Slashdot Mirror
Round Two for MPAA Lawsuits
An anonymous reader writes "CNET is reporting that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has filed a second round of lawsuits against individuals trading movie files. This follows the lobby's legal attacks on BitTorrent servers a few weeks back. A couple of commentaries on this latest legal barrage can already be found here and here."
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) also made available a new free software tool so parents can scan their computers for file-swapping programs and for movie or music files which may be copyrighted.
"Son, come over here and show me how to run this thing."
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
...be able to sue the MPAA?
You hear that MPAA/RIAA?... That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, MPAA/RIAA...
You trade movies, this can happen. This is exactly what the MPAA should be up to.
I'm a computer!
Stop all the downloading!
Help computer!
G.I. Jooooooooooooooe!
that means you wouldn't get free movies anymore because there would be no more movies for you to download?
[MPAA software Parent File Scan] searches for and identifies virtually any audio or video file, including popular formats like MP3, Microsoft's Windows Media, the AAC files that Apple Computer's iTunes software often uses, or MPEG video. The software makes no distinction between legally acquired or illegally downloaded files, however.
During the Napster era, wasn't one of the arguments made by the RIAA that Napster should be able to easily distinguish RIAA-copyrighted material and, subsequentailly, block access to it? If it's so trivial, shouldn't the MPAA be able to do the same? Or did they realize it's not so easy and are just labelling everything they can find?
Until the MPAA starts cracking down people actually selling their wares instead of people downloading them for free they will not get a tear of sympathy from me. Seriously, I don't understand it. When I was NYC, street vendors make no attempt to hide the fact they are selling pirated goods. Why isn't the MPAA cracking down on them instead of college kids that have nothing better to do with their bandwidth than download DiVX ripped movies?
-Shawn "If the Name Don't Rhyme It Ain't Mine" Conn
After I saw those emotional segments in the theater about how Joe Camerman, and Jane Stuntwoman suffers from my actions, I really felt bad.
(btw, mpaa, if you are listening, I never actually downloaded movies. Rent from netflix, rip a copy and save on VCD, that may be a different story.)
Not to confuse with 8=====D~~(_o_)
..you know the rest. Evidently the MPAA has decided to copy the RIAA 12-Step Plan to Irrelevance completely.
If the media industries only took the time in the late 90's to understand and serve this group - I believe they call it marketing - rather than fight against them their revenues would be significantly more. Of all industries that should know this it should be the movie industry.
<p><p>
Today, the film industry generates more income from video/DVD sales and rentals than from theater runs. Had they won their case 20 years ago against Sony and the Supreme Court ruled VCR's were illegal (it was a close 5 to 4 decision) the film industry would have less than HALF the revenues it does today.</i>
<p>
<p>
I hardly see movies in theaters anymore anyway. I don't really enjoy them as much, probably since a lot of movies anymore are crap put out for the sole purpose of making money. (which all movies are to an extent)
<p>
<p>
I save the money for video rentals, I get about 4 movies for the same price for my wife and I. We can then watch them whenever, and not pay $3 for a popcorn and $4 for a soda.
<p>
<p>
Much more enjoyable, and no kids around to bother me while I watch.
...would be the parents monitor what software little Johnny is installing on the computer and to ask what that software does (with demonstration of course). I know if I see icons pop up on the family computer desktop or start menu, I tend to ask the family who installed it and what it does.
Why is the man holding you down? You want the truth, YOU WANT THE TRUTH? Information doesn't want to be free....you need entities like the MPAA....beacause when you reach over and put our hand in that pile of goo that was your best friend's face, it's Chinatown, baby.
Let's remember about LokiTorrent's law defense fund. They had the guts to stand for their rights and say no to corporate bullying, and they are doing it for the rest of us too. If they win such lawsuits would have to stop.
When the sued pointed out they were simply trying to make up their lost money for seeing xXx.
Yes, I RTFA, and the software that they've produced doesn't distinguish between legal files and "illegal files" I see this as completely rediculous. How many clueless parents will punish kids now for doing something that's completely legal, moral, and ethical. It even flags iTunes files, and Mirc, I mean, come on here. There should be a libel lawsuit here to deter people from distributing what is in essence a fraud of a "illegal file detecting software"
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
a/s/l?
Oh dear, people getting sued for committing illegal acts, how appalling! What is this country coming to?
There used to be a rumor (perhaps urban legend) that Listerine and Listermint (or maybe some other brand-- I was kid in the 80s) were products of the same company: one marketted towards upperclass consumers geared towards buying the best hygiene products, the other towards the low-end consumer who just wanted mouthwash.
... i.e. that's their low-end consumer version!
What can be applied to the MPAA you ask? Simple: perhaps they don't go after the people selling their wares because they're getting the profits from them
Does anyone else see how fucked up it is to make movies and music illegal? Thats something they do in really horribly opressive societies.
parents having a "little talk" with their kids about P2P activity:
Johnnie: Daddy, where do MP3 files come from?
Daddy: Johnnie, Mom and I are going to have a little talk with you now.
Johnnie: Okay, Dad.
Mommy: You know Johnnie, there's something you need to know about MP3 files and P2P clients.
