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."

Comments

For parents?

[Coneasfast]

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."

Re:For parents?

[AviLazar]

Don't worry this software is purely to help parents ensure their little kids are not growing up to be criminals...it won't be used by the MPAA at all to track those computers and send the info to the MPAA.

Between that and the fact the parents may not know how to utilize the software I am sure it will be great SuckCess.

I am waiting for the time comes when i purchase a movie, place it in my dvd player (flash upgrade) or in my computer and it will auto-install tracking software.

Re:For parents?

[malcomvetter]

"Son, what is all this crap that program found? ... You mean you can download entire movies? Pull up a chair and show your father how to do that."

Re:For parents?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

When my brother got arrested for identity fraud (this was way back in 1989, before it was called that) and was being transported from the police station to the county jail, the two sherrifs in the front of the car were asking him what he was arrested for.

When he explained that he was using his computer (a C-64) to look at random strangers credit reports so he could use their credit card info to buy stuff, the driver said something to the effect of "whoo-ee, you need to show us how to do that - it costs us $20 every time we run a credit report to try and find someone"...

Will downloaders of Gigli...

[Anonymous Coward]

...be able to sue the MPAA?

"Legally" or "illegally" acquired content?

[mopslik]

[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?

Round Two! Fight!

[Mitaphane]

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?

Re:Round Two! Fight!

[saddino]

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?

Because:

1) The number of people who buy videos from street vendors is likely miniscule compared to the number of people who are already downloading ripped movies; and

2) The quality of videos from street vendors is notoriously unwatchable; and

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.

Re:Round Two! Fight!

[Ohm2k]

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.

Re:Round Two! Fight!

[Eskimore_]

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.

I disagree with that. Although it is logical it isn't what is actually happening. In actuality the revenue streams of the music industry are not suffering. As proof I offer this article that shows that even though piracy is increasing SO ARE LEGIT CD SALES.

It's not the actuall loss of sales that is affecting the content industry. It's the threat of lost control.

You have to realize that it's not the artists that are freaking out here, it's the content distribution companies, who by the way keep the bulk of the profits made from sales. You see, before the Internet they had a lot of control over the end user experience. Now that control is slipping away. In fact, I would say that the internet will almost completely dissolve the RIAA/MPAA business model in the next few decades.

But they want YOU to think the issue is lost revenue due to pirating. But it's not. It's potential future revenue loss for the distribution companies who, by the way, have reisited every major technological change in the history of the industrial revolution, even though time and again those changes made them richer. They're just plain short sighted.

Re:Round Two! Fight!

[j-turkey]

and as far as i know, RIAA has never sued downloaders. they sue uploaders/distributers.

With BitTorrent, everybody who downloads is an uploader/distributor (unless of course, you're only counting people who seed).

Better than a program to track P2P apps...

[hal2814]

...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.

LokiTorrent

[Eminence]

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.

VERY liberal definitions

[xThinkx]

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"

Imagine...

[GillBates0]

parents can talk with children about the legalities of peer-to-peer activity

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.

Re:Absurd!

[grumpygrodyguy]

What is this country coming to?

It's coming to citizens having to personally reclaim their rights from corrupt lawmakers.

Re:How much can they really sue for?

[cpt kangarooski]

The answer to your question is at 17 USC 504, 505.

In general though, these suits are brought for the maximum amount of statutory damages. That means $150,000 per work infringed upon. So for a person who rips and scans a CD and puts it on their server, and the CD has, let's say 10 tracks, we could easily see 22 infringements -- the CD as a compilation, each song, each recording of each song, and the artwork. (This is a worst case sort of thing -- it could all be one big work just as easily)

So that's 22 x $150,000 = $3.3 million.

I remember a few years ago that some college students were being sued for billions of dollars.

Of course, the damage award could be lower, but it's still going to be pretty significant most of the time (the least you can normally expect is $700 per work) and the mere amount of the award doesn't mean you can pay it.

Since there's no point in trying to get blood from a stone, and since the cases are slam dunks as a rule, the RIAA and MPAA generally are very kind in agreeing to settle for a mere few thousand dollars.

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?

Because they watch you get each one, and have evidence of that. And they sue you, and have a discovery request requiring you to tell them and to produce the copies and your equipment so they can inspect it. And because they get a court order to impound the copies you made and go to your house with federal marshalls and take them away.

These suits are not being brought to make money. People don't have enough money to make this worthwhile.

It's just to scare people into not pirating.