
To stop those monsters 1-2-3
Here's a fresh new way that's trouble free
It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...
[Lisa]
Guarantee void in Tennessee!
[All]
Just don't look!
Just don't look!
Just don't look!
Just don't look!

Re:ATTENTION - Hate About Suprnova

[Mike Rubits]

I think that's their mirror stuff, not trapping code.

This is what ppl get.....

[phobos13013]

for thinking the internet is free -- a lawsuit.

Mentality of MPAA shoot the messenger bag not the messenger. I dont hear any complaints from air travelers for getting patted down everytime they get on a plane whether or not their toting explosives. Im sure they would give right in to a pat down at ye olde cineplex even tho they probably arent toting a cam.

Re:My opinion

[Antony-Kyre]

Boycotting based on one day of the week doesn't do much. It just shifts the gas need to the other six days. I guess an extreme and unlikely result could be having less employees work on Mondays, and hiring more workers during the rest of the week.

Solution...

[timefactor]

Just post a torrent of the tracker sites. Duh.

it is even worse

[adpowers]

This is one of the reasons I rarely go to movie theatres these days.

A group of my friends convinced me to go see a movie at the Bellevue Galleria. I really didn't want to go, but they all wanted me to. We arrive and sit in the theatre. While you are sitting down waiting for it to begin (where they used to have semi-unobtrusive advertisements (from slide projectors)), they have this thing called "The 20." It is the lamest amount of crap ever. It is full motion video and like featurettes. These are the things that mask themselves as behind the scenes, but are really just poorly hided advertisements for the movie. I never watch this on DVDs anymore. Once the movie is set to begin, they play commercials. This wouldn't be too bad, except they are straight from TV, so the sound and video both suck and they are so damn annoying. After the minutes of commercials, they get into trailers. Trailers aren't one minute each, they are three to four minutes. These are theatrical trailers, not teaser trailers or the ones shown on TV. Finally, by the time you have forgotten what movie you are about to see, and ready to leave because you have been sitting down for nearly an hour with these videos playing, the movie actually begins. Fortunately for me, the movie was interrupted by a fire alarm, giving me an excuse to leave. I didn't need to hear stupid middle schoolers shout at the screen how hot the 19th century era clothing made the actress look. Stupid fucking kids (hell, I'm 18 myself and I find these pricks annoying). I used to go to movie theatres all the time, but now that I value my time more and don't want to put up with this crap, I never go to movies anymore. I can't believe anyone would put up with nearly 50 minutes of ads before a movie, it is unbelievable. Yet these same people run back again and again. My friend even went to the worst theatre in the area to see Lord of the Rings, just because it was close. Ahhh! I want to scream.

Now compare this to the best theatre I have ever been to, the Cinerama. First of all, it has the biggest, clearest, most flicker free projection I have seen (outside of IMAX, which is a separate category. Second, they treat you like movie fans, not consumers. Before the movie begins, the screen has a curtain in front of it. At the most, they sometimes play the movie soundtrack in the background. Once it is set to begin, they play only trailers, no TV commercials. Although, this isn't guaranteed. A few times I have been there, they didn't show trailers at all! They skip right to the movie. That is class. The Cinerama is a class act (thanks Paul Allen!). There are only two complaints I have with them: they got rid of the free refills on popcorn and sometimes there digital projector is broken (like when I went to see Star Wars). If my biggest complaint is not seeing the movie digitally (and instead having to settle for the best film projection system I have ever seen), well, then I think I am set. This movie costs a few dollars more (10 dollars for a standard ticket), but for how little I see movies in the theatres, I say a few extra bucks is definitely better than a few hours of stress.

Andrew

Re:Vote with dollars-Moral Semantics.

[ichimunki]

I'm not missing the point. jschottm had a very good point about supporting media outlets that don't screw their customers. No argument there.

But jschottm also wanted to play the morality card and confuse the issue with loaded words. OP wasn't on any moral high horse, so the reference to Ghandi was something of a non-sequitor. Finally, there is a substantial and real difference between stealing salt and making copies of a movie. Calling something "taking" that is not "taking" is an attempt to subvert the very discussion by changing the meaning of the words midstream. Doubleplusungood.

I wish they try their luck on piratebay...

[mowler2]

suing ... :)

Vote with dollars...Legally

[Firethorn]

And if you download the movie...free.

Sigh...
I was working out the money for your typical law abiding family of four.
Besides, as the other poster said, $1 for the popcorn (admittably rounded up, a $1 bag of bulk popcorn lasts me months, but butter is a bit more expensive).

Re:ATTENTION - Hate About Suprnova

[Cplus]

I've never had a problem with suprnova.org when using it's resources for "research" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). I have gone to suprnova.com and suprnova.net, just to see what the "scammers" are up to, and it is definitely not pretty. Basically, if you're not going to .org, you're in trouble. I welcome you to the group of people in the know.

Personally, for my BT needs I prefer smaller groups of people posting torrents, where there is a feedback process and you get to know the people posting things as well as have the ability to read about each torrent before you dl it.

Filelist.org is great.

Correction to my post..

[mowler2]

Crap, should have used preview... Anyways, here it goes again:

Good luck suing Piratebay... :)

Re:You don't understand Slashdot

[cpt kangarooski]

Surely everyone can agree that downloading a DVD rip of, say, Shrek 2 and selling copies of it on ebay for "cheEp" is horrendously immoral and wrong.

I would not agree that it is immoral or wrong. Illegal, perhaps unwise, but not immoral.

Good to live in Sweden

[zeth]

This link should say it all: http://static.thepiratebay.org/dreamworks_response .txt

Let's not forget

[POLAX]

[i]Apropos of nothing, I saw a movie in the theaters a few days ago. At the official start time, the lights dimmed. Then there were 14 minutes of commercials (Pepsi, hair mousse, cologne, etc.) followed by 13 minutes of movie trailers (which are also advertising), followed by a few minutes of junk, followed by a 100-minute movie. I can't imagine why people would want to download movies when they have that great theater experience to compare against.[/i] Let's not forget the 10 minute lecture targetted at the paying audience on how piracy hurts the little guy...never the mega-corporation behind it...

Re:Let's not forget

[tuxedobob]

First of all, you're not on the battle.net forums. :-p

I haven't seen that particular lecture. I've seen one with Charlie Sheen and 2 shmucks saying all the things you should do in theaters. It's a little long.

I don't like commercials in movie theaters, though the ones that don't look like pixelated TV commercials are less annoying. If you're going to advertise, don't look like crap.

As for movie trailers, I'd say 3-4 is a good number. Especially if the trailer is itself good, in which case it may be more enjoyable than the movie, or if the movie looks really crappy, in which case it just saved me an hour or two.

Re:Let's not forget

[Hassman]

So movie theaters are *suppose* to start commercials before the movie's official start time. That is to say, if the movie starts at 1:30, and they have 10 min of commercials, they are suppose to start them at 1:20 not at 1:30.

There was a court case (I forget where) where there was a class action suit against AMC or Lowes or somewhere that showed the commercials at the show time. The argument was that people paid to see the movie not advertisements. I don't know if there was a conculsion to the case, but shortly after hearing it a few of the local theaters changed their policy.

Now the commercials start prior to the movie's listed start times. I can't speak for all theaters but AMC and Lowes in Chicago both do this.

And for the record, I've heard from many movie buffs that trailers are part of the movie experience (I tend to agree), and should be shown before your movie...

Like at the airport...

[cyberformer]

A year ago, many airlines let you bypass the check-in lines by using the automated machine. Now they've fired all the human check-in agents, so you have to stand in line to use the machine too.

As long as I can get a refund.

[Firethorn]

Think of it this way.
I go to the theater expecting to see a movie at, say, 2 pm. I've read that it's a 100 minutes long, so I expect to be done by 3 pm. With all the ads, I'm not going to be out of the theater until 3:20. This might put a crimp on my plans.

So if I purchase a ticket with an assumed contract of the movie starting at 2, and they aren't going to start the movie until 2:30, I'm going to be pissed, and it should be my option to get a refund. Just like if I buy a DVD and it turns out to have adds with the no-skip switch set, I'll want to return it. I paid $20 for the movie, I don't want to have to sit through all those ads (especially when they get to be five years old).

If you get into a cab, do you expect or want to get the scenic route?

Re:As long as I can get a refund.

[radish]

I go to the theater expecting to see a movie at, say, 2 pm. I've read that it's a 100 minutes long, so I expect to be done by 3 pm.

I guess you're european, with your fancy-shmancy decimal hours :)

Re:As long as I can get a refund.

[Firethorn]

Dohhh!
knock all times after 2 back an hour.

I guess that's what happens when I try to post and do work at the same time.

Um

[ucblockhead]

I watched MTV from the beginning (nearly). It always had commercials, even back when they actually played videos.

Re:Ok, Michael

[Bnonn]

Are you suggesting that what actors do is worth millions a year, compared to teachers, doctors and sundry others?

In other news...

[failrate]

Chicken Little sues gravity for letting the sky fall.

Use Earthstation 5 . anonymous filesharing !

[zymano]

www.es5.com

They are based in palestine which REALLY PISSES off Hollywood. They hate the jews.

Re:Ok, Michael

[silentbozo]

> Why not just quit paying actors millions per film?

Because the presence of those actors almost always has a direct correlation to the amount of money the film brings in

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. Movies are expensive to make, even without A-list cast (think $15 million for a low-budget film, with a total cost of around $40-60 million for prints and advertising.) Films are often financed by selling off foreign distribution rights, or by relying on foreign markets, to the tune of 50% or more of production funds, typically. This means, taking into account foreign tastes is extremely important in the kind of film you make, and in how you cast it.

That's why when you go to staff/cast your film, you get handed a list of directors, a list of male leads, a list of female leads, and are told to choose. You have the right to decline of course, just as your financieers are free to decide not to fund your project. This is how we get films like Gigli.

Re:Actually, yeah...DO lay off the crack, pal...

[UnknownSoldier]

> nything that you, yourself, create is going to be shitty and rather stupid

Right! So we should NEVER do anything for the FUN of doing it.

> and most people are fucking incredibly untalented.

And this is based on what data?

Peace

Bittorrent needs a better name

[TheNarrator]

Somebody should spin off bittorrent, make some slight changes to it and call it "I'm a whore and so are you". Then when the MPAA goes and talks to the news media and get interviewed they will say "Yes, Mr. Oreily we here at the MPAA are taking a tough stand against 'I'm a whore and so are you'". The hilarity will make the whole fear of "cookies" debacle seem barely amusing.

Re:Bittorrent needs a better name

[Zorikin]

Or you could go the other extreme and call it "adorable kittens". Then all the MPAA execs would have to take a tough stand against "adorable kittens".

"We will not stand for any more adorable kittens!"

Commerical rebate

[wk633]

Moving off topic a bit, but a topic that seems hot for discussion...

I rarely go to movies, but I think next time I'll time the 'junk' at the beginning, and ask for rebate for the portion of my ticket that was junk I had to sit through. And since to get a good seat you have to arrive before the movie starts, 'no watching' is not an option. I bought a ticket for 100 minutes of Entertainment, not 15 minutes of ads followed by 100 minutes of Entertainment.