Daddy: When an MP3 file meets a P2P client, something very beautiful happens.
Johnnie: What's that Daddy?
Daddy: It's called File Transfer, son. When a beautiful MP3 file meets a nice, young P2P client, they start exchanging packets and then a new MP3 file is born.
Mommy: But you have to remember, son...bad things can happen if MP3 files and P2P clients do not take proper precautions during the File Transfer. Then they can get infected with Spyware and Viruses and die.
Daddy: You'll understand this better when you grow up, but always remember that we're here for you if you need us. And always remember to take proper precautions during File Transfer.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
18/f/cali
by which i mean
38/m/idaho
They make text-based browsers now? And here I've been using telnet to port 80 all these years...
That their software download site is called respectcopyrights.org, when they don't respect them themselves when they're about to run out...
"Parent File Scan also uses a very liberal definition of file-swapping software. In a test on a CNET News.com computer, the software identified Mirc--a client for the Internet Relay Chat network, where files can be swapped, but where tens of thousands of wholly legal conversations happen every day--and Mercora, a streaming Web radio service that uses peer-to-peer technology but does not allow file swapping."
Couldn't the companies that produce some of these products now turn around and sue the MPAA for slander?
I suppose it depends on exactly what they say about the programs, but if that web radio service is run by a company that does not stream MPAA stuff over their service, then telling parents it might be used for piracy is an outright lie.
10-year-old girls are being sued this time?
Dashboard Widgets
These lawsuits better not result in another crappy Superbowl iTunes commercial.
The "iTunes Exclusive" Green Day song (the "I Fought the Law" cover) from the last one made me want to gouge my ears out.
Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
SEATTLE--In an unexpected move, corporate giant Microsoft has acquired Hollywood in what it refers to as the "logical next step" in content development.
Microsoft has long been known as an industry leader in providing semifunctional applications for the viewing, development and distribution of digital content and comments that the acquisition of Hollywood will complete the synergy necessary for including the content itself.
End users, claims Microsoft, will see a remarkable increase in convenience when accessing content. Hollywood products will be available directly from the desktop via their new "Cinema Explorer" application with the guaranteed quality, stability and availability that only a vision-impaired corporate monolith can provide.
Security is also a top priority, and Microsoft is introducing a new licensing system to aid in the distribution of Hollywood content. Instead of purchasing a copy of the motion picture itself, end users purchase a "License to View" which piggybacks on their highly successful and completely unhackable "Product Activation" architecture introduced with Windows XP. A motion picture is keyed to the unique hardware identification number of the user's computer and can only be "activated" on that computer.
Some civil rights groups have expressed concerned about corporate profiling based on end user viewing habits. A Microsoft spokesman responds, "Obviously, this is possible, but fortunately, Microsoft is a responsible corporation with a very solid privacy policy. We never have any idea who's using our products. A quick look at our customer support system ought to clearly demonstrate that."
Microsoft also stated in a press release that recent maneuvers to acquire the RIAA are completely unrelated.
What he wants is more important that what I want. What he wants is also more important that what you want.
Is there really anything new to be said about this that hasn't been repeated a million times before?
25% of the comments will be "MPAA SUX0R! Information wants to be free!"
50% of the comments will be "If you do the crime, do the time!!"
25% of the comments will be offtopic, random garbage.
This comment, of course, falls in the last category.
I download movies but don't share that many because of hard drive space, I only share what I'm still downloading. Once it's done I typically burn it to CD and delete it from the PC, so while I have (insert large number) movies all they see is maybe the dozen I'm downloading. How successful will this be?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
See, this is why I'm not a early adopter. Let the shake-out happen a little is what I say. Now that this new round of lawsuits against individuals have been filed, the data collection period is over for now! The sabre-rattling lawsuits tell me that NOW is the time to start downloading the movies I want!
It's like slowing down on a country road when you see a cop with someone pulled over. Silly! That's the time to speed people!
[/sarcasm] -so don't preach to me about IP theft or endangering officers' lives.
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
The average amount of blackmail that the *AA settles for has been $3000 in these lawsuits. I've got over 6000 titles downloaded, which works out to less than 50 cents per song. That's less than iTunes can do, and that's ONLY if they catch me.
It seems like a pretty good deal to me. And, oh yeah, if they catch me, sure, I'll pretend to give up my collection to them, no problem!
It's sooo easy to download what you want these days. Go bite me *AA. If you make a better product than what I can do now, I'll drop my current downloading and switch. Otherwise, forget it.
cause looking for junior's music files might then also be bringing up dad's (or junior's) pron stash and make for a whole lot more uncomfortable of a conversation.
disclaimer: IANAL, nor do I play one on TV. This is not credible legal advice.
Does this mean downloading Japanese Anime is OK?
Well the MPAA has no grounds to sue you if none of their members own the copyright to the material... so not just anime, but when it comes to independent films*, pr0n, or anything foreign, I don't see how they could.
*keep in mind that nowadays a lot of films billed as "independent" have major studio backing
According to RespectCopyrights.org, they're touting, and I quote:
;) its just a blatant lie!
