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."
[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?
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.
"
I am very agenst people selling downloaded material. Guy at my local dirt mall sells movies He downloads, burns and prints covers for. I went as far as to call the 1-800-no-copys number to report it. Took 3 weeks before a human picked up the phone. I gave them all the contact information of the dirt mall and titles of movies being sold. 6 months later he's still there making $10 a movie hand over fist.
Why should we feel sorry for the MPAA when they won't even do anything about people stealing accual sales from them. Even after someone hands them all the information on a silver platter.
People find it strange that I don't know how to juggle or tap dance.
"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.
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'!
IANAL, but doesn't this amount to "selective enforcement" of a copyright? I thought that the idea was that if you have only go after some people infringing your rights, but knowingly ignore others, especially for arbitrary reason, doesn't that potentially void your copyright?
Their major problem is a completely clueless inability to identify what's under their noses. I've been accused of "hosting illegal files" or whatever their terminology is, without evidence. If the accusation had come to me directly rather than via my ISP, I would have persued it to demand evidence. The fact that the email went to my ISP betrays how little the MPAA are actually interested in "solving the problem" of illegally-traded files, because they have deliberately ignored the alternative approach: a simple, polite, email to webmaster@whateverdomain, stating "you seem to be hosting these things, do you mind removing them, please?", which might actually get my respect.
The spraying of litigious emails all over the 'Net does nothing for their cause and only serves to dilute the effectiveness of the legal-via-email system (such as it is). People should report these emails to the FCC and demand a full public enquiry that the MPAA are abusive spammers.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Bad example, as movie theatres make most of their cash off of the concessions and not the ticket prices.
Ah...see, you are slowly shifting to the 'why it's okay to steal music' argument. "Artists make most of their money from concerts, not cds so that justifies stealing music off the web. If it's good enough, people will go see them live, if not well, they suck and deserve nothing." Your argument only holds water if the movies are free to begin with. Even if they make most of their money off concessions, they still charge $10 to get through the door.
You seemed to have missed the posters point.
The theater charges ten dollars to walk through the door, all of which goes to the movie producer. The theater doesn't get to keep those ten dollars.
Money is a necessary incentive for the production of high quality intellectual content, yes. If nobody ever forked over a dime for a movie, then only hobbysts would ever make movies, and they would all suck. Both true. However, there are BETTER WAYS of insuring that movie-making remains profitable than trying to make data-copying (the computer's natural function) illegal.
If you can't think of such better ways, that doesn't mean that such ways don't exist. In fact, several such better ways have been enumerated on this very site, so I shan't repeat them here.
According to your logic, I should be able to walk into a movie theater and watch a movie without paying. What does the theater lose? Nothing material.
No, you have mis-applied that logic. A movie theater is a persistent physical entity. It requires maintenance (which costs real money) and property taxes (which also costs real money). Just keeping it costs the owner something substantial.
Your non-contributive use of it not only increases wear and tear (hence real costs) but reduces the space available for paying users.
This is very, very different from making a copy of digital material the production of which is a sunk cost. Your duplication of said material does not increase wear and tear on the tangible property, nor does it prevent buyers from paying for it.
The differences are obvious, and you can't rationalize them away.
(Yes, I know that if one cannot make a profit from movie making, one will not make good movies. What is needed is an adjustment of the business model to match current market needs, rather than an adjustment of the real world to match a business model).
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
Since when has stealing EVER been allowed?
Stealing? Yes, that's been illegal for a very long time. Copyright infringment? Only a few hundred years. The USA used to have no problem at all with copying works from Europe and elsewhere even after it created internal copyright legislation.
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.
(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
But it is sharing. It might be illegal sharing. It might be immoral sharing. But it is sharing. It is not, however, theft.
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.
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.
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.
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'