If I didn't pay for the movie, it would be one thing, but they're taking on extra revenue at my expense.

Re:Actually, yeah...DO lay off the crack, pal...

[ikes]

pink floyd?! stephen king?! man, your tastes suck.

Re:Actually, yeah...DO lay off the crack, pal...

[Alioth]

Guess what...Pink Floyd are a band who started out creating stuff themselves, just like you're telling the parent poster NOT to. The best bands out there are not the manufactured bands like 'Take That' and their ilk - but the people who decided to create not consume.

Actually, from having watched plenty of live acts, I'd say (certainly in music) musical ability is an extremely common trait in the human population. Mass media is basically the cult of the personality.

Re:Ok, Michael

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

Absolutely and unequivocally. Anyone - *anyone* - can go to school, amass a certain amount of technical knowledge, and become a perfectly serviceable doctor or teacher or what have you. Yes, it's a long, hard road to get there, and I don't mean to diminish the contributions that doctors and teachers make, but there's really no barrier to getting there other than "do they know the material?" Can you take a test to be an actor? Where do you go to apply for a position as a matinee idol? At any point in an actor's life there are dozens of people who can instantly end their job that day (or that week, or their career as a whole) because of a reason no more substantial than "I don't like his eyebrows" or "her tits are too small." If Miss Bliss' first-grade class turns out to be a bunch of simpletons and half of them fail then Miss Bliss won't find herself blackballed from the entire teaching industry for life, but do you think Halle Berry will get the same break after "Catwoman?" You can coast on your past record for a while in Hollywood, but eventually it all comes down to putting asses in seats. If you're not a box-office draw then you don't work - period. Now how many of you can name *horrible* teachers that you had who just keep going year after year because of tenure? Or doctors who are heartless, arrogant assholes who keep working because they can get the job done? Yeah, there are terrible actors (and writers and producers...) who keep bringing in an enormous paycheck, but can you name one who's been doing it for more than a few years? Sharon Stone? Stallone?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the day 20 million people will spend their weeknight in front of the TV watching Polly Perky teach algebra, *then* I'll believe that Tom Cruise (or Barry Bonds) is overpaid.

Create. Don't Consume.

[runamok1]

That is a beautiful sentiment. I completely agree. This isn't much but a "me too" post but I think your premise can extend to every area of your life.

I kind of realize how much help and enjoyment I gather from the internet and all of it's multitudes. So I decided I needed to start writing down my own knowledge (in my case, running, computers, books, etc.) to sort of give back.

I would gladly pay more for all the information I find on the net than the I would for the latest movie.

And yet the information is freely given while the 2 hours of enertainment sold by hollywood continues to go up in price.

Re:Create. Don't Consume.

[C.Batt]

Huh... I honestly didn't think I'd get a positive reaction to this sentiment, even here on /. which has a large population the thrives on hype. The responses like this blow me away.

Thanks.

I would gladly pay more for all the information I find on the net than the I would for the latest movie.

And yet the information is freely given while the 2 hours of enertainment sold by hollywood continues to go up in price.

I couldn't say it better.

connard...

[K.Bu]

connard...

Re:Actually, yeah...DO lay off the crack, pal...

[gordgekko]

Who is Wil Wheaton?

Re:Actually, yeah...DO lay off the crack, pal...

[Antitorgo]

That post was inspirational! After reading it, I realized that I have no chance of ever being good at anything, and now feel the urge to go home and sit in front of the television watching nothing but commercials.

Thank you for simplifying my life.

FREE MOVIES

[Aggrazel]

There's this place I found in my neighborhood that has a LOT of movies, books, and CDs, and they let me take them for absolutely nothing... and keep them for a week, sometimes more.

Sure, sometimes I have to wait for things, but hey, the price is right. All I had to do was sign up for a little card that said I promise to bring it back before its due.

FREE!

They call it a "Public Library" ... apparently they've been in business for years, but I don't see how. What a funny business model, letting your customers take your stuff home for free... HA HA!

Why are the trackers not "torrents"?

[monkeyfarm]

I'm not the most tech savvy person around, but it seems to me that it should be possible to have a BIG master list that serves the purpose that suprnova serves that itself is passed around by a bittorrent like application. That way there's no one place to go after.

I guess you'd have to have some way of initially connecting "your" bittorrent to this network to get "on board", but once you're in, you're in, and no one can ever break it apart.

Seems pretty straight forward to me, what's wrong with this idea?

Re:You don't understand Slashdot

[gordgekko]

Well said.

Don't do it! There's MORE to life than commercials

[RLiegh]

Don't forget to go out now and then and buy what they're selling!

You can run but you can't hide

[westlake]

the BitTorrent trackers will just migrate to places like Russia and China, where there are no intellectual property laws to speak of

The intellectual property law of China is modeled on that of it's major trading partners, including the United States, which should surprise no one. Laws and Regulations Does it ever occur to anyone on Slashdot that China might want to protect the market for it's own cultural exports?

Business models that rely on the sale of information are doomed...they essentially rake in mountains of cash for doing nothing except copying digital media, which is now practically free

Distribution is not production. Production is not free. The Lord of the Rings trilogy cost $273 million. You could, of course, settle for The Mousetrap, as it is staged and performed in high school.

BitTorrent downloads, all forms of digital media, are "free" only if you have a middle-class income or higher or your media fix is being subsidized by the Bank of Mom & Dad. Media-capable PCs cost money, Broadband costs money. Surcharges for Gigabyte downloads costs money. The theatrical experience in the home costs money.

Re:Use Earthstation 5 . anonymous filesharing !

[Anonymous Coward]

They are based in palestine which REALLY PISSES off Hollywood. They hate the jews.

Uhm, I'm pretty sure the Palestinians tend to hate the Jews too...

The difference between copying and theft

[laughingcoyote]

Actually, despite all this "piracy", the RIAA's sales continue to increase, as shown. The November 11, 2004 press release from the MPAA shows similarly for the MPAA:

"The movie industry's share of the American economy is growing--faster than the rest of the economy. And the copyright industries are creating jobs at twice the rate of the rest of the economy." (excerpted from above)

I fail to see how you can call something "theft" when someone is seeing greater sales happen while the "theft" is occurring. Theft would presume a model in which, for every download which occurs, one sale is lost. This is quite simply not true, as many, many people download things to preview them and see if they are worth the money. Given the large amount of garbage put out by the **AA's and the inflated prices they charge for it, this does not seem an unreasonable precaution.

The true solution for the **AA's is one which is known to all businesses which don't have a virtual monopoly and routinely have to deal with competition: Improve your product, LOWER YOUR PRICES, and find innovative ways to market and deliver the product.

Don't put ads on something people have paid money for, it will turn them off very quickly. (A trailer or two generally won't turn a consumer off if placed on their DVD, but a non-skippable Pepsi commercial most certainly will.) There is NO quicker way to turn off a consumer than making it so that the product they purchased (their DVD and DVD player) do not do what they expect it to (fast-forward when they hit the fast-forward button.)

Imagine your car not starting for 5 minutes after you turned the key so that it could play ads over the car's stereo. If you wouldn't be extremely frustrated by this, and very unlikely to purchase that brand of car again, well then, you are the definition of corporate whore. But the reason car manufacturers -don't- do this is because other manufacturers exist, and would refrain from doing this and take away their business. However, the MPAA has no competition, at least not on anything even remotely approaching their scale. If it takes suprnova and Kazaa to create the competition, then I'm not sorry to see it, whether or not there's a technical violation of law.

If these companies are not willing to address the fact that CUSTOMERS ARE NOT SATISFIED, and the ONLY reason that they have stayed in business is a lack of real competition, they deserve to die off and I don't care if people do pirate the stuff.

Re:The difference between copying and theft

[jschottm]

Actually, despite all this "piracy", the RIAA's sales continue to increase [theregister.com], as shown

In an astonishing trend, when the economy is better people spend more on music during a year when the RIAA reduced illegal copying through lawsuits. Hmmm.. Also note that the financial growth (4%) was basically that of inflation. And that while sales were up, they were still well under that of every year since at least 1994.

and the copyright industries are creating jobs at twice the rate of the rest of the economy.

Jobs that will be destroyed without copyright protection. Pretty simple.

And movies haven't even begun to be hit with big problems from downloading - bandwidth is still way too limited for most people.

I fail to see how you can call something "theft"

So, um, where in my post did I call anything "theft"?

Given the large amount of garbage put out by the **AA's and the inflated prices they charge for it, this does not seem an unreasonable precaution.

Would you agree to work for your boss for a year and at the end of a year he or she would evaluate your work and decide if they felt it was worth paying for? I have little trouble finding media that I enjoy. There are reviewers and friends that I trust; I can sample many of them online or in the stores I patronize.

I've got a better idea - get away from the entire *AA groups and seek out independent artists who will gladly let you download their products to evaluate them.

businesses which don't have a virtual monopoly

The RIAA is so far from having a monopoly at this point that it's laugable. If you really want a starting point, I'll give you a list of independent musicians who are well worth supporting. The reason that the RIAA has a grip on stores is the same reason that you'd have a very hard time selling a BBQ sauce that you manufacture directly to grocery stores - it's simply not feasible for retailers to deal directly with the tens of thousands of small manufacturers, hence the necessary evil of distributors.

The good news is that this internet thing has changed all that, so consumers can now buy music directly from the small artists.

Movies are tricky because even an inexpensive indy film costs more than most people will earn in a decade to make. Have you worked making a movie? Do you actually know what the costs are when you say how much they *should* cost?

And those inexpensive movies are the ones that are most likely to die in the creation process, leaving the investors with nothing. Are they right to want a good return from the ones that do actually make it? Of course, that's what investors do.

Don't put ads on something people have paid money for, it will turn them off very quickly.

True. This is why I patronize theatres that don't bombard me with annoying ads before the movie starts. This comes at the tradeoff of worse seats, worse sound, worse projectors, limited choice of movies, and having to wait past the release date for the movie to work its way down to my theatres. Everything has a tradeoff. The DVD with ads in it prolly costs less for the consumer to buy than a competing DVD without ads, and the public has shown time and time again that they'll buy the cheaper thing rather than spending more for the better thing.

I own ~80 DVDs and not a single one has a manditory ad on them, but I vote with my money (and good taste) and buy small indy stuff for the most part. Chances are I paid more on average per DVD than the latest $ACTION_HERO with $CUTE_GIRL_WHO_SHOWS_HER_BREASTS action movie. But I don't go and download bigger stuff and claim that the fact that they do something I don't like justifies it.

I can make a product and sell it to you with a contract that says you have to wear a pink kimono and hop on one foot while you use it. You can agree to my terms

Re:The difference between copying and theft

[laughingcoyote]

And that while sales were up, they were still well under that of every year since at least 1994.

Because, again, they are selling a lousy product (CD's which might contain one or two "radio songs" and the rest filler, and 45 minutes worth of music on a CD which we well know can hold about 80), at an inflated price.