"...Peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that encourage piracy, such as eDonkey, Gnutella and KaZaA, might seem simple and harmless, but running them puts your computer at great risk, IN ADDITION TO BEING UNLAWFUL." (my emphasis)
What the hell??!?!?
You could take them to court for that
Its amazing how quickly they've started to deliberately spread misinformation. Theres no way they could say they were stating it 'could' be illegal - its just plainly 'these programs are illegal'!
I just don't get it, do they really think that they will shut down all P2P networks by suing users? How long have the software companies been trying to shut down warez sites? Did they succeed? No.
As far as I'm concerned, file sharing is here to stay, it is impossible to kill a technology once its out there, they tried to kill VHS and failed, and right now they are making billions from something that they once tried to eliminate, they are better off stopping wasting resources trying to stop file sharing and putting all that money and brain power into trying to find a way to gain from it.
I am not a marketer, so I have no idea just how they can do that, but there must be a way.
There is no "bad" technology, there is only technology that haven't learned to use to its full potential yet.
Let me see, as a couple going to a movie it costs a minimum of $20 (2 tickets at $10 a piece) plus concessions for one showing...or I can own the movie on DVD for $20 , see it as many times as I want and have the consessions that I want. As a married couple the equation becomes even more lopsided. Now I have to find a babysitter and find a time that is reasonable for us to go watch the movie. All of sudden owning the Movie on DVD makes a lot more sense.
As always, YMMV.
LokiTorrent.com said it was prepared to fight the good fight against the studios, but the site is currently for sale, although Lowkee says, "I simply wanted to know what kind of bids this website gets (as people keep telling me it's a 'gold mine') ..."
Yeah, and which "good fight" would that be? I see a misguided website administrator trying to say that it is okay to knowingly distribute pirated software, which is what LokiTorrent does, along with basically all of the BitTorrent websites that the MPAA is going after. I dislike the **AA groups as much as the next guy, but don't delude yourselves into thinking that your hatred for them makes it okay to steal their intellectual properties. It also doesn't make fighting back the "good fight." This is like a rapist suing the police department for arresting him because he considered it surprise sex, which he believes is okay, unlike rape.
AFAIK, (and IANAL) to the letter of the law, it is not illegal to download copyrighted materials, but it is illegal to distribute copyrighted materials without consent from the copyright holder.
TFA says that the RIAA doesn't make a distinction between legally and illegally downloaded files, but that point is moot. The fact that they are sharing them puts them at odds with the law.
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
It's just so sad to watch America being sold down the river by the overly affluent. Way to go MPAA. BTW, why do Americans allow the wealthy to so corrupt the justice system?
So much for democracy, eh!
Movies have gotten so bad that I can't even bring myself to waste the bandwidth to download them. In 2004, I would say there were maybe five good movies that I watched, out of maybe 50 total viewed.
The fact of the matter is, movies aren't worth paying $8-10 to see. In very few cases does a movie look good enough to plunk down that kind of dough to sit in a theatre full of screaming babies and popcorn-crunching patrons.
The MPAA (and RIAA for that matter) need to realize that people are all for the simplicity of downloading movies/music/etc. Make it legal, provide the services yourselves of first run movies, and make it cheaper then going to the theatre. Instead of trying to stop file sharing, harness the power that it provides.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/10/prweb171878. htm
[MPAA software Parent File Scan] searches for and identifies virtually any audio or video file, including popular formats like MP3, Microsoft's Windows Media, the AAC files that Apple Computer's iTunes software often uses, or MPEG video.
Yeah, but does it support oggs?
wooops! err... nevermind that...
errera hunamum ets
ok folks, time to put files which you have legal rights to distribute on a public webserver with names like "/movies/g/gigli.avi" or whatnot...
then when they claim to own your perl script that you happened to call gigli.avi, unleash the hounds.
"The right of the people to freely distribute and obtain copyrighted works shall not be infringed."
At any rate, theft is not the answer, no matter what you think of the people owning the goods.
And no matter what the RIAA/MPAA think of the people downloading their products, they are not thieves and are not stealing anything. Nothing has been stolen. People are making unauthorized copies, but that is not stealing, it is copyright infringement.
In fact I believe a Judge chided some of the **AA's lawyers for referring to downloaders as thieves. I tried to look up the article, but I couldn't find it. Anyone else know where it is?
Of course this doesn't excuse their behavior, but we should at least understand what it is when we talk about it.
--
Join the Pyramid - Free Flat Screens
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
I have -1 sympathy for anyone complaining of running out of marijuana losing their unemployment and/or their girlfriend.
Get off the damn couch and go get a job.
Sure, if you're into tentacle rape. I mean it's not like the RIAA gives a shit about fucked-up nerd porno.
But, there are other ways to enforce their copyrights with out being pricks and angering everyone.
If they would win the support of people, instead of trying to sue them into obvilion then everyone would come out ahead.
