Slashdot Mirror
New Round of Lawsuits in Preparation for Oscars
An anonymous reader wrote to mention CNNMoney's coverage of the latest round of MPAA lawsuits targeting end users. From the article: "The civil suits against unnamed "John Doe" defendants seek up to $150,000 per downloaded digital file and come as the film industry prepares for its annual Oscar telecast in Hollywood where awards for top films and stars are given out."
My god, that's completely insane. Why not just charge twenty bucks plus court costs? That'd prove far more agreeable to the users and pirates - it's the same price as a DVD, and you can claim Fair Use with what you do with it.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
Hollywood files more Web lawsuits
Studios sue traders of illegally copied films traded online, seek up to $150,000 per download.
February 24, 2005: 6:20 PM EST
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Hollywood's major movie studios filed a new round of lawsuits nationwide Thursday against people who trade illegally copied films and TV shows on the Internet.
The civil suits against unnamed "John Doe" defendants seek up to $1,500,000 per downloaded digital file and come as the film industry prepares for its annual Oscar telecast in Hollywood where awards for top films and stars are given out.
The studios, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, took the opportunity of the Oscars to again press the case that the illegal copying of films and their black-market distribution on the Internet is costing them billions of dollars a year in lost revenue.
The studios claim they lose $35 billion worldwide in annual revenues from sales of illegally copied movies on video and DVD formats in street bazaars and black markets.
The studios argue that the lost revenue means fewer artists will work to create movies or TV shows. Traditionally the films that are rewarded by Oscar voters at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are those that take thematic and commercial risks.
"When rampant online theft occurs, these films become that much harder to finance...we cannot and will not let that happen," MPAA Chief Executive Dan Glickman said in a telephone conference call with reporters.
MPAA officials said "several" of the Oscar nominated films had illegal copies on the Internet that could be downloaded, but they named only comedy "Sideways," which is nominated for best picture.
"Sideways" is a low-budget movie but was considered a financially risky one for its backers at Fox Searchlight because of its offbeat subject matter. Fox Searchlight is a division of News Corp Ltd's Twentieth Century Fox movie studio.
MPAA officials declined to say how many suits it had filed or whether the illegal copies were made by video camera taping in theaters or by copying videos or DVDs that are given away by the studios this time of year to win Oscar votes.
Earlier this month, the MPAA filed lawsuits against computer networks utilizing a software technology known as BitTorrent, but these new suits were against end users, or people who actually downloaded the films. Top of page
"$150,000 per downloaded digital file"
they are smoking crack
Can't be bothered to sue everyone downloading so they'll just sue a couple of patsies and recoup all there "losses" that way.
Score:-1, Zoom, right over moderator's head.
I remember seeing/hearing this speech by Michael Greene in 2002. I suspect we'll hear the same this year, should you be watching the Oscars.
Who in the MPAA actually verifys the files are illegal and not just some homemade porn or some songs from your friends band that he gave you?
And how do they justify the number ($150,000) per digital file? What if it's an analog file like a printout of the digital file? Is that still $150,000 or maybe just $50,000?
The MPAA needs more clear guidelines than "If we catch you with a digital file we don't like, it's gonna cost you $150,000"
Not that they care, they are just there to spoonfeed the rich more money so they get a piece of the cake in return. Just a good example of capitalist scumbags.
We all know theres a real warm place waiting for the **AA Lawyers when their life is over.
[cx]
"The studios argue that the lost revenue means fewer artists will work to create movies or TV shows." Give me one name of someone that is an 'artist' and won't star in a tv show or movie.. I can see not staring in a shitty movie/tv show, but there isn't anyone out there that won't star in a movie/tv show if its good..
Maybe its just me, but I like to spend money on things that are good. I download a movies every now and then due to mixed reviews and such.
If something is good, I go see it/rent it/buy the DVD. If it is not, I saved my cash for something more worthwhile. Although this is a skewed view, I think that there is just too much crap out there.
We are flooded everyday with ads and movies, TV, and all these things. Everyone is trying to get my cash quick, rather than making quality entertainment. Hell, TiVo lets me record a lot of stuff and explore. I need that for Movies and Music.