Jobs that will be destroyed without copyright protection. Pretty simple.

Unfortunately, jobs are lost and gained every day. And going to a new distribution and marketing business model will simply shift the jobs, not destroy them. We don't government-mandate that anyone else has a right to profit competition-free off of their product to "save jobs".

And movies haven't even begun to be hit with big problems from downloading - bandwidth is still way too limited for most people.

So what are they yowling so loud about?

So, um, where in my post did I call anything "theft"?

"Gandhi didn't take British salt, he made his own." You equate an act of theft (stealing salt) with an act of copying (online sharing of music/movies). You do that again in your current post with the comparison of chop shops (theft) to copying.

Would you agree to work for your boss for a year and at the end of a year he or she would evaluate your work and decide if they felt it was worth paying for?

While I will grant you that most employees do not work this way, most businesses do. If I own a business, customers will come into my store, look at my stuff, and decide if it's worth buying. If they purchase it and find out it looked good but was really a turd, they'll request their money back. If my products, service, or presentation are poor, they won't buy. However, in this case, they'll have competitors they can buy from.

I've got a better idea - get away from the entire *AA groups and seek out independent artists who will gladly let you download their products to evaluate them.

Great idea, I fully agree and already do. However, not everything I like is on an indie label.

The RIAA is so far from having a monopoly at this point that it's laugable. If you really want a starting point, I'll give you a list of independent musicians who are well worth supporting.

Send the list to my email if you like, always glad for a good indie band recommendation. (This is not intended to be sarcastic at all, if you know some good ones please let me know.) However, your next point clearly states that the smaller labels -can't- deal with what is -for now- the dominant distribution medium (the stores). This, in theory or practice, gives the *AA's a virtual monopoly-no one else has near the major labels' resources or connections, and massively successful acts are almost always major label.

This applies even more to movies, indie filmmakers without major studio backing have vanishing to no chances of ending up in a theater or being marketed so that more than a handful hear about them.

The good news is that this internet thing has changed all that, so consumers can now buy music directly from the small artists.

Amen.

The reason that the RIAA has a grip on stores is the same reason that you'd have a very hard time selling a BBQ sauce that you manufacture directly to grocery stores - it's simply not feasible for retailers to deal directly with the tens of thousands of small manufacturers, hence the necessary evil of distributors.

Not so, most retailers -choose- to deal through a distributor so that they have to hire less people to oversee purchasing. I don't have much sympathy for that.

Movies are tricky because even an inexpensive indy film costs more than most people will earn in a decade to make. Have you worked making a movie? Do you actually know what the costs are when you say how much they *should* cost? And those inexpensive movies are the ones that are most likely to die in the creation process, leaving the investors with nothi

Re:The difference between copying and theft

[jschottm]

Because, again, they are selling a lousy product (CD's which might contain one or two "radio songs" and the rest filler, and 45 minutes worth of music on a CD which we well know can hold about 80), at an inflated price.

You don't think the rapid decline in CD sales since 1999 has *anything* to do with mp3s? I live in a college town, and I've witnessed both CD stores shrink, despite the fact that both of them carry high quality, off the beaten path CDs, and know for a fact that most of the students have gigabyte after gigabyte of mp3s. (In case you're wondering, I work full time for the networking department at a major college and full time in the music industry as well.)

Which way do you want it? Most bands can't write 80 minutes of great music in one year. To be honest, there are some bands that just write some fluff songs, but very few of the big-but-not-huge bands set out to write _bad_ songs to record. What turns out to be a hit or popular can be a surprise to the band and the label.

Again, what I listen to is off the beaten path, but my current favourite recent CD is Flogging Molly's Within a Mile of Home, which I suspect is released by an RIAA member. There's a couple songs on it that I'm not wild about, but I wouldn't call it filler, just personal taste. And I find it cool that an album that prominantly features the accordian is getting promoted in places like Target and Walmart.

If you only want one or two songs, are you willing to pay more for them than you would per track for a full CD? Economy of scale comes in on recording too. It's more expensive (per track) to record one song than five than ten. Are you willing to take that into account?

Would you rather a band put together a really good 45 minute CD or put out an 80 minute CD with 35 minutes of filler? Just because there's space doesn't mean it *has* to be used. The Flogging Molly seems just about right at ~54 minutes - there's only so much punk-irish that I want in a given stretch. And increasingly, bands *are* using that extra space to throw in multimedia extras and the like.

And going to a new distribution and marketing business model will simply shift the jobs, not destroy them.

Please demonstrate why you think that the masses will shift to a new business model rather than continuing to use "free" methods that exist now.

"Gandhi didn't take British salt, he made his own." You equate an act of theft (stealing salt) with an act of copying (online sharing of music/movies). You do that again in your current post with the comparison of chop shops (theft) to copying.

Some of the people that do the copying at least admit that they're simply greedy. Others attempt to claim that they're part of some noble struggle. If Ghandi had used violent means within the system, he'd simply have been crushed and forgotten. He *won* by going outside the system without hurting anyone, and that's what he's remembered for. No matter how you choose to dress is up, illegal copying hurts artists. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if a man is broke because someone refused to pay for physical services rendered (we'll say mowing the lawn with the homeowner's own equipment to make it simple) than if someone refused to pay for intellectual services rendered - the growling in their stomach doesn't care.

While I will grant you that most employees do not work this way

You didn't actually answer my question, so I'll take that as a no.

If I own a business, customers will come into my store, look at my stuff, and decide if it's worth buying. If they purchase it and find out it looked good but was really a turd, they'll request their money back.

In some cases. Some businesses will not accept returns that have been used, some will only exchange them for identical items in the case of defect. If I buy a bathing suit and decide after wearing it that red just really isn't my colour, most stores shouldn't take it back, nor wo

Re:The difference between copying and theft

[squiggleslash]

I'll admit, I only read the first few paragraphs of that long-winded clap-trap of corporate apology

That would probably explain why you failed to understand it ("long-winded clap-trap of corporate apology" and why you didn't answer any of the points he raised in any reasonable way.

Re:The difference between copying and theft

[squiggleslash]

Isn't that what getting fired is? The company deciding your work isn't worth the money you get?

No. When you get fired, they're obliged to pay you for the work you've already done.

If the topic up for discussion was watching a Tom Cruise movie at the theater, hating it, and deciding you're never going to Tom Cruise movie again, your comment would kind of been relevent. But in this case the topic up for discussion is watching the Tom Cruise movie without paying for it.

Re:The difference between copying and theft

[laughingcoyote]

Length isn't an issue, I've certainly pulled a few long ones myself. Not that you've probably noticed in this particular discussion or anything.

Anyway, as to the response...

You don't think the rapid decline in CD sales since 1999 has *anything* to do with mp3s?

Actually, no. In an earlier post, you had mentioned a decline since 1994, when mp3's weren't even around. (If this is not technically correct, they at least weren't around to any significant extent.)

I live in a college town, and I've witnessed both CD stores shrink, despite the fact that both of them carry high quality, off the beaten path CDs,

I saw that happen to a couple of excellent stores here as well, that tended to carry more offbeat stuff. Well before anyone knew what "mp3" meant, probably about 10-12 years ago. That's part of the risk of running a store like that-it might be a massive success, or it might just be a failure. Unfortunately, mainstream sells.

(In case you're wondering, I work full time for the networking department at a major college and full time in the music industry as well.)

And you have the time to post on /.? Impressive. (Had to throw that in there.)

Which way do you want it? Most bands can't write 80 minutes of great music in one year.

What is the arbitrary selection of a year? So wait until they write that much and then release the CD.

It's more expensive (per track) to record one song than five than ten.

Actually, distribution over the net can be done at effectively zero marginal cost. People are already doing it on a mass scale using their spare bandwidth, what makes you think they'd be unwilling to continue? And even if it's being downloaded from an "official" website, it takes proportionally less bandwidth to send one track then 10 or 15.

As for costing more money to -record-, presumably the same number of tracks per "album" would be being recorded, but rather than being required to buy the whole album, people could pick and choose the tracks they wish. This would be an excellent incentive not to distribute "filler", as it would just never get sold.

As to the thing of downloading individual tracks from "official" sites, I'm not paying a buck a song (effectively the same for an album as buying it in the store) for a far less-expensive distribution medium (sending over net, no physical media such as the CD, album cover, art, case, etc.) to pay for manufacturing, transport, middleman distributor, etc. costs on. Reduce it to 20-30 cents a track, see that half that (minimum) goes to the artist, and we'll talk.

Please demonstrate why you think that the masses will shift to a new business model rather than continuing to use "free" methods that exist now.

If we move to a collective license/automatic builtin royalty tax model, it'll happen automatically and few people will even notice. (How many people even KNOW that that's built in to the cost of a VCR or cassette deck?) It could be put in as a tax on CD/DVD burners just as easily, and solve the problem just as neatly as it has on those past issues.

I sure don't see "the masses" moving away from the current free methods voluntarily, so if they want it to happen, they can either embrace the collective license or similar, or just continue to deny reality and pretend they can change it.

Some of the people that do the copying at least admit that they're simply greedy. Others attempt to claim that they're part of some noble struggle.

Anyone who claims that P2Pers are even in the same -league- as the courage of Gandhi is on the good drugs, who the hell said that? I do, however, see it as something necessary and inevitable.

If Ghandi had used violent means within the system, he'd simply have been crushed and forgotten.

Please explain to me how the copying of information constitutes violence:

Violence: Physical force exerted for the pu

Re:The difference between copying and theft

[jschottm]

And you have the time to post on /.? Impressive.

Slow season, if you really want to know. I do college oriented stuff for the most part and the kids have all gone home and ski season hasn't started up yet. Live sound also has a lot of "hurry up and wait" stuff - you have to load in at X hour but can't soundcheck until Y and the show's at Z, leaving lots of dead time. Better venues now offer wireless or an ethernet drop.

Combine that with the girlfriend being out of town, and I spend a whole lot more time on /. ;)

What is the arbitrary selection of a year?

Publish or perish. If you don't put out new stuff, people tend to forget you.

Reduce it to 20-30 cents a track, see that half that (minimum) goes to the artist

You do realize that given a 10 song average, you're proposing to pay the artists less than the labels you claim are so evil pay per CD, don't you?

This would be an excellent incentive not to distribute "filler", as it would just never get sold.

Again, bands generally don't set out to create filler. Some songs are better than others, sometimes the magic happens and sometimes it doesn't.

Getting great drum sounds is one of the things that sucks up massive amounts of studio time. Let's say getting the perfect general sound takes 8 hours of work - that can generally be used for all of the songs on an album. So if you do two songs, you need each to recoup four hours' worth of time. If you do twelve songs, it's only 30 minutes.

The "Everything must be a single!!!1!!" philosophy actually works against deeper artists as well. I have tons of music (that I bought because I liked the artist) that I didn't like at first, but further listens opened up the listener to the meaning. Sometimes that's taken months of listening. Pushing for the uber-single will just mean more Britneys and Backstreet Boys, not less.