Myself however, they have lost a customer for life.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This goes back a LONG way. It has a lot to do with America having been a nation based on exploitation of raw nature, destruction of the natives and mass enslavement of human beings. THen you add on top the mass media and educational which are basically evolved systems, evolved by forces exerted by the rich, the powerful and the corporations and govt. These mass media and educationals systems have been evolved to create a culture of intellectual/ideoliogical submission to authority. Intellectual/ideological submission to hierarchical authority, but not necessarily relating to submission of person and property. The American culture has a deeply engrained motif relating sacrosantness of personal and private private, but a submissive intellectual attitude when it comes to political and policy decisions.
hence, we have Americans thinking "locally" when it comes to politics. Hence, the NIMBy phenomenon. But when it comes to big picture stuff, our educational and mass media systems, evolved by Power, created us to submit.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
In my experience, the people most paranoid of being ripped off are the first to do it to someone else.
nice to see someone taking on the RIAA and them using double standards
What worries me the most about the "Parent File Scan" is that is makes no attempt to determine whether a file has been downloaded, ripped, or even included with other software. Case in point - when running the scan as a test on my machine, it picked up every sound file from Civilization III. What are non-technical users (parents in particular) going to think when they see hundreds of files picked up, with the strong implication that they are illigal?
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
I very rarely download new Hollywood movies anymore, since as we all agree they're mostly crap. Bandwidth, which costs money, has been reallocated to pr0n. To me it seems to give me a better bang for the buck (pun intended). That and TV shows, old movies, and fansubs.
In my opinion based on what I've read, and infered.
Wholesale piracy DWARFS bittorrents and the other sources of MPAA movies and RIAA music.
However, college kids in the U.S. are easy targets. Moreover although the financial losses are small, the social implications of "free" movies is huge, so they're trying to avoid that (music, because of a lot of forces already has the image that its free, but I digress).
Moreover, when you're talking about pirated CD's and DVD's... real ones from overseas, you're talking about guys with guns and money that will put holes in your body with lead if you interfere with them. The U.S. has no jurisdiction in those countries, and in this country, if the head of the MPAA started making too much noise, well, perhaps he might end up with "lead poisoning".
I'm being serious here. They're going after easy targets, because the hard ones will get pissed off and cause they physical problems in the real world. Not legal problems or internet problems. Real problems.
"rip a copy and save on VCD"
Dude, blank DVD's are like $.15 each in bulk. Just rip it to another DVD.
Its fuzzy thinking like yours that makes "American Idol" such a success.
"Since when has stealing EVER been allowed? Yes, it is stealing if you download a song which you have not paid for."
So is going faster than the speed limit.
But nobody makes a federal case out of it.
Think about it for a moment.
Can the IP addresses of Bittorrent downloads and uploads be traced? I was under the impression that they could not be traced and hence, the users couldn't be discovered and sued. Can someone verify this?
Getting anime in the UK is a right bugger, I have to say.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I just fucked your girlfriend.
Not bad; a little cottage cheese on her ass, but she pretty much did anything I told her.
(I submitted this yesterday, but it was rejected and instead dupes and other schlop were posted)
The Copyright Office is inviting comments on the current situation with copyrights and "orphaned works" (ie, abandonware, etc) - they have realized that copyrights are holding back innovation, especially when the copyright holders cannot be located.
I think that this is a really major thing. The article is mirrored in its entirety here
"Because they watch you get each one, and have evidence of that."
Except that they don't watch you "get" each one, they watch you "give" each one.
Oh, they can monitor what I "get", but the crime of copying a work is much different and much less than the crime of what "give".
So if I downloaded 10 movies, they can claim about $200 in damages.
So they don't!
Please mr. "lawyer", stop pretending to know what the hell you're talking about.
Some people (not me of course, I think its wrong), have been downloading for years, have high quality music of what they want (not me. I deny I have ever done anything illegal).
And they don't give a shit about Brittney being "ripped off". We don't care if the "key grip" loses his job. I do care, and that's why i condemn this practice.
On the other hand, I find you highly amusing coming into a public forum to "take a stand". It just proves that most people on the internet are basically pathetic.
BTW, would it bother you if I told you that I f'ed your mother?
Even if they are not a MPAA member, the answer is still no. Even though the stuff is produced in Japan, the Japanese publishers copy rights are still protected.
They along with their US/etc distributors have the right to stop you from sharing and downloading their stuff.
So, no, the MPAA wont sue you for downloading anime from companies that are not MPAA members, but those companies and those who represent these companies can.
"This is like a rapist suing the police department for arresting him because he considered it surprise sex, which he believes is okay, unlike rape"
So...you see somebody downloading a movie as the equivalent of a man beating a woman senseless, throwing her to the ground, forcing himself on her, exposing her to deadly diseases, and unwanted pregnancy, and potentially killing her, and scaring her emotionally forever?
I personally think you have issues with women for even bringing that up.
I think what you meant to say is "Copyrights exist for the common good, and I don't see them as a tool that corporations use to maximize profits regardless of the social costs or implications. Rather, every time you buy a movie, you're keeping some stunt actor or cameraman employed. Every time you illegally copy a movie, its just another proof that communism is not dead".
Is that closer?
In any event, I think most caring sensitive people would consider you an asshole, which explains why your wife got the divorce and your 14 year old daughter never listens to you. Seriously, how can you blame them?