If I wrote something witty, you would say I stole it from somewhere.
Is this a change in tactic for both of the *AA orgs? I was under the impression that up to now, they had only sued the uploaders or the people facilitating the sharing.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
I'm nout surprised that they are targeting file swappers... I mean, it would look bad if you had to sue your own people after they leak the movies.
OK, so I'm not a lawyer, and this has been bugging me.
I can see the rationale behind John Doe warrants and such in criminal cases. But how can you file a CIVIL suit (where one party seeks damages from a second party) without knowing who you're suing? How can legal proceedings begin without a defendant?
Only gay people watch the Oscars.
before we see russian site allofdvd.com spring up?
"The studios claim they lose $35 billion worldwide in annual revenues from sales of illegally copied movies on video and DVD formats in street bazaars and black markets."
...but these new suits were against end users, or people who actually downloaded the films.
and later
And we all know those are the same people. Sheesh.
we take off and nuke Hollywood from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
doing this just to pay for the oscars? :)
i hate pansy republicans
For one thing the asian pirates produce a much better product. The picture is perfect its a full copy of the DVD usually indestinguishable from the originals.
The stuff off the internet is usually at best described as low quality with choppy motion, questionable sound and video artifacts from the compression schemes used.
While the MPAA has every right to go after people that violate their copyright they should in no way be allowed to delude the courts,their investors, or themselves that suing movie lovers will improve their bottom line.
Apparently, they're currently targeting the distributors who are selling illegally copied films.they should stick to that strategy, as it 1) focuses the attacks on what hurts them most (since black market targets customers who pay for the stuff) and 2) less likely to make consumers hate them
"The studios argue that the lost revenue means fewer artists will work to create movies or TV shows. "
I can think of a few "artists" that I would like to never see in another movie or tv show.
I think they are trying to disguise the fact that there aren't any good movies to download these days. Who the heck wants to see Million Dollar Baby or Ray or that one about some dude testing wine. I mean really, folks should be punished for sending those over the internet. Bad taste alone.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
If they would actually get $150,000 per person per movie they sued, I wonder how that would compare to the actual gross revenue of top movies in history before the Internet (compensating for inflation).
Just wondering if any Slashdotters out there got a C&D letter from the MPAA or other studios? Can anyone speak from personal experience and provide some further insight into this matter?
fined $150 000 for having downloaded an Uwe Boll movie...
:)
That would suck !!
you're actually better off by breaking in and stealing 1000 dvd's!
but virtual crime seems worse...
Privacy is terrorism.
I'd like to see some high-profile news articles about MPAA suing the producers, the screeners, the guild members who leak out all those freebie discs. That'd be good for the debate, but I'm not gonna see CNN (a division of Time Warner) covering this sort of thing.
[
"The studios argue that the lost revenue means fewer artists will work to create movies or TV shows. Traditionally the films that are rewarded by Oscar voters at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are those that take thematic and commercial risks.
When rampant online theft occurs, these films become that much harder to finance...we cannot and will not let that happen," MPAA Chief Executive Dan Glickman said in a telephone conference call with reporters."
I'm sick of their "the stuntman will starve if you download a movie!!" argument, when actors make millions per movie (eg., Brad Pitt earned $17.5M for Troy). I'm not trying to justify the downloading of movies, I'm just sick of the MPAA's silly argument.
A BitTorrent simultaenously uploads and downloads.
Here it is:
/\/\P44
g3t m3 1337 w4r3z 0ff j000 b0x3n |\|0\/\/ j000 l1ttl3 f|_|ck3r
j00urz,
That is math.