If we move to a collective license/automatic builtin royalty tax model

Please list the national-level politicians who sucessfully push for higher taxes. Further, the only thing left to tax is bandwidth - physical media is largely obsolete. You'll get plenty of people such as my father who have no inclination to subsidize other people's taste in media. Most people will accept taxes subsidizing actual *needs* - police, health care, roads. Things such as music should be left to individuals to select an appropriate commercial enterprise that's appropriate for their level of use.

Creating one giant pool of money that's the same size despite usage (as compared to one that scales depending on use) only begs for problems. The moment you create some big pool, some scammer can bang out some noise, publish it as music, and then write a trojan that causes people's computers to "listen" to it.

I sure don't see "the masses" moving away from the current free methods voluntarily

The legal challenges have droped P2P use, and there's more and more legislation coming down the pipe. This is a *bad* thing, but it's what the consumers have brought upon themselves. In general, I favour less laws but more draconian enforcement of those that do exist.

me: Except that all of those plans always fail to work out reasonable ways to insure the artists get paid that don't either actually decrease indy artist's chances of getting paid

you: Actually, the builtin royalty model on cassette decks and VCR's worked just fine, so can you explain why it -wouldn't- work on CD burners?

It worked for the big corporations. The indys didn't do very well from it.

The reason it doesn't work well for indies is that if you do EFF proposed "Neilson ratings" to divy up income, you have a large chance of missing the smaller artists. Let's say you track 1 out of every thousand listeners for your income breakdown. Let's say 50 of those users are listen to Britney -

Re:The difference between copying and theft

[laughingcoyote]

Well, I could go on, but I don't think that either I am going to convince you or you are going to convince me. I will agree that there are those few users who use P2P to get everything free to the exclusion of ever buying anything. (These are probably the same people who previously were always borrowing tapes and the like from friends to make copies anyway.) There's always a mooch or two around, and no law that I know of will -ever- change that. However, the majority of P2P users I know use it more like I described, and do support the artists they like.

I've paid for several songs off of Magnatune, for example, despite the fact that they offer the entire thing absolutely free and payment is totally voluntary. (You can even pick how -much- you want to pay.) I'm willing to financially support artists I like, but I'm not willing to have a gun held to my head as to what I may and may not share.

In any case, though, thank you for keeping the tone of the debate reasonable and bringing up several interesting points in the process. I hope that you realize that not -everyone- who uses P2P, Bittorrent, is out to screw the artists and get everything for free. I don't think there's anyone who seriously argues that -that- model could work. What I do argue is that the current model could use some changes, and for better or for worse, filesharing is showing some pretty widespread dissatisfaction. I certainly hope that a solution can be found that would be equitable both to the consumers and to the artists. If the middlemen can be reduced or eliminated...well, so much the better. Generally, the middleman is the true leech.

Re:Actually, yeah...DO lay off the crack, pal...

[themusicgod1]

I was going to reply to other parts of your post but I'm going to instead chose this: " People who have created those works were able to because THAT IS THEIR LIFE. We have to work, and most people are fucking incredibly untalented. "
"We", and by that i mean you, may have to work, but musicians have lives too. Many of them put up with bullshit (sometimes minnimum wage) jobs hoping their music will catch, or if not hoping just confiding to their art how shitty their lives are.
I find that people who cannot tell the difference between say, descent music and nondescent music tend to be poor musicians, and they would be just as happy listening to noname bands and artists than they would listening to whatever's currently in style. On the other hand, people who Can tell the difference have at least the potential to be that good...and if you are not content with your current music that you've come up with in your quest to not listen to the mass media, then that's a GOOD SIGN and that mabye, somewhere else, if you can satisfy yourself, you may even be able to make a living from the music. By this I also think I've proven that you have no musical talent, and only happen to listen to pink floyd from pure luck.

There's a lot of music waiting to be written, pink floyd does not have a monopoly of great music, and if you're lucky, and talented, you just might be able to pull it off. And if not, there's a shortage of backup bass guitar players right now(at least here), and other strange things here and there in the music industry (people willing to help with tours, distrobution, you name it). That being said I've been kind of removed from music as a whole for awhile, mabye things have changed. but boy oh boy could I ever use a tour crew that would work for free(as in beer!) and a cheaper place to practice...Oh yea. there you go. don't want to listen to mass media artists? Open your living room for random musicians and serve them beer. OK not for everyone and I think I've lost track of where I'm going with this. But yes, after a few beers and a mosh pit nearby even mediocre punk can be pink floyd worthy. Yes back to studying

What will happen to registered users of sites?

[monkeyfarm]

So let's say a site like lokitorrent requires a user to have an account so that your IP can be recognized by the tracker.

Let's say Lokitorrent gets hit by a lawsuit.

Will the fuzz be able to go after the people that are registered as well?

And the big question, is pr0n copyrighted? 'Cause if it is, then say goodbye to www.empornium.com

Re:What will happen to registered users of sites?

[/dev/trash]

Of course porn is copyrighted, do you think the actors and camera guys all work for free?

Re:What will happen to registered users of sites?

[andrewweb]

I would !! In fact, I would pay them....

Correction

[RLiegh]

People who cannot tell the difference between decent and "non-decent" (indecent?) music are the ones happily listening to what's currently in style.

But, at least we can agree that most (maybe not all, but most) indie bands need "a few bands" to become vaguely listenable. :)

Re:Correction

[themusicgod1]

"People who cannot tell the difference between decent and "non-decent" (indecent?) music are the ones happily listening to what's currently in style." agreed(ugh) but I'm pretty sure they could be turned over to more independant free-r music if there was an easy way to 'consume' music for cheap, and find out all bands all your friends like(*shudder* msn blogging).

s/"a few bands"/"a few beers"/g

[RLiegh]

now if you'll excuse me, my crass cd is beckoning me...

Obviously

[themusicgod1]

Parent has never been removed from a public library, nor has parent ever witnessed the PATRIOT act's implications as pretaining to public libraries.

Re:Obviously

[gcaseye6677]

Neither have you, what's your point?

Re:Obviously

[Aggrazel]

If they want to use the Patriot act to find out that i've been reading PHP manuals, Terry Pratchett and watching Farscape ... so be it.

Re:Obviously

[julesh]

You subversive, you. You're obviously planning to write a web site that will encourage the use of magic to send people to the other side of the galaxy where they'll have interesting adventures with hot alien chicks.

THIS MUST BE STOPPED. NOW.

We have your IP address. Step away from the computer and wait for the thought police to arrive.

hotmailnova

[MiniMaul]

How 'bout just emailing a shitload of tracking files to an open Hotmail account. Let the dickheads go after Bill. muthafukas

Re:ATTENTION - Hate About Suprnova

[kayen_telva]

clean ? wtf ? it has tons of movies and games ! suprnova.com is a ripoff that tries to charge you for access.

Re:Ok, Michael

[Snaller]

Easy enough we pass a law that only says a movie can only make back what it cost to make it plus a fair salery to all involved and the rest must be donated to charities. Instead of this imoral greed.

heh...

[interactive_civilian]

gordgekko said:

I don't know a single person who ever thought that show was funny or entertaining.

Heh...And right now I am imagining you covered in green slime. ;)

bit torrent, maybe a phase

[systemm]

I remember napster, then it was limewire, winmx, kazaa,ares, etc. now it's bit torrent. bit torrent is something that is ingenious, and a very good idea. But think about if they take bit torrent down? we received the taste of "free information" when napster arrived, and it's like an addiction for some. This is the demand. Not the simple buying of products, but the free trade of information. If bit torrent get's taken down, then someone else will create another way around current laws, and continue to share. Supply and demand. As long as we have the knowledge that we can receive free information, we will have the pursuit to get that information.

sleeping with government

[kardar]

I suppose (or maybe wonder is a better word) with some of the "Hong Kong movies", now that HK is no longer with England, to what extent do the people who make the movies there "tune in" to what is acceptable and what is not -- what morals are being put forth, are there tighter limits on the types of issues that can be addressed in the creative realm than there were before - are the producers, writers, etc... more paranoid of having the government give them a hard time? I am not an expert in this, perhaps it's just a cultural thing - but there is probably some kind of attention paid to these things in a policital environment such as Hong Kong. Really, not that HK movies are bad, I like them very much - "Breaking News" was one I saw that was cool, and that was very recent. It's just in terms of creative freedom that I pose this question, and any limitations real or perceived, of that creative freedom.

But here in the states, where we normally shouldn't be as concerned about what our government may or may not think about what concepts or ideas we are using our freedoms to express - provided it's not for TV - it strikes me as odd that the entertainment / multimedia arts community would be attempting to forge stronger bonds with the government, bonds that are strange - bonds that appear to be advanced in part by lobbying money, in part by a shameless appeal to the merits of harsh punishment that would cross the interests of tens of millions of Americans. In any case, point being that if the *AA's don't think the government is going to "want something in return" for this request for VIP status from the *AAs, they are smoking something that is messing with their ability to think clearly.

Isn't it better for the movie industry to present a counterpoint to the "goody goody two shoes" mentality? Isn't there something "cool" about a good movie? Not to be completely rebellious, but to just kind of stand out there on its own, make its voice heard, and exhibit a "coolness" that would be inappropriate and out of place in a government agency.

It's just something that has never made sense to me. One decade, fighting to not get warning labels on CD's, another, trying to earn massive brownie points by shamelessly appealing to government regulation in the worst way. Showing a wanton willingness to sacrifice any and all artistic or creative freedom in exchange for strict, broad, governmental control over any and all creative multimedia, with massive profits acting as a light at the end of a tunnel of inaccurate information and a lack of understanding of the "end-users" of the movie industry's artistic efforts. Who ARE these people? Human beings are multi-faceted creatures; there is more to human existence - and this is what the multimedia arts ought to address.

When the *AA's get closely involved with government, the profits of maintaining a stranglehold on an ineffective and antiquated distribution model become more important than the expression of ideas and concepts, and the artistic creativity of the people making the films.

This is not good - going to a movie becomes more like flying on an airplane - checking for camcorders, people with night vision goggles spying on you, being forced to watch "educational" materials.

Of course, they can argue that their morals are correct, that file sharing does have some negative consequences, or "piracy", as they put it (and piracy does have negative consequences, it's just that filesharing is not exactly piracy) - but in any case, I can understand the point of view that if everyone fileshares for free there may be problems from that... but here's my point...

You have all this freedom of expression in America. You have this big Hollywood industry. Isn't it a waste of the artistic and creative freedoms that we all enjoy here in the US to go hop in bed with the government? Isn't it almost like a self-inflicted censorship? Can Hollywood simultaneously expect to retain its creative freedoms while trying to forge a tighter, closer, more intima

Re:Actually, yeah...DO lay off the crack, pal...

[grouchyDude]

Once upon a time, people felt that empathy, emotion and content mattered. Now it's all production values and special effects! Most people are programmed from an early point to ignore or scorn what have historically been the most important non-essential things in life in order to consume more and spend more. Who really wins from this? I hate to sound so cynical, but the concentration of power and resources in a small number of hands (relatively) has some really bad consequences and that trend is not getting better.