For every 2000 people busted, and 50 lawyers getting richer (prix) there are another 20000 who just learn of P2p via news articles and go "screw it, ill try it, my credit card bills are maxed I cant afford to pay $8+parking+popcorn+drinks, so download it away"
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I would think that if you worked for a company for two weeks and then they chose not to pay you, most people on this forum would consider that a type of theft.
Is that copyrights are finished.
This is not something I'm promoting, or something I desire. It just is.
How can you expect to control a world, to enforce the "right to copy" when anyone can make 100 copies a second of virtually any data only work?
In India, before Ghandi G. came along, it was illegal to make salt. People near the ocean were surrounded by billions of tons of salt but weren't allowed to extract it from the ocean. The british mandated this by law to protect their salt industry.
This is the exact same scenario that is happening with copyright. Some laws were passed 200 years or so ago to make it a civil wrong to do something that is very easy to do nowdays. These laws are unenforceable unless you want to assign the death penalty for possession of a xerox machine, a printing press, a tape recorder, a CD burner or especially a computer.
It's over people.
The current think going around is "how can we make these expensive movies if we can't profit from the copyrights?". My answer is, lower your expenses. The first thing you can do is dump expensive actors whose cost is sometimes 70% of a film.
My response to bad media, movies and music is not to participate. To not contribute to it. I don't think it is a moral justification to infringe copyright to claim that the material sucks anyway. That's really degenerate thinking. Tell it to the judge and see how far you get with that.
I'm not trying to justify my vision. It's just a fact that copyrights are finished. I'm offerring solutions. While the facts may offend some people, all their ranting, lawsuits and legal maneuvers won't change those facts.
The facts are technological. The march of progress is currently consuming another hapless victim. I would suggest not getting in the way of the thrashing beast in its death throes. Wounded animals are the most dangerous of all.
The mafia and triads put money first too, it doesnt make them any more legit or moral or nice as the big corporates that are on the stock markets.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
What about the whole realm of fair use?
I am a big bit torrent user myself. I like to download Star Trek. But nothing I'm downloading isn't being broadcasted on the cable TV I pay for. Is it still illegal?
It's not illegal if I record it with a TiVo... same quality (and in many cases better), only the source has changed.
The way I see it, I've paid my dues. I'm legally paying for this content. The **AA shouldn't have a right to tell me exactly how I consume the said content. They're getting paid either way, so they can STFU.
As long as I pay for cable TV, I should have the right to download any TV show or movie that's been broadcasted on any channel on my service.
If I can legally record shows with a TiVo, I should be able to legally download those same shows.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Another significant difference is that you can now sometimes buy the MPAA movie soundtrack on DVD -- and get the whole d@mn movie to go with it -- for less than buying the RIAA CD audio movie soundtrack alone. And when it's more, it's seldom more than a couple dollars more. Talk about someone needing to re-evaluate their business model. And the audio people are getting the soundtrack source for essentially free, since all the studio time and such has already been paid for by the movie company.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Just in case reading the article is too much of a burden... here's a direct link to the Parent File Scan program.
It appears to be developed by a company called "DtecNet Software ApS".
Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
**I do not download music or movies... but this whole thing frustrates me to no end** The **AA goes after all these college students and kids... what's something they usually have in common? A lack of funds. How about if the going rate for a movie ticket wasn't $8.00 (in my area). I remember when you could see an evening movie for $3.00 and that wasn't too terribly long ago. You could take a freaking date to the movies and get a soda for $8.00 Now, it's $20.00 Lower prices to a reasonable level and maybe people won't resort to downloading to see that movie they've been waiting for. There is absolutely no reason for consumers to have to endure such prices. The theatre that I frequent raised their prices to $8.00 last year from $7.50. Why? There was no noticable change to the theatre or the films in general to justify the price increase. Now they're talking of raising them yet again to $8.50. Oh, wait... forgot that we have to pay those "modest" $20 million dollar salaries to every actor in Hollywood. Not to mention the millions to the producers and directors and everyone else who's name appears in the credits that isn't hurriedly rushed by in a scroll. The same goes for CDs. Lower the prices and put out better MUSIC, not manufactured Barbie and Ken Dolls. Hollywood had a record breaking year in 2004. So, piracy is leading to the demise of Hollywood? Sorry, but you'll get no sympathy from me when you're still making BILLIONS of dollars while some kid in a dorm room makes $5/hr if he even has a job and would just like some entertainment from time to time.
Wow, this "Anonymous Coward" user is both amazingly prolific, and unbelievably stupid. Magic, is that you?
Not to confuse with 8=====D~~(_o_)
B lue-veined custard chucker?
Cock?
Willie?
Wang?
Woody?
Wood?
Pecker?
One-eyed wiggling Welshman?
Pink-helmeted milk-shooting man-banana plunging into the hole of an ass!
Does this mean downloading Japanese Anime is OK?
Last time I checked it was OK to download "The Seven Samari".
I hardly see movies in theaters anymore anyway. I don't really enjoy them as much, probably since a lot of movies anymore are crap put out for the sole purpose of making money. (which all movies are to an extent)
I save the money for video rentals, I get about 4 movies for the same price for my wife and I. We can then watch them whenever, and not pay $3 for a popcorn and $4 for a soda.