They "loose 3.5 billion". THey sue 20.000 john doe's so that is 150.000 dollar per john doe. (well actually they sue 23,333.33 people)
Don't forget this is all about getting press coverage and scare tactics. Even they realize that suing 20.000 people does not really make a difference. And today they got free coverage by slashdot (and tomorrow they will get it again! 8) )
(and forget the fact that a large loss is the printing machines in the far east that are chewing out mass amounts of copies of the dvd's, the mpaa is also powerless about)
I can see it now, "We've lost an estimated $2 billion so far this year; all due to peer to peer file sharing." There's a big flaw in their argument. Who is to say that users would pay for these movies in the first place? Let me explain. I have downloaded a few movies and songs in my day, but I would not have paid for them in a store. The studios are claiming lost revenue, but the reality is that the people are downloading them simply because they are there and a movie may be cool to watch. I have downloaded exactly one (1) movie that the MPAA would consider theirs, but I never would have paid to see it in the theater or purchase it at a store. There was no lost revenue, not even close. So, as we know, these numbers come straight out of people's asses. I suspect that many others share similar views about the movies. They are downloading them becuase they are there and may be entertaining, but would never actually pay money to see them because that would be a waste.
BDR Gear
Outdoor gear, MREs, and more!
Why not go after the people who release the Academy Awards screeners instead of making people hate the film medium at a time where people give out awards to celebrate the film medium and the talent that occupies it.
Hmm... . So the behavior of one cartel makes every captialist a scumbag?
Are the people at Yahoo scumbags? What about the folks who run the show at 3M? Ford? IBM? Dow-Corning? ARM Holdings?
Are there any capitalists who aren't scumbags, or is a large business automatically evil?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
(1) someone is downloading a particular movie/song/etc and not simply a file named as a movie/song/etc? I mean, someone can simply be downloading a file containing PI to the 10,000th digit or something stupid like that? How can they tell that what they donwload is the movie without actually looking at the file themselves? And if they are looking at the files that were download then are they not packet sniffing and hence breaking into people's computers (essentially)?
(2) Secondly, what if someone owns a particular movie on DVD but does not have the ability to convert it to avi or mpg format for his computer...he then downloads it from the internet so he can view it on his trips, etc....does he not already own the movie? How can they sue him for downloading it since he already has it, he just needed a different medium of it!!! To take that a step further...how can the MPAA prove that he doen't own any of the movies that he downloaded? Maybe he does and maybe he broke all his disks or his kid scratched them up...should he be forced to buy new ones when he already bought them before?
Seems to me, that these suits require people to prove their innocence rather than the MPAA having to prove their guilt...that is unconsitutional!!!
There needs to be a lifetime of DDOS's on the MPAA ip address range!
"The next contestants may not be very well known to the general public, but they will be after our lawyers finish tearing them apart. Ladies and gentlemen, here they are:"
Lights out.
"John Doe One. This 15 year old criminal downloaded a crappy hand-filmed DIVX version of Spiderman 2. He agreed to sell one kidney and both his eyeballs to pay the 150k fee."
"John Doe Two. A medschool student (still), the IP of his machine was found in the Lokitorrent logs. That's proof enough that he is guilty. He will spend the next 106 years making Texas license plates to cover for the fine."
"John Doe Three. 35 years old, still living with his mom, has a valid Slashdot account. Since all Slashdot users are geeks and all geeks download illegal contents from P2P networks, he's guilty as hell. Sentenced to 25 years in the Russian unranium mines."
"John Doe Four. Farmer, age 42. His computer contained the infamous BitTorrent software. He claims his 12 year old nephew has installed it without his knowledge. Both are in custody at a high security location, awaiting the decision of the MPAA board."
"John Doe Five. He posted a nasty anonymous comment about MPAA on a well-known forum dedicated to freedom of speech. Why anonymous, John? Do you have something to hide? Thankfully his ISP has been forced to disclose his IP under the Patriot Act, and now the 28 year old security consultant faces the death sentence under accusations of theft, identity stealing (Mr. A. Coward was appaled to find out you used his name, buster!) and digital terrorism."
Lights in. Humorous comment from the host.
"And the loser is...."
Just
The bigest security hole in Hollywood does not come from it's customers, nor the "Analog Hole". It comes from insiders who either stupidly distribute the material to those who ask for it, or those who are bribed to supply it. Pro Pirates can come out with copies of DVDs before the official ones hit the street. How? Because they pay someone working in either the DVD authoring or the DVD pressing to send them a copy of the DVD.