Popcorn in the Theaters

[Firethorn]

While the microwave popcorn may be hotter, the taste of movie popcorn is quite different from even the "movie theater" microwave popcorn. Enough popcorn is used in American theaters that it's rare for the popcorn to be more than even a half hour old. They do, after all, pop it right there. And I've found microwave popcorn to be quite nasty once it's cooled a bit.

Re:Popcorn in the Theaters

[rcharbon]

What with canola oil for popping and "topping" instead of butter, I've quit eating theater popcorn. And I used to get the "humungous" size and eat it all by myself.

Re:Popcorn in the Theaters

[Firethorn]

Hehehe...
My area ended up switching back, if they ever switched at all (I spent some time overseas)...

Re:Actually, yeah...DO lay off the crack, pal...

[RLiegh]

Once upon a time, people felt that empathy, emotion and content mattered. Now it's all production values and special effects! Most people are programmed from an early point to ignore or scorn what have historically been the most important non-essential things in life in order to consume more and spend more. Who really wins from this? I hate to sound so cynical, but the concentration of power and resources in a small number of hands (relatively) has some really bad consequences and that trend is not getting better.
something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the topic or a coherent point!

That Doesn't Justify Stealing

[geoffrobinson]

I don't like advertisements either, but that does not justify stealing.

Re:That Doesn't Justify Stealing

[DaCool42]

You mean copyright infringement. I hate to flog a dead horse, but people still don't seem to realize that it isn't the same thing as stealing (not saying that its OK though).

Re:You don't understand Slashdot

[typhoonius]

I think we all agree that "w00, free movies!" is not the point.

Hell, I don't know anymore. The slashthink has gone from the rather reasonable "protect fair use, expire copyrights in realistic amounts of time" to the specious "all new music and movies suck, which is why it's okay for me to pirate them." Editors like michael don't help, I wouldn't think.

Truth is, the media conglomerates sucking doesn't excuse what is breaking the law (as it stands). If you don't like the law, then work to change it. Write your congressman, boycott the *AA to weaken their hold, whatever. I mean, breaking down these gigantic monopolies sounds impossible to me too, but let's be honest, most people don't even care. The overwhelming majority of BitTorrent trackers and P2P networks trade in unlicensed, copyrighted works, and the people downloading them--and there are a lot--aren't doing it as some sort of civil protest. They just want free stuff.

I think a lot of people come up with all these reasons why the big companies are evil to soothe their consciences. What was the consensus when the RIAA went after the networks? The RIAA is evil, they should be going after the uploaders. What was the consensus when the RIAA went after the uploaders? The RIAA is evil, they should adapt their aging business model or die. Downloading music and movies is so easy it doesn't even feel wrong, and this is where the *AA is ultimately fucked.

Admittedly, I download a heckuvalot of stuff I don't buy, so I'm not trying to get self-righteous on everyone. I just think that a lot of us need to re-evaluate our focus on the intellectual property issue because zingers like this...

Apropos of nothing, I saw a movie in the theaters a few days ago. At the official start time, the lights dimmed. Then there were 14 minutes of commercials (Pepsi, hair mousse, cologne, etc.) followed by 13 minutes of movie trailers (which are also advertising), followed by a few minutes of junk, followed by a 100-minute movie. I can't imagine why people would want to download movies when they have that great theater experience to compare against.

...miss the point by a long shot.

Not quite that simple...

[godivx]

Hollywood is, in essence, a huge artificially inflated market; quite possibly, the biggest scam in the free world. Ironically, some of the world's most celebrated leftists are worshipped in an industry that resembles a third-world country. In Hollywood, we can always witness a handful of rich elites juxtaposed with masses of impoverished starving artists and a rather nominally sized middle class who do whatever they have to do to remain in good standing with the elites.

Strange situation, when you consider how these guys are so famous for "caring" about the less fortunate, and so infamous for demeaning the "greed" of OTHER industries.

But just consider this: How irreplacable are the extras in those fast food commercials? How about the boom operators or the production assistants on those movie sets? Have you ever witnessed a Hollywood set in action? Can you believe the number of people who are, half the time, doing essentially nothing?

And no, it's not necessarily because the work they do requires the most unique skills.

If the culture of Hollywood weren't so fundamentally wasteful and profuse, more movies would get made, more people would get hired, and consumers overall would have more venues to enjoy a more robust selection of movies. Hell, just take a silly union like SAG out of the picture, and we'd see a difference overnight.

The central problem here, from Hollywood's point of view, is that the instantaneous "what you want, when you want" free market environment of the Web is intrinsically antagonistic to their culture. After all how many Hollywood productions would survive in a free market environment like the Internet? Far fewer than what we see today. I can guarantee that.

Hollywood isn't interested in free markets or anything similar. They want to continue producing as little as possible for as much money as possible. And the nature of the Internet threatens them at the most fundamental level.

If they have to sell the public and/or the governments a bill of goods like "Piracy is harming artists at all levels" or whatever, they will do so. If they have to sue everybody and their mother throughout the world, they'll do that, too. They'll do anything OTHER THAN adjust to the new environment.

Which is another way of saying that Hollywood's days could be numbered. Hollywood could easily become a shell of itself in a few generations if they don't wake up.

Which would suit me just fine. =)

Re:Not quite that simple...

[roman_mir]

If the culture of Hollywood weren't so fundamentally wasteful and profuse, more movies would get made, more people would get hired, and consumers overall would have more venues to enjoy a more robust selection of movies. Hell, just take a silly union like SAG out of the picture, and we'd see a difference overnight. - sure, like what is happenning in the software business, right? Oh, my, Hollywood is so ineficient in comparison with other industries, isn't it? Or is it? There is nothing inheritely more ineficient about movie making business than about any other business, have you ever participated in a bank software project? Do you know how ineficient these get? Sure, the money are different, but so are the results. And if you always demanded high efficiency, say 90% efficiency, what kind of people would you have to hire to get that? No people will work like that. Robots can, but they don't exist. Dream on.

Re:Not quite that simple...

[Concerned Onlooker]

Ironically, some of the world's most celebrated leftists...

You mean like Arnold Schwarzenegger?

If the culture of Hollywood weren't so fundamentally wasteful and profuse...

You mean like Halliburton?

After all how many Hollywood productions would survive in a free market environment like the Internet?

You're not a very good radcon, are you? Hollywood is surviving in a free market already. And I'm surprised that a radcon such as yourself would condone property theft. I suppose it's OK when it's theft of something you don't like.

Hollywood isn't interested in free markets or anything similar.

No corporation is.

Re:Use Earthstation 5 . anonymous filesharing !

[Insipid Trunculance]

Thank you indeed for letting us know of such a fabulous website.Shutting down this site should be next to impossible.MPAA would first have to establish an independent state of palestine.

Thanx once again.Yipeee!!!!!

I just paid $1800 for a 15 sec movie ad

[jfoust2]

And I think it's worth it. It'll run for six months at the local multiplex. It will be shown something like 8,000 times before something like 100,000 visitors. You can view it at http://www.gojefferson.com/goJefferson.wmv .
I don't know if the theater gets a cut, frankly. Wouldn't surprise me if they did. I'm sure the salesperson does. The ad-selling company http://www.uniquescreenmedia.com/about.html provides and maintains the projectors for the theater. Apart from the ad itself, they give me the services of a graphic designer (working in After Effects) and their voice-over talent. I wrote the script, the designer did it in an afternoon.
I don't think it's expensive. It'll hit my target audience: families with teens with spyware-infected PCs who want someone local to fix it for them. They'll pay ~$100 for me to do so.
There must be a business opportunity here for Internet-fed solutions. If ads were fed via the net, ads could be targeted and sold much more flexibly than this six-month DVD method. You could put a Wifi access points and ad kiosks in each theater, too.

Re:Ok, Michael

[the_mad_poster]

Note how well the moderation system works, as well. Even though it was knocked to -1, Troll, it got a few +2 posts attached directly to it and ultimately it wound up with 27 posts nested underneath it, not including this one.

Given this incredible failure, I'd say Michael's imbecilic, semi-coherent editorials on the pros of organized Socialism are a good reflection of how well slashdot works in general....

You may be the greatest guy on the planet

[slappyjack]

...but a nice juicy FUCK YOU for buying an ad to place in front of a movie I just paid damn near $20 to see with a woman I will be hopefully having sex with later that evening.

See, thats was the point of the movies back in the day. I wanted to see a story without having to be interrupted at any point of the evening to be told how to releive my inflamed ass or how buying a new car will get me hand jobs from hot women.

I fucking hate going to movie theatres now.

and I was gonna moderate in this thread, too...
shit.

Re:You may be the greatest guy on the planet

[jfoust2]

Gee, you're welcome, Slappy. I'm still trying to figure out how I'm going to see my own advert.
I, too, hate going to movies. First of all, I hate most movies because they suck. I miss the Filthy Critic. For he was wise. However, even he was addicted to movies in the same way I'm addicted to caffeine. I too resent the high cost of taking me and the kids to the theater, but that's partially because I'm frugal. I'd rather spend money and time on something worthwhile.
I can avoid movies that are utterly and consistently lame by not going to movie theaters. They'll all be on DVD in N months, where N is getting smaller all the time. Then I can get them for free at the library, or I can pay a very few bucks to rent them and watch them at home.
"National Treasure"? Nick sleepwalks through it. Plot holes a mile wide. Utter foolish fantasy, draped in reality, and not very exciting. Stereotypical characters and plots in the extreme. Made a zillion bucks. Go figure. If I'm so smart, how come I ain't rich? Or maybe I am.

Re:You may be the greatest guy on the planet

[slappyjack]

okay okay okay.

I'm the asshiole on this one. You caught me in a feisty and bad mood.

I still think ads at the movies suck ass, though.

More like:

[poofyhairguy82]

There are good movie theatres out there, you just have to be lucky enough to live near one.

Re:Ok, Michael

[Proc6]

So wait a miuute, you're saying the actors that are getting paid millions are extremely talented individuals? That they're "good" actors?

um...

Re:Suing the MPAA

[westlake]

I see new releases, A-list titles in wide-screen format, selling at my suburban corner drugstore for $25, boxed sets discounted to $40, Blade Runner, the director's cut, in the bargain bin, at $8. Tell me why I should care about Region X pricing.

Re:Ok, Michael

[hunterx11]

The value I derive from seeing movies is trivial compared to that I get from my education. Logically enough, going to the movies costs around $10. A college education can cost six-figures.

What teachers, doctors and sundry others do is worth far more per person than what actors do. But actors reach far more people. Am I willing to say Tom Hanks is worth a few bucks? Sure, and probably about that much of my money has actually gone to him.

Re:Ok, Michael

[roman_mir]

If they are good enough for the purpose of selling hundreds of dollars worth of movies with their name in it, then yes.

Were there any other reasons?