Much more enjoyable, and no kids around to bother me while I watch.
--
Who needs a big mac?Get a Free Mini Mac!
For context, click Parent.
...but they do http://allaboutfrogs.org/weird/general/raining.htm l
Intellectual property is only some kind of knowledge and can therefore never be stolen but only be propagated.
Church tried to stand in the way of knowledge a long time ago, when they held all of the legislative, executive and judicial powers. They still failed when there came the age of enlightenment
Even if the MAFIA paid the lawmakers to make BLACKMAILING legal, it is still IMMORAL. The same remains true in the other direction regarding copyright legislation.
can the ISP your IP is from, give the MPAA your personal information without a major lawsuit to do so?
;)
Some ISPs pride themselves in keeping your personal information private, others just sell you out as soon as a subpeona is issued.
See, computers have a thing called a log file that keeps track of each IP it connects to. BT trackers keep track of the IP addresses that access them, BT web sites keep track of user registrations and IP addresses.
Usually they go after the big-time offenders, those sharing 10 to 15 movie files at once. The small-time offenders aren't worth bringing to court with who only share a few files at a time.
Besides, I heard a story about the RIAA accusing someone's grandmother using a Mac of being on the Kazaa network and sharing a ton of songs. The Mac cannot run Kazaa, and they obviously traced the wrong IP, or the right IP at the wrong time? Either that or she deleted her Virtual PC session that ran Kazaa and used the "Macintosh Defense" to get out of being sued.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
So run the program, pull your network plug, and check "netstat" to see if any unusual activity ocurrs. It would also be interesting to see if it detected non-illegal files.
;-)
As for the tracking software, remember - if DVD's auto-install software on your computer, the DivX rips from the 'net won't
Have you read it???
Because it says no such thing. It does NOT state that "it was COMPLETELY LEGAL to download and make available for download, a song, or a movie, or software for which you have not paid for", not even close. All the ruling states in that case was that copyright infringement can not be prosecuted under the wire fraud statute.
Read more.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Is there a law against misreprentation what is or isn't lawful? Can the MPAA be sued on this (wouldn't that be wonderful)
They want the ease and economy of digital distribution channels without lowering the costs of their product to consumers. Of course, since there's a little problem called the analog hole, they're sort of stuck. If it can be seen, it can be copied, and the same digital distribution channels they want to use to ship their product cheaply can be use to dispense copies of their content all over the place. To prevent this, they have to buy into Trusted Computing in all its glory, which will probably destroy the internet (it's not like I don't have enough places to buy stuff already).
Downloaders persist because content providers keep hosing their customers. A content protection system sufficient to prevent your customers from getting together to screw you is unlikely to be used by your customers. The **AAs want cheap distribution and high profits, while preventing their customers from aggregating to get what they want. The distribution system they want to use also allows (non)customers to distribute your product. Means to prevent that distribution destroy the users' incentive to use the internet, and thus to make your product cheaper for you.
The **AAs want to screw their customers while denying them alternatives and while using distribution channels which derive their use and benefit by their lack of restriction. You can't crap on your customers if they can go elsewhere. It would be better for them to use the distribution system to lower costs and convince their customers not to go elsewhere. Instead, they would prefer to continue to gouge their customers and intimidate them into not going elsewhere, in the process providing massive incentive for their customers to do precisely that. As long as their customers are free, they can't ensure their profits by these means.
how can u accuse us of being immoral, when their only goal is to make money off of us? I'm 15, and i'll gladly admit that i download anything i want. Frankly, i have better things to spend my money on that a DVD or CD that i'll (insert activity) no more than twice... and that's if it's a good thing... Lower prices = more people buying = just as much money for you AND less pirating... i would buy a lot more CD's and DVD's if their prices were... say... cut in half after 6 months or a year.
Bush talks about freedom, and all the university kids in Iran start learning how to use encrypted P2P to organize protests and idealogy with Berkeley.
The Iranian Government has threated to fucking shoot any son of a dog that downloads movies of the United States President's "State of the Union" address. The Moral Police have been tasked with distributing corrupt Torrent chunks, and tracking IP's of offenders.
Also, the RIAA is, like, totally starving. Executives have been asked to report to work in bum clothing, carrying cardboard signs that say "Homeless Army Veteran. Every bit helps." Workers have been outfitted with GPS units to ensure even distribution and active soliciting of rush-hour traffic.
I'm pretty sure even 10 year olds these days can hit uninstall...
"In practice, the software, developed by the DtecNet Software company in Denmark, casts an extremely wide net."
Something tells me we'll be seeing anti-MPAA software soon. And oh yea, im betting $5.00 that DtecNet Software will get defaced :)
But it gets even worse...
"Parent File Scan also uses a very liberal definition of file-swapping software. In a test on a CNET News.com computer, the software identified Mirc--a client for the Internet Relay Chat network, where files can be swapped,"
mIRC?!?! I never knew!!!
"I tell you what. Come back with some citations to the relevant statutes and cases. If I'm wrong -- which I'm not -- I'll admit it and be better off for finding that out."