The other way is actually quite funny. My boss has been working in TV for a few decades now. Back when he worked in Network News, they called up the company that produced Star Wars: A New Hope (yes, the first movie) to get some footage for the news. The studio sent them the whole movie over the satelite (which they recorded to 2" tape). Mind you, at this point the movies was still in theaters, and they had their very own high quality copy.
Before the MPAA can do anything about piracy, they need to fix their own security holes first. Consumers aren't going to be doing this proffesionaly and on a wide scale. The people who get to the material before the DVD that gets pressed are.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
With BitTorrent (which was the technology mentioned in the article), the downloaders are uploading as well. The "end user" is also a distributor. Not only is it part of the community of copyright infringement, it's integral to the function of the community.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
I believe it is only hurting the cause of the MPAA(not that I agree to begin with) when these hideous people are receiving gifts of $600 pj's, mink eyelashes and Spa treatments, just to BE AT the Oscars.
There is a couple of million dollars worth of ONLY gift baskets for these people at the Oscars. Why should anyone sympathize with the MPAA crying that someone downloaded a couple of files? Right wrong or indifferent Hollywood is way overblown.
..is if the MPAA is so down on piracy, why they don't appear to have cracked down on the people selling pirated DVD's on every New York City streetcorner and most subway trains? It's not like those people are doing anything to hide their identity or that they're selling pirated goods.
in order to get a $150,000 fine?
And theft is worse than copyright infringement. Theft is about taking something away from someone. Copyright infringement doesn't take something away from someone, it just denies them a (very improbable) revenue.
The law is illogical, and really someone should be trying to make the law sensible.
Just because copyright infringement "hurts" big business which is friendly with the government, whilst theft only hurts individuals and small business, doesn't mean you can treat the lesser crime as being 100x as bad as the worse crime.
Except in a plutocracy.
Well, you gotta buy a new one.
Also I fail to see how someone would be unable to make a digital copy of a movie if they already have the DVD.
Er, actually a lot of the time you can find an exact download of the DVD (sometimes a pre-release leak, sometimes a screener leak), minus the special features and extra language tracks, so it will fit on a 4.7GB DVD-R. I'd say the exact video track off the DVD would be considered pretty high-quality.
If these suits are actually against end-users, it is a major change in **AA strategy, and potentially a risky one.
In the world of print, which is what the law was written for in the first place and where it is most clear what is legal and what isn't, if Joe's Pirate Press publishes an unauthorized edition of the latest bestseller, they have infringed the copyright, but I am in the clear if I buy from Joe, because copyright restricts reproduction and publication, not possession.
On the internet, things are less clear, because if I download from Joe's FTP, it is not exactly clear who has made the copy. Sure, I requested it, but it was Joe who sent the bits my way. Joe could have sent me the bits even if I hadn't requested them. I don't know of any relevant case law, but a case exists to be made that the downloader of a file is in the same position as the purchaser of a book.
The one thing the **AA's don't want is for such a case to actually make it to court and risk setting a precedent that the downloader is legally in the clear, and only the party that offers the file for download infringes.
"The civil suits against unnamed "John Doe" defendants seek up to $150,000 per downloaded digital file and come as the film industry prepares for its annual Oscar telecast in Hollywood where awards for top films and stars are given o
Wrong wrong wrong. MPAA FUD and nothing more.
Nobody has been sued for downloading files. It's for UPLOADING and sharing files. MPAA FUD wins again with an article repeating their mantra.
It's like the SCO case where they just had to say something over and over for the press to believe it.
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL AND YOU CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR DOWNLOADING MOVIES. ONLY FOR UPLOADING.
Combat MPAA FUD Today.
The stuff off the internet is usually at best described as low quality with choppy motion, questionable sound and video artifacts from the compression schemes used.
Absolute bollocks. 1.4Gb XviD, DVD-R rips or HRHD (that high definition rips in high resolution off HDTV) are sometimes _better_ quality than national TV in many countries - and HRHD rips rival _anything_ available to buy here in Europe (while still being playable in HDTV resolutions with an Xbox and a projector/plasma/lcd-tv).