Re:Ok, Michael

[roman_mir]

Instead of this imoral greed. HAAAA :)))) you made my day! Mode the parent as extra FUNNY.

Since when did greed become immoral? Greed is the basic necessity of life, crucial to survival. Just because it is blown out of proportion does not make greed any less important for survival. Sure, some altruism is also important for survival of the species, but greed of a single individual is always more important (from my point of view, anyway) to the survival of this individual than altruism.

I welcome our greedy overlords.

Re:Ok, Michael

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

>you're saying the actors that are getting paid millions are extremely talented individuals? That they're "good" actors?

Whether or not they're "talented" or "good" is something that's completely subjective and will differ wildly from person to person. But when an actor consistently draws a huge crowd and proves to be a marquee attraction, then that's something you can't argue - no matter how good you think their acting is. There are sublimely talented actors and actresses out there who *nobody* will pay to see in a movie, and there are mediocre talents who can pack theatres night after night - and that makes them worth cold, hard cash to have in your movie. It pisses off the artistic purists, but it's a simple fact of life. It's no different than the asshole at the party with the perfectly dimpled chin or the heartless shrew in the office who has the most perfect blue eyes you've ever seen - physical attractiveness has nothing to do with talent, morality, or anything else on God's little green earth. We go to the movies to escape, and some people are better at helping us to do that than others... and those people are handsomely rewarded.

Re:Use Earthstation 5 . anonymous filesharing !

[Reziac]

Erm... Hollywood is roughly 30% Jewish, per the last stats I saw about who's what in the industry.

Re:Ok, Michael

[Snaller]

Since when did greed become immoral?

Always was.

Re:Ok, Michael

[roman_mir]

Just because you say so? I say greed is good. and it's fun.

Re:Use Earthstation 5 . anonymous filesharing !

[J. Random Luser]

Regardless of where they're based, they seem to have mirrors all over, but....
they're for the great unwashed masses: earthreactor.com is /.ed, the software seems windoze only, the helpfile is a separate 2MB .pdf
jeez, I'd rather go see a movie

Well, if the other industries...

[godivx]

are no better than Hollywood, then we're all paying the price of inefficiency, one way or another.

"say 90% efficiency...No people will work like that."

If the situation was as hopelessly stagnant as you suggest, we would never hear those constant cries against "outsourcing" or the "loss of jobs to immigrant workers". If all the people of the Earth were working on an equally inefficient level, no one would have to fear competition from "cheaper" or "more efficient" workers.

"say 90% efficiency...No people will work like that."

If they have good sense, they will, esp. if the market pushes them toward a more efficacious place.

I don't see many html developers in 2004 trying to get the same amount of money for the same work they did in 1996, simply because today's state of affairs demands more.

Hollywood is fighting tooth and nail to preserve their cushy artificially inflated position. And yes, I'm absolutely convinced that they are worse than many other industries; they're definitely worse than the geek world.

At least the software business isn't staking its future on the outcomes of lawsuits against actual and/or potential customers.

Re:Use Earthstation 5 . anonymous filesharing !

[zymano]

not a website. it's a program.

uses anonymouse filesharing.

Wrong....

[Belial6]

Just because that is HOW they make money, doesn't mean that it is the NECESSARY for profitablility. It's a poor argument with video games, it's a poor argument with cable, and and it's a poor argument with movies.

popups and banners

[klang]

from http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,66034,00 .html?tw=wn_tophead_2/
"These people are parasites leeching off the creativity of others," said Malcolm. "They generate ad revenues by way of pop-up ads (and) banner ads, and they solicit online donations."

so the advice to Tracker Operators is "Don't solicit donations!?"

I made my own

[guet]

and i didn't take anyone else's copy of any movies, i made my own

Oh, and that copy took so much effort, and now you feel you have the moral high ground? Whilst the comparison with salt can be stretched too far, someone claiming that copying a file is some form of civil disobedience shouldn't claim so unless they're willing to stand up for what they believe and go to jail for those beliefs.

Being an anonymous thief on P2P networks is not heroic. If there was a *real* world-wide clampdown on this kind of thing 90% of the users would drop it and stop copying, because it would actually involve the credible possibility of punishment.

If you don't like Hollywood, make your own films (not copies) or watch independent films. If you do like Hollywood films and choose to steal them, please don't try to convince people it's something other than opportunism. You're stealing because it's convenient, free, and there's little chance of being caught. When ISP networks are locked down and searched for this material and the distributors routinely punished, will you still be copying?

Re:I made my own

[Lehk228]

When ISP networks are locked down and searched for this material and the distributors routinely punished, will you still be copying?

Sure, secure connections for file transfers is already possible, though uncommon right now (sftp, scp) and will increase in popularity if the telecom industry is bline enough to allow such nonsense, the entertainment industry may be big, but so is the combined effort of all the local telco's and cable companies, trust me they don't want filesharing to go away, they want people to keep signing up to download music and movies.

Repeat after me: downloading ain't stealing

[max_paine]

When I returned home, i stole 3 movie off the internet... and I never download movies from the internet.

According to the marginal theory of value the value of a movie is determined by its usefulnes AND scarcity.

Now because digital information multiplication is practically free and limitless, scarcity approaches zero. This means that the REAL economical value (price) of a movie has to be very low.

What the industry is trying to do is to artificially introduce scarcity to be able to maintain its business model and high margins.

In other words, what their trying to do is price fixing.

So, when you download a movie, you just pay for it a little less than what is really worth. Yes, you are breaking the law, but you are breaking an injust law meant for the profit of a few. If it's law it doesn't mean it's right.

Someone will surely argue: "if we cannot sell digital entertainment, then we'll have no entertainment at all!" The truth is digital entertainment can still be sold but at much lower prices (and margins) and still make a decent profit. The people who will do that will be the real artists who will do it not for the obscene ammounts of cash of today but for their art and to make a living.

There is no real need for an entertainment industry. All we need are artists, and we'll always have that.

Incomplete

[ZarkDav]

Charisma/attractiveness is indeed one way for an actor to get success. And part of this feature is somewhat related to their talent (eg: many comedians with astonishing physique leave a very short-lived success story).

However, I believe that one of the most underrated way to success in your point is the social networking in Hollywood. Many movie people are in fact successful because they know or are related to someone powerful in the industry. This acquaintance provides them with leveraging power inside studios.

This power sometimes turns into playing a part in blockbusters. Blockbusters success is very weakly related with objective quality, but is marketing dollars more than anything else. Once they are popularised by these, movie people can enjoy a successful life that has nothing to do with the precarious position that is the life of a doctor or a teacher.

Staggered Release Dates

[barry_williams]

I think if the movie companies did not stagger release dates you wouldn't have anywhere near the problem that exists.

For example a new film Oceans 12 is released in the US, but here in the UK it isn't released until February!

I want to watch the film now. If it were released I would pay £10 for myself and partner to go along. However to fulfil my desire I am now forced with the only alternative of downloading the movie now via bittorrent and watching that instead, chances are I probably won't see it in the cinema, but if it's good I'll buy the DVD (probably a US Imported one too).

Same goes for DVD releases. If they released the DVD shortly after the cinema releases many people would just buy it instead of downloading it.

They want people to revisit the cinema to rack up their profits - Dream on... A trip to the cinema is an entire evening and if I'm going to spend that time at the cinema, I'd rather see another film!

Their profiteering is the "bittorrent problem". Cut waiting times and they'll see more profits through less piracy.

Whew, talk about weak...

[godivx]

"You mean like Arnold Schwarzenegger?"

No, actually, I had in mind people like Barbara Streisand, Ben Affleck, P Diddy, Janeane Garofalo, Al Franken...should I go on?

"You mean like Halliburton?"

Well, I don't know Halliburton as well as you seem to. (Although if I had to guess, you probably don't know much beyond the standard Democrat talking points) But having said that, I don't like inefficienct oligopolistic behavior of any kind. If Halliburton is guilty of the same thing I charge of Hollywood, I have no desire to defend them.

But of course, we were talking about Hollywood and P2P. It would have been rather off-topic for me to bring up Halliburton.

"You're not a very good radcon, are you?"

No, I'm not. In fact, I'm not one at all. Well, then again, maybe I am. That is, based on your rather loose definition. Is a "radcon" someone who points out any instance of leftist hypocrisy? If we're bound to that foolish definition, I guess you're right. You win.

I could provide an example of rightist hypocrisy, if that makes you feel better. I'll do that next time, okay?

But of course, then, you wouldn't have the opportunity to get all emotional and strident.

Furthermore, while I admit that I'm NOT a "good" OR a "bad" "radcon", I must say that you do appear to be an excellent radlib. Thoughtless, knee-jerk, emotionalistic - typical.

"Hollywood is surviving in a free market already"

No one said they weren't, oh brilliant one. I was discussing the basis of Hollywood's fears RE: P2P. I guess you missed that.

"And I'm surprised that a radcon such as yourself would condone property theft."

I guess it's asking far too much of you to consider the possibility that you have hastily misdiagnosed my politics. So please, go ahead and have your fun with vaccuous invented words and narrow political concepts.

"No corporation is."

A ridiculous statement, but I can't say that I expected much more.

Re:Whew, talk about weak...

[Concerned Onlooker]

I'm still not sure why you condone property theft. Perhaps if Hollywood was viewed as a haven for righties you might feel differently. Otherwise, fairly typical radcon response.

Re:Whew, talk about weak...

[Biomechanical]

I'm still not sure why you condone property theft. Perhaps if Hollywood was viewed as a haven for righties you might feel differently. Otherwise, fairly typical radcon response.

Completely without your permission, I just quoted you. Now you can never ever use those words again.

Think about it.

providing links does not constitute disclosure

[095]

Can I just remind you of an earlier slashdot story from my home town: Dutch Portal Cleared of Copyright Infringement.
Wanna buy some hosting?

you have it cheap !

[GreenEggsAndHam]

In the Netherlands it's 9 Euros for a movie ticket.

Re:you have it cheap !

[Coward de Anonymous]

In Toronto, Canada I went to go see ROTK at 3 different theatres - the same product, different "amenities" and the prices were different at every theatre - it's like McDonalds charging a different price for the same burger, in the same city - but one has a play-area, one has a birthday room and one has no amenities at all. Why should I pay for the play area or the birthday room when I am not going to use it? 2 adult tix @ movie theatre a) (amc), friday night: $15/each = 30.00 CDN +tax 2 adult tix @ movie theatre b) (cineplex odeon), friday night: $18/each = 36.00 CDN +tax 2 adult tix @ movie theatre c) (famous players), friday night: $18.50/each = 37.00 CDN +tax Compared to purchasing ROTK for $22.99 CDN +tax earlier this year. But you will counter by saying - then go to the cheapest theatre - well, I do....but whatever happened to price matching?

Re:Ok, Michael

[Andrew Cady]

If acting required that much talent, there would be no room for nepotism in hiring practices, yet Hollywood, mainstream music, and politics are filled with it. For comparison, there is absolutely no nepotism in sports, because there is such strict competition on talent that selection by any other means would mean sacrificing talent. In Hollywood there is an abundance of talent. Tom Cruise is expensive because he's popular, but hundreds of people could have taken his place and become just as popular. They didn't, so they're not expensive, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter. Fame is something of a natural monopoly, that's all.