I'm not a lawyer, but its pretty clear that if I copy a disk from a someone at work, and keep it and watch it, I am not liable for $1.5M of damages.
If I download a movie from the internet, keep it, and watch it, I am not liable for $1.5M of damages, hence, the original poster is, I believe correct.
Now, he/she may have been rude, and its no use arguing with a lawyer. But you can hardly blame him for mocking lawyers. If you didn't want to be reviled and called names, then you shouldn't have become a lawyer. Its like being a circus clown. People will point and laugh. If you're a lawyer, people will revile you and call you names. Get over it. Pretend you're being noble or something.
You're so sensitive about it, it looks to me like you really do hate women.
Honestly, get over that divorce already.
That the MPAA is fighting a losing battle? Because the "kids" in Iran are able to sneak seditious material in and out of the country, at the risk of death?
Your point is not very clear.
seriously, if you told me that in person at the very least i would break your legs. i think its wrong to make a profit off of it, but to narc someone out to the govt dishonors your soul. how big was the "reward". 100$ 200$? you now must live in shame for the rest of your days. heres a nice tool for you. have a fun filled intestine spilling night!
"bitch negros in the pen being hit when the guards look the other way. We hit HARD hitman and dre"
Hi, well this is more like a question.
I have downloaded some cd's from this allofmp3 site. So it seems to be "barely legal". Now I am not in the US,
Does anyone knows the actual state of that site according to the US Law?? to the UK law? or to the Mexican (yes... its not a joke) law?
Anyway, I think this is the only post where I wont be "off topic"
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Dude, seriously, try to pay attention, and go back and read the article: THEY CAN'T BE SELECTIVE IN HOW THEY ENFORCE THEIR COPYRIGHT! IF THEY COOSE NOT TO ENFORCE IT AGAINST THE STREET VENDOR, THEN IT IS TANTAMOUNT TO A TACIT BLESSING OF THE STREET VENDOR'S ACTIONS.
2) The quality of videos from street vendors is notoriously unwatchable; and
It is common knowledge that the quality of the DivX rips EAT BALLS compared to a real DVD. The sound is rarely better than 2 channel stereo. The video is pixelated and ass quality. And don't get me started on the cam jobs. Goddamn it, I BUY MORE DVDs NOW THAN I EVER HAVE BEFORE!!
And by the way! SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE! FUCKING MPAA MEMBER PROFITS HAVE NEVER BEEN HIGHER IN RECORDED HISTORY!!
3) The "college kids" that are downloading ripped movies are precisely the demographic that the movie industry depends on for generating theater revenue. If it becomes as popular as MP3 sharing, they're going to lose $, hence sue now before it becomes a major problem.
YES! BRILLIANT! IDENTIFY THE DEMO! SUE THE DEMO!! YEEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!
I swear to sweet holy christ you idiots better figure this shit out and figure it out quick. Customers will ALWAYS drive the market! ALWAYS! Sure there will be times within market cycles when the advantage can shift to supplier and back again as a result of simple supply and demand.
But we are talking about a SEA-FUCKING-CHANGE here. And the customers are giving you idots a gift! They are telling you boneheads how they want to do business, how they WANT TO GIVE YOU MORE MONEY!! And while this basic lesson is being provided, not only free of charge, YOU ARE MAKING ENORMOUS PROFITS!! Embrace these people and you will be richer than your wildest dreams.
Let people d/l poor quality versions of your crap. Fuck them! They have already proven that they crawl all over themselves to purchase the "good" versions.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/gijoe.html
You'd be looking for the sixth one down.
-Another AC
I couldn't have said it any better!
Import your anime from Canada - there are a few good DVD companies up there, competitive prices, and pretty good (and cheap) delivery arrangements to the UK.
Divide those two numbers and you see that on average each song has an estimated value of $377,292 for the year. The potential fine for a single copyright infringement is $150,000, or nearly 40% of the average total annual value of a song. For a single infringement.
Yes the more valuable songs are infringed more often. But if you're going to base the maximum potential fine on every song that's on the CD, even the crappy ones, you need to work with the average value. This fine needs to be lowered drastically to put it more in line with reality. Maybe make an exception for more successful songs, but $150,000 per song is ridiculously high.
Is it a manufactored demand thing? Is marketing really so effective that people are willing to break the law just to say they have this stuff? I thought we were finally getting to a point where the population was seeing through this pointless consumption.
GREAT GOOGLYMOOGLY that was ugly. I swear, it wasn't that ugly when I first put it up there.
:)
My bad.
It's much prettier now, and a lot easier to read...
thanks for pointing that out.
"If you find the $150,000 figure doubtful, I encourage you to look at the actual law."
I encourage you to look at case law and find where a court has fined anyone for copying movies for personal use.
Its kind of like a $5-$1,000 fine for jaywalking. Yeah, you can do boogie-man stories of $1K for jaywalking, but in fact, you can't arrested for jaywalking.
Same thing for copying movies for personal use. In fact, I'll bet the big corporations would never want this to go to trial because there's a good chance a court will simply say "pfft...fair use. And why are you wasting the court's time over 10 DVDs?"