Why buy something of lesser quality when you can download something that actually makes use of the expensive toys you bought?
it's in my head
Oh yeah, the oscars aren't a popularity contest or anything like that.
They're not talking about our Oscars. How do I get to this other plane where the Oscars mean something?
"Hollywood files more Web lawsuits Studios sue traders of illegally copied films traded online, seek up to $150,000 per download. February 24, 2005: 6:20 PM EST " Anyone notice that?
Human beings have been creating art for a looooong time without the protection of the RIAA or MPAA. I seriously doubt that downloading music and movies is going to change that.
The US courts are becoming more and more a joke. I really can't imagine anywhere in Europe (certainly not in scandinavia where I live), where $150,000 claims for downloading a freaking movie wouldn't become a huge news issue (everybody, not just fileswappers/downloads/etc would go nuts since such claims basically would ruin most people's life. And thats not something that taken lightly over here).
The US courts should soon be renamed to something more fitting, like "The corporate torture device".
And you guys, the Americans are basically to blame. For generations you've voted to support this kind of behavior, shame on you!
if linux can compete with microsoft, why can't we have "lisney" compete with disney?
some hive of scriptwriters assembling a script piecemeal blog style... filming being doled out to small crews of the motivated filming individual scenes... editors being anyone at their pc, results voted on by committee... and then distribution and advertising is a no-brainer: all web
digital hd is becoming really cheap now, there is no reason why an open source style studio system couldn't give the traditional lumbering studios that spend bajillions a good run for their money in terms of product people would want to see... and it's free as in beer and speech
of course, since there is no "real" (traditional) money in it, the really good talent would get seduced by the traditional studio system for big bucks eventually... but, that fact alone means this plan is a workable idea
and additionally, distributors WILL buy good product, so there might be a way to make money off of open source filmmaking directly anyways: copyleft ensures a line of ownership so money will get back to those who contributed proportionally (you wrote 2 lines of dialogue which was used in the final cut of the picture, the film made $32 million, so according to the rules we set up before scriptwriting started, here's your check for $4,233.12)
and we can put to test once and for all the assertion that free product on the internet actually INCREASES purchases and interest in a product: a groundswell of interest a la "the blair witch project" leading to warm seats at the box office regardless of its pre-existing free availability on the net (yes, believe it or not, there are people out there like me who think that watching a film on a 17 inch monitor alone in my underwear doesn't compare to a real popcorn munching oohing and aahing theatre experience, even figuring in the crying babies and the cell phones)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Apparently, not that many. This survey says only about 4% of Americans have actually gotten a full length movie online. A little over 1/2 are not even aware of the concept.
They must use the money collected from lawsuits to pay for those trophies!!
If they wouldn't use 850 K gold or silver, records wouldn't cost as much, ya think?
And renting the $25 mil necklaces has to come from some poor chap who downloaded at the wrong time, right?
Download the torrent now!
to live your entire life so completely off-topic all of the time? I'd consider it a remarkable feat if it weren't so damned sad.
Ticket prices are going up. In New York you can pay upwards to 10 dollars a ticket and I bet many other cities its the same. Films are breaking records in every direction that even the smallest films (my big fat greek wedding) can make a huge amount. Why is the MPAA angry again, When one day dvd sales are even surpassing box office profits? The MPAA should be happy to have a product that the people want unlike the RIAA who we all know the problem is not mp3s, its the lack of quality music. At times like these when Digital technology is putting the ability to make films in anyones hands, it might not be a such a good idea to hurt your fans when in a few short years they will be the directors and producers with the option of circumventing the whole Hollywood system.
Trix are for kids!
"Okay guys, the awards are coming up and we need some PR exposure...who we gonna sue?"
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
lord of the rings!
you're actually better off by breaking in and stealing 1000 dvd's!