Disney Home Videos

[Zen65]

Forgetting the digital domain for a second(!)

My mind was absolutely blown by a Disney video that my wife bought for my 4 year old son (101 Dalmatians - cartoon version).

The lead in was a short clip on the dangers of piracy and the poor transfer quality that you get. (Yes, that why I've bought it from you, Disney. Why are you telling me this anyway when, if this message appears I have clearly bought your product anyway? Do you think that pirates will copy this section too?)

This is followed by a promo for pretty much every current Disney release (Yes, I know that you exist and, thanks to your advertising omnipresence I not only know all of your films but can sing pretty much every theme tune!)

Then another warning about the evils of piracy. (I've *bought* the flipping tape already!)

The advertising is interrupted by the film...

Bringing up the rear is yet more advertising for Disney films. (*I know, I know, I KNOW*)

The pirates on the other hand have the audacity to only copy what we want to see. Oh, the irony...

Re:ATTENTION - Hate About Suprnova

[Sarastrobert]

Hmmmm, I have actually never got BitTorrent to work on my puter, maybe it is ZoneAlarm interfering. But I beleived that BT was a medium where you want a large user base. Would not a smaller community just mean a smaller number of seeds to DL from?

More users = More Powah != More lag ?

Respectfully, you sound like an automaton, dude...

[godivx]

Honestly, I was hoping for a more thoughtful response. Nevertheless, I'm more than happy to answer your question forthrightly and civilly.

"I'm still not sure why you condone property theft."

I don't "condone theft" per se. However, I do believe that businesses should adjust to new realities, mostly for pragmatic reasons. For example, the MPAA and RIAA have long-adjusted to the reality that consumers of entertainment will use blank audio- and video-cassettes to record music and movies without having to pay for them. Before that, the music industry had to absorb the impact of radio. Even before that, they had to adjust to the advent of the phonograph.

I am simply suggesting that the entertainment industry as we know it today will eventually be forced to adjust to the age of P2P. If they don't, they are only contributing to their own demise. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a Schwarzenegger DVD or a Streisand CD. I'm not as fixated on the politics as you appear to be. I'm just trying to be realistic. Do you seriously disagree with my position? If you do, what is your solution?

"Perhaps if Hollywood was viewed as a haven for righties you might feel differently"

Not at all, but I won't try to force the truth down your throat.

"Otherwise, fairly typical radcon response."

In all seriousness, how do you define "radcon", and what was so "radcon" about my earlier response? I'm genuinely curious.

This is so ironic...

[renjipanicker]

From the CNET article (at http://news.com.com/MPAA+targets+core+BitTorrent%2 C+eDonkey+users/2100-1025_3-5490804.html?tag=nefd. lede ) on the same topic:

"These people are parasites, leeching off the creative activity of others," said John Malcolm, the MPAA's director of worldwide antipiracy operations.

Nice irony, that.

Re:Use Earthstation 5 . anonymous spywaring!

[acariquara]

and anonymous remote file deleting...

Re:ATTENTION - Hate About Suprnova

[Pharmboy]

Lots of tracking sites dont allow the default ports to be used. You might try reading the faq for the site you are trying to bittorrent/track from. Often it is just a matter of changing the used ports to a range of 10 ports over 20k, for instance. Zone alarm will cue you to allow the program only once, then adjust if the ports change.

if you want a good bittorrent client, google for ABC, which is gpl, runs on linux or windows, and has more options than the others, such as throttling your download seperately when you are d/l and when you are not.

That said, I am waiting for game makers like ID to start using bittorrent for distribution of patches, which would make a lot more sense. You can even have it download patches beginning one week prior to change over, so everyone has it at the same time. Once you learn what little you need to know about BT, it is the best and fastest way to move bits. I bet even MS will end up supporting it with IE eventually. It makes that much sense.

Regarding lag, you really don't get lag from more users, since each client will only connect to $x number of peers anyway (configurable). The real problem you get with more peers is the TRACKER server which can get lagged if it is overloaded. Theoretically, the more users you have, the higher the potential to download faster, as long as the tracker server can keep up. Also, some trackers keep stats for sharing, which adds a little more bandwidth.

The number of seeds becomes less relevent when you have more users because BT downloads the files out of order, so if we start at the same time, we will get different parts along the way. I can have 60% of a file, and you can have 60% of a file, but as long as we both have DIFFERENT 60%s, then we can both finish the file if there were no seeds and you and I were the only peers. THAT is the beauty of BT.

Re:Use Earthstation 5 . anonymous filesharing !

[mischalla]

This just wrong on oh so many levels...

I have been removed from a public library

[themusicgod1]

actually it has happened quite abit more than I would have liked to have happen :/

Though I have not witnessed with my own eyes the effects of the PATRIOT act, yet, thank god. doesn't 'nor' then allow me correctness?

Independent films

[Anonymous Coward]

To me the solution seems simple: support your local independent film outlets. Here in Leeds (northern England) we've got the wonderful Hyde Park Picture House, which shows a huge array of independent and foreign films every month, and in an old-style cinema building no less.

We've also got the yearly Leeds International Film Festival, which brings some great films into the huge theatres that normally only show mass-market bollocks (I saw Ghost in the Shell 2 this year, and some very bizarre Japanese shock-cinema last year).

So screw the MPAA and go support the filmmakers who need the money.

Big problem...

[Kjella]

...they have to be indepenantly operated. Giving half the info one place, half the other is kinda like trying to claim you don't break copyright since you only give away the odd bytes, and your partner the even. Doesn't work.

So if everyone can add a tracker, there'll be trackers for *everything*. And while they might live a few copyright charges, I wouldn't be around when they get slammed with tracking kiddie porn movies or somesuch like that. Even though they "didn't know".

Kjella

Re:Big problem...

[Michael Spencer Jr.]

Nothing personal, just using you as an example:

Sorry Kjella, we're going to have to arrest you for assisting in the trafficking of *VeryBadThing*.

Someone took a phrase from your post ("somesuch like that even though they didn't know kjella" after stripping out formatting), passed it through a text-to-binary deobfuscator (which you OBVIOUSLY must have used...all the pirates have known about it since 2007, and you ARE a pirate, aren't you?), looked that code up on a well-known pirate web site (which you OBVIOUSLY...erm, yeah, insert lame intimidation attempt here), and used it to find a .torrent for *VeryBadThing*.

Shame on you.

OK, not really, but you get the idea. Your defense here is obvious: you had no possible way of knowing some random text could be used in this way. Maybe you received a DMCA notice asking you to remove those words from the end of your post, but you can't do that.

Only giving away the odd bytes is still transferring copyrighted material, so that's Direct Copyright Infringement. There are already laws which cover that.

Re:Actually, yeah...DO lay off the crack, pal...

[Threni]

>> and most people are fucking incredibly untalented.
>And this is based on what data?

Presumably watching tv, reading books, listening to music... We live in an age of mediocrity where practically nothing is done except to make as much money in as short a time as possible. Great if you're making money, but if you just want to watch a good film, listen to some great music, buy something which will last more than a couple of years then you're going to be very disappointed.

Unncessarily Abusive Post Follows

[the_mad_poster]

Wow. Congratulations. I don't think you could possibly have been any more wrong about so many different things in a single post if you'd have pulled that little marble-sized lump of hardened carbon out of your head and flushed it down the toilet before you began spilling your infinte lack of wisdom for the masses.

First of all, if "miss priss" fails half of her class of simpletons, not only will she answer to the principal, school board, and parents, if it continues to happen she will lose her job and, possibly, her teaching credentials. On top of that, "miss priss" is charged with educating people regardless of how dumb they are. That puts the burden of success squarely on her shoulders and, unlike big bad Mr. Matt Damon, she can't write her miserable failings at her job off on bad writers.

In addition, whereas "miss priss" cannot "coast" through her job, Halle Berry has been coasting for years. Sorry to point out the obvious to you, since you're clearly too much of an ignoramous to see it yourself, but Halle Berry is a pretty face, not a good actress.

Continuing on this romp of mindless ignorance you called a thought, we'll point out that a doctor's real job is to save your arrogant ass from death, not make you feel like you're warm and loved (unless they're a head doctor, but if I were you, I wouldn't worry about it because it's hard to hold cognitive therapy sessions with a person who clearly has no cognitive processes). In addition, the reason you had any bad teachers, I'm sure, is that you are a complete and utter moron and they simply got tired of trying to teach the kid who just couldn't figure out that he wasn't supposed to eat the glue.

If your post is any reflection on you as an individual, your competency, or your knowledge, you are a terrible person, you are a complete idiot, and you couldn't possibly know less if you actively tried to forget things. I have no doubt in my mind that you are a bible belt Bush voter, and, if nothing else, you certainly are stupid enough to fit right in with them. I think you should strongly consider suicide before you have the chance to procreate, as we really can't afford to have you dragging down the national averages for any future generation.

Re:Unncessarily Abusive Post Follows

[spasmatik]

Usually winning an academy award for acting means you have some pretty good acting skills.

Re:Unncessarily Abusive Post Follows

[kesuki]

As devils advocate, I would like to point out that any bad teachers or doctors he may have had may have simple been 'pushed' throught the system, by teachers who couldn't fail any more students and still maintain their own career. Doctor's have to earm licences to practice medicine, and those licenses can be revoked, but in general even an incompetant doctor can continue to find states in which to practice medicine. even after having three or four states revoke his or her medical license a doctor can still move and apply for a license in almost any state in the union, the exception being those who have laws on the books prohibiting such 'bad doctor recycling.'

way to go : satellite TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently compared (for research of course) bittorrent and hacked satellite TV. With bittorrent you wait hours in order to get a screener or at best a divx, and can be sued, with satellite TV if you watch a channel from another country than yours you are not really liable, have a much lower profile anyway (passively downloading less than 100k of hex codes), learn a lot about electronics, physics, encryption, UNIX, and so on, and get to see dozens of three month old movies in DVD quality without wait (except for the occasional key change).

To my knowledge

[damicatz]

To my knowledge the INDUCE (A proposed law that would make it illegal to give people the tools to commit copyright infringement) Act hasn't made it's way to being an actual law yet. And the BitTorrent trackers are not actually distributing the files. This is another attempt by clueless greedy corporations (MPAA, RIAA etc) to try to stop technology and it won't work. Just like suing to stop Kazaa didn't work.

Re:Ok, Michael

[miskatonic alumnus]

Anyone - *anyone* - can go to school, amass a certain amount of technical knowledge, and become a perfectly serviceable doctor or teacher or what have you.

It's amazing that such tripe gets modded up as "Insightful". So you are saying that the only thing different between Joe the Janitor and Ed the Engineer is the type of work they like to do? Unbelievable.

The fact is, some people are better at some things than others. At the extreme ends, a few are talented in many areas, and some have no talents at all.

