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?
What don't they get?
Do you think the MPAA and RIAA should stand idly by and not care when people download and enjoy (or hate) for free all of their products?
I'd say they understand it pretty well, there is a % of DLers who get for free what they would ordinarily buy, and they want that % paying them for the same thing (music, video, etc). If they stand around picking their rears, many will see it as an endorsement of DLing.
No, they must protect their copyrights and interests, like it or not, nice or not. It is the only way.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
[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
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.
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.
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.
"
Oh dear, people getting sued for committing illegal acts, how appalling! What is this country coming to?
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
"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.
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.
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
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'!
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.
And if *I* were the MPAA, I would seriously consider this: no ticket sales, profit-sharing with concessions, Hollywood pays a percentage of the actual theatre buildings, etc. I'm sure they could get their money back and this way they could compete with the other "free" way to make music. I know that Famous Players has reduced their ticket prices (this week, AFAIK) instead of driving them up, which is definitely a reaction to p2p. What's going to happen in the future with the next generation of broadband technology?
I can already download an entire movie in just under an hour, which is sometimes how long it takes to get everybody packed up, in the car, purchase the tickets, get through the concession stand, find a seat, and then wait through 20 minutes worth of commercials. If the MPAA doesn't adapt, and I mean *now*, they're going to lose out on an entire generation of movie-goers. My friend's younger brother (11) hasn't been to the movies in three months, but in that time he's downloaded at least two or three movies a week, simply because it's so easy.
Music CDs are a different argument, because it's much more difficult to see a band live than it is to see a movie in virtually any city in North America, so no, I'm not going in that direction.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
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 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
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.
**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.