So okay. If you want to talk about the letter of the law. Great. The letter of the law once said blacks have to stand on the back of the bus. The law was wrong, and it finally took a generation of judges who understood that kind of thinking would eventually destroy the country because ultimately, it couldn't be reconciled with common sense and morality.
Same thing will be true of copyright. Am I suggesting the struggle over copyright has gotten to the point where its the equivalent of apartheid? I sure am. Its the most important struggle of this generation. And right now, if you're not a billionaire, you're getting screwed. Most people don't understand the implications right now of what's happening and parrot some stupid line like "Breaking copyright is the same as stealing". I predict there will be real turmoil in the country in the next 20 years over copyright if we don't change things.
But I'm an old man, and I'll leave it to the next generation to patch it up. I've taught my kids common sense stuff about copying music and stuff, and I can live with that (hint: it doesn't quite jibe with copyright, but its workable).
Honestly, I'm going to enjoy watching these media companies implode. I hope disney goes first.
Dear MPAA,
You can have my money when you earn it. Stop standing in the way of progress. I can now watch a movie from the comfort of my own home, without the sticky floors or 10 minutes of commercials preceeding it.
Current copyright lawsuits are not promoting the progress of science. Computers are here to stay, and innovators are enabling me to watch a movie after my toddler goes to bed. I'm willing to give someone money in exchange for this innovative convenience, but none of the copyright holders wants to take it.
I'd pay for commercial free TV episodes I could watch on my own schedule, too, if I didn't have to wait 5 years for the DVD to come out, but that's a topic for a different day. They think my eyeballs are worth money to advertisers, huh? Why won't they take it from me directly?
"I'm already smacking you down quite nicely there."
Actually, like most lawyers, you avoided answering his question. You answered the question you were more comfortable.
If he asked "Do courts currently treat the copyright holder the same as the original author?"
Your answer would be correct.
But that's not what he asked. He raised the point that copyright holders are a new class that probably don't meet the definition as laid down by the founders.
If that's what congress wants to do, why don't they pass an amendment?
Ultimately, the real question is... how does this promote the arts and sciences. Because if it doesn't promote the arts and sciences, then it might well be unconstituional.
But you'll simply start spouting laws, and avoiding the question. Neat trick, but i'll give you a hint... smart guys go into law. Brilliant guys go into computer science.
And in case you're wondering, I have a nicer BMW than you too.
but in fact, you can't arrested for jaywalking.
Really? Why not? While it might be uncommon, I don't see why it's impossible. It's probably happened before.
Same thing for copying movies for personal use. In fact, I'll bet the big corporations would never want this to go to trial because there's a good chance a court will simply say "pfft...fair use. And why are you wasting the court's time over 10 DVDs?"
There is little chance of a finding of fair use unless downloading -- without uploading -- is done only as a substitute for self-ripping. And even then there is a whole other kettle of fish with the anticircumvention provisions.
Also the number of works really isn't important. Ten infringements is not a frivolous enough matter for the court to get upset with the plaintiff or to have grounds to do anything untorward. It might set low damages (c.f. nominal damages in tort cases) but that's about it.
So okay. If you want to talk about the letter of the law. Great. The letter of the law once said blacks have to stand on the back of the bus. The law was wrong, and it finally took a generation of judges who understood that kind of thinking would eventually destroy the country because ultimately, it couldn't be reconciled with common sense and morality.
I fear you are confusing my discussion as to what the law is with an endorsement for the law as it is. Let me be clear: I like the idea of copyright law. But I hate the copyright law that we have on the books. I think we need massive reform and extreme reductions in the scope of copyright across the board. I think that by scrapping oand replacing our copyright law with a much more modest one, we can better fulfill the purposes copyright is intended to serve, and improve the well being of the people of our country, including our authors.
But I'm not going to pretend that this has happened yet, if it ever will. In fact, I think it is key to make sure that people know just what the law is now so that they know just how bad the law is now and are truly motivated to change it to something better.
I hope disney goes first.
Meh. I think they've done some bad stuff, but I'm prepared to forgive it so long as we can simply repair the damage as best we're able and prevent further abuses.
I don't fault them for being greedy. I want them to be greedy, since that's essential to the proper functioning of copyright. It's just like how luring a donkey forward by dangling a carrot in front of it relies on his greed. No greed, no forward motion.
I just want to channel that greed in useful ways, instead of letting it run roughshod over all of us.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The other day I opened up a divx file with my handy dandy hex editor and orated the one's and zeros to a friend of mine. My friend, as I orated, saved the one's and zero's with his hex editor and then happily watch the divx on his computer.
Have I just comitted a crime? Or does the constitution protect my right to free speech?
Its been said before, but I feel it must be repeated, the actions of the MPAA , and RIAA are jus the death throws of a bug being squashed, albeit slowly. After reading statistics about the number of users growing every year sounds like geometric growth, not linear. even if it was linear, and not geometric how do they intend to keep up with lawsuits, that would mean that they would have to put out ever increasing amounts of lawsuits every year, eventually the govn't will just get tired of them and pass a law that makes it illegal to file more than 1000 lawsuits in a year, or whatever. Anyone ever wonder how much it must cost taxpayers for these lawsuits to go through court? - I'd like to see the numbers