Re:Ok, Michael

[eno2001]

The reasons you point out for being the "value" of what passes for an actor or actress in Hollywood today, is exactly what's wrong with both the music and movie field. They've both been completely converted to businesses and any art that was involved has been squeezed down to just a few drops. I wanted to get into music myself when I was younger. Not for the money, but for the love of playing. However, I learned quicky that you don't need talent, or original material, you need a nose for business. I'm not a business person. No true artist is. The other thing I've learned over time is that anywhere where there is business involved (ie. "profit motive") anything that has real intellectual, cultural or artistic value dies. It happened to music, film and television and now it's happening to the Internet.

The Internet was a thriving community in the late 80s and early 90s. People were high on the free exchange of information. Today, there is still some of that free exchange, but not without the encroaching stink of business. (Ads on /. anyone?) Much like Stallman came up with the concept of the GPL, there should be a cultural equivalent for those of us who don't want to bow down to business. The right formula (lest I be called a "commie hippy") is 80% culture and 20% business. Somewhere along the line a lot of people seem to have forgotten that business is a means, not an end.

Re:Ok, Michael

[egriebel]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the day 20 million people will spend their weeknight in front of the TV watching Polly Perky teach algebra, *then* I'll believe that Tom Cruise (or Barry Bonds) is overpaid.

Well, it all depends on just how "perky" Polly is, doesn't it? :-P

Re:Ok, Michael

[Snaller]

Decent people have always thought it was wrong.

Advertisements...

[orion41us]

From reading the posts I am beginning to think that I am the only one that actually enjoys the previews/ads before a movie - Can't really explain it..

waste

[Maglos]

The MPAA is only destroy it's self with these law suits. File sharers are like virus' if that take out the current generation, it'll only result in a resistant second generation, and basic freedoms are broken, it will be unstopable. I see programs similar to waste causeing the movie industry far more destress then is currently seen with bittorrent. The more trackers and people like me, are attacked the motivated they will be to make such a program.

typos

[Maglos]

perhaps a edit post function would be nice...

Re:ATTENTION - Hate About Suprnova

[Zorikin]

To be as clear as possible to anyone who has been confused when trying to type suprnova.org into a url bar:

1. suprnova.org - that's DOT OH ARR GEE. Not ".com", not ".net". It is ".org". DOT ORG. Like they say, .com and .net are scammers, and yes, they use dirty tricks like parent mentions.

2. suPRnova. There is no "e". Yes, we all realize that "supernova" is correctly spelled with an "e". The free bittorrent site is NOT spelled that way. It is spelled SUPRNOVA, with NO "E".

To the parent: an ad-scanning search engine would indeed be useful, but IMHO it would be simpler to use a browser that doesn't support the irritation technologies that the malware depends on.

Not the best way to communicate

[doublem]

You know, you could have just said "The intention was to state that the people behind www.es5.com are anti-semitic. No claims were being made about the racial attitudes of Hollywood."

Resorting to name calling, profanity and threats of violence only serves to discredit you and your statements. The person to whom you are writing will not perceive you as dangerous, nor will they consider your statements to be worthy of consideration. You will not get them to think or pay attention. Instead, you will be written off as a vulgar, unimaginative and potentially violent individual.

Conducting oneself with civility and maturity does a lot to convey your message.

Nielsen tracks response to commercials in Movies

[kris_lang]

Hey Michael,

I agree with your rant about the idiocy of paying to be at the movie theaters and being subjected to commercials and adverts while stuck there. Don't forget to complain to the manager of the movie theater. It may not do much, but registering your feedback may help to quell the invasion of advertisements into the world: loos, the floorspace at supermarkets, the little LCD screens at the petrol-station pumps. It's getting ridiculous.

And along that topic, a friend of mine has a brother who works for Nielsen-VNU (Soundscan, Nielsen TV ratings, Nielsen demographics, etc) as a statistician who had an interesting comment to make when I made my rant about those adverts at movie theaters: Nielsen actually sends people out to the movie theaters to gauge the response of the audience to these commercials. Yikes! I wish we could influence this madness, but the world (USA corporatocracy) wants to view us as only consumers, stuck in our little media trough at the movie theater being force-fed the adverts that their real customers (the advertisers) want us to see.

Just like the idiotic medical system that wants to call us customers or clients rather than as patients... but I digress... wait this is /. ... that is de rigeuer. ici, n'est-ce pas?

Re:Billboards are nothing

[IncohereD]

They never bother me. I never look at them except during traffic. Billboards are not so invasive, you can just not pay attention.

Exactly. My only problem is that I'm so good at ignoring ads that I miss posters announcing things I actually _want_ to know about.

Re:Ok, Michael

[roman_mir]

so who gives a flying fuck?

I am an atheist anyway.

Re:Ok, Michael

[roman_mir]

aaah :) wrong again, chunga, what the hell is decent?

Just because you say they are decent doesn't make them so.

I consider myself to be decent, and I think greed is gOOd, and so do a bunch of other decent people that I know.

trackers != web sites

[kgp]

Most of the web sites people mention here are (like suprnova.org -- in Slovenia ... good luck MPAA working through the courts there :-) are just web sites lisiting torrent files for download not actual bittorrent trackers.

MPAA will have an uphill battle with trying to close down these torrent file distributing web sites especially if they don't run BT trackers.

Some sites are both (in fact with something like Azureus it's easy to be a tracker for your own files ... I've even done it accidently) but he big ones are just web sites.

They might have an easier time with the small sites running trackers themselves especially when they are DynDNS names for home sites. Sending a cease and desist order to the ISP will knock these people off the net for awhile but won't give them the publicity they desire in the court cases.

The upshot will be modifications in they way the trackers and torrent file sites are run. There are more and more private BT sites out there (you'll need an invite to get in).

Trackers will move off shore. More trackers will go private. But sharing will still continue. MPAA is trying RIAA scare tactics (upping the odds a bit but its basically the same) to try to make sure the average joe doesn't start doing this.

They will also pressume ISPs (probably trying to argue contributory infringment) for not filtering their connections and chocking connections. Some ISPs already do this. It's all the more reason to not use the standard ports any more (nothings really tied to those port numbers ... use numbers from the private ports block above 49xxx). Some ISPs are looking for the BT handshake to throttle connections and the next BT protocol will probably evolve to make this handshake encrypted to avoid detection.

The bottom line is there is a new business model in BT (especially TV over BT). Some one might get smart enough to realize this in the next few years.

MPAA will also avoid going after TV sharing for a while. Arguing that this guy stole our valuable IP by downloading an episode of CSI:Miami won't go over bit with any juries.

now wait just one minute here

[subgeek]

halle berry is a lot more than just a pretty face. the rest of her is equally as easy to look at. that's at least as important as her pretty face.

Re:Ok, Michael

[Snaller]

I consider myself to be decent,

So did Hitler, but you are both wrong.

Re:Ok, Michael

[roman_mir]

I suppose you wanted to bring this conversation thread to an end, so you used the old trick, introduced Hitler into it. I've seen it so many times, that I now believe only indecent people use it against the decent ones.

Re:Ok, Michael

[Snaller]

Oh, I wanted it to end must assuredly, but I wasn't comparing you to Hitler - just picking a name I was fairly certain even an american had heard of.

Re:Ok, Michael

[roman_mir]

hahahaha, american, you, idiot! I was born in USSR, lived in Ukraine for 10.5 years, 6 years in Russia, 1 year in Israel, 2 years in Montreal and about 10 years in Toronto.

Shmack.

Re:Ok, Michael

[Snaller]

Well you sounded like one, and more than 90% of the readers here are american, so the odds favoured that.

I agree, I can't imagine why people would want to

[ToterSan]

d/l a movie at home when they can pay USD$10 per person plus concessions (US$25 per person) to watch 30+ minutes of commercials followed by 90 minutes of crappy film

Holllwood is nothing but money grubbing idiots!!! They push out an inferior product and expect you to pay ever higher prices for it & when you buy a copy (a DVD) you are not allowed to do certain things with it (make a backup copy for safekeeping, or watch it on your computer without an "approved" program. {How easy is it again to watch DVDs in Linux???) If California broke off & fell into the ocean I would f**cking CELEBRATE!!!!

Torrentbits may be gone, but more out there

[Net_fiend]

I'm pretty sad to see Torrentbits go, but there are many other sites out there to pick up the slack from all the users that are left. There are probably 2 main sites that are getting most of the TB users, but I'll let you figure out which 2. These sort of sites are here to stay just as p2p is. Once the gov.'t and industries realize this they will adapt.

A few things will most likely happen:

1. The industry will moan and groan until the gov.'t does something. Namely puts new legislation into work and actually enforce said legislation. (some of which is slowly being done)

2. Massive public outcry about the industries involved get the government to side with them. (less likely to happen. ie:PACs, special interests groups give large sums of money to the government officals (interrupted as payoffs) in order to get their ways)

3. Governments continue to do what they are doing, which is systematically take out the servers providing these services. Ensuring the status quo remains as newer networks will always emerge.

As for going to the movie theater. That is purely a personal choice. If you don't like a movie, movie theater, etc don't go and don't complain about it. End of story. On the other hand if you d/l a movie and like it at least have the decency to see it in the theaters so people who made the movie get paid. Movie theaters get their income mainly from conessions, not the ticket sales. I get this information from several people whom I've known to work at theaters and were in superviosry positions. But don't make some stupid self-righteous comment because downloading movies is illegal and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. So be prepared for the consequences if you choose to do so, but please, please don't come and complain about it when you get busted or the place you d/l shuts down. There are more out, if all else setup a private ftp only for your friens that is how this all started in the first place.

That is my $0.02

Re:Ok, Michael

[ScrewMaster]

Ah ... but you see, in my country (the U.S.) people aren't allowed to be intrinsically "better" or "smarter" or "more talented" than others, since America is no longer the "land of equal opportunity" but the "land of the equal." Some few individuals were "disadvantaged" as children (not enough tax money having been lavished upon them) and were thus unable to achieve their true "potential". Because these people would, of course, have been engineers or doctors or movie actors but for the failure of society to accommodate their special needs, the government must thus give them more money to compensate them for this failure.

Re:Hold on.

[jrockway]

Nice sig, but to get the modem to hang up you have to get the modem to SEND +++ath0. Me replying to this comment would hang my modem up, but me reading it wouldn't.

Ping a modem user with "+++ath0" in the payload, though, and he'll be disconnected. In-band signaling. Ain't it wonderful.

Re:Okay, guys, let's hear it

[iminplaya]

Too bad you and the others keep getting side-tracked by the "piracy" thing. Piracy is one of the distractions used by the industry as they try to outlaw self-distribution through P2P. They know that their market outside the U.S. and Europe would dry up if not for piracy. It's just the industry's un-official distribution network. I don't care one way or the other about piracy, GPL, etc. We should assure that the law protects everyone equally. Copyright can't do that. But you go on harping about piracy all you want. You're just ignoring the real issue. You would like to think it's about distributing other people's work, but it's really about people's ability to distribute their own work without the industry middle-men.