No. Stealing 1000 DVD's would put you in felony territory in pretty much all states; that is to say, you get to spend some time in a mound-me-in-the-ass-state-prison, you lose the right to vote, you will have problems getting firearms legally (if that's your thing), and you will have great difficulties finding an employer willing to hire you. In the US, it really sucks to be a former felon trying to lead a normal life. On the other hand, stealing 5 DVD's is only a misdemeanor, so if you are caught, you might get off with a $500 fine and some community service.
The MPAA may be able to stop Americans from downloading by bludgeoning them with lawsuits. However, in Europe no enforcement is going on and in Russia copyright law is practically nonexistent.
The reason DVD quality copies of the Oscar nominated films are available on eMule is because the studios themselves distributed the DVD screener copies to members of the MPAA. For example, a DVD quality copy of "Million Dollar Baby" is available on over 20000 peers, in over 10 languages.
It seems likely that the leaks that allow all this 'illegal' downloading came directly from MPAA members.
www.exeem.com
the new generation of bittorrent should handle a lot of these concerns since it will allow bittorrent to go further undergound on the net...
i tired to submit a artical about it... and the all knowing "slashdot gods" shot me down twice...
exeem is revamp of bittorrent, made by the same people, that addresses aspects that leave us, the end user, open for legal litigation. it is designed to eliminate the tracker system getting rid of the centralization that was needed for bit torrent to work. and it should also change the way ip address are reported as users...the future is near.
Good Karma, Bad Karma, doesnt matter to me... I'm still going to say whats on my mind!
Or so I have been told.
http://jayceecorder.blogspot.com
I'd like to see some high-profile news articles about MPAA suing the producers, the screeners, the guild members who leak out all those freebie discs. That'd be good for the debate, but I'm not gonna see CNN (a division of Time Warner) covering this sort of thing.
Funny you should use CNN... Arrest in movie bootlegging scheme...
geek. lawyer.
For the RIAA, their law team could easily cost 150k for a single trial, so it really could be 20 bucks plus court costs, unfortunately!
stuff |
You have to lose your sanity.
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
No doubt, someone will make the joke that you should boycott the MPAA by downloading a copy of the Oscars rather than watching it on tv.
But this raises some legit questions in my mind. While BitTorrent won't ever be MPAA approved, why wouldn't some other service that loaded it up with commercials, copy-protected the data, and gave blood-money to the data owners be allowed?
Just on idle speculation it would seem to do harm to the way these content providers do business now. Things like Nielson Ratings and other surveys are a joke. Even the somewhat more reliable "box office sales" are manipulable; for example, most movie-goers in my bible-belt state bought a ticket to "The Passion of the Christ" regardless of what movie they actually walked into.
Download statistics just don't offer the level of manipulable, vague uncertainty that the content providers are used to and would probably call into question the absurdity current licensing and advertising rates are calculated. Of course these groups would love to have another form of income, but not at the expense of their decades old statistical handwaving that everyone trusts now.
Something for the *AA folks.
You can't eat money.
are the going to announce the names of the people that they are suing during the show... that's one way they could get me to watch...
Get your torrents...
So if I make a movie and/or song and copyright it, then the RIAA downloads it thinking it is illegal, could i get $150,000 or more for them downloading my stuff?
What makes you so entitled? The fact that the distributor does not want to sell you that product does not give you the right to just take it. That's the artist/seller/distributor's perogative(sp?).
How does this prerogative "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", which is the constitutional mandate of copyright and patent law?
Does anyone know how many bootlegs I'd have to sell at the flea market to pay off a $150,000 fine!?!
C'mon guys, keep it on the down low. They don't need to know that visually perfect copies are being distributed.
I'm sure if you bring it up in negotiations that the thing you downloaded was actually your cousin's piano recital, they'll opt to drop the suit rather than go to court and pay a nasty PR penalty when the words gets out.
Not always. It's possible that the movie studio is owned by the same parent company as the music publisher of the post-1923 work that the cousin performed on the piano. But it's becoming less likely, as Universal and Warner Bros. have spun off their music divisions into separate companies.
You might take a peek at the EFF's Tor project... if I understand it correctly, it should be capably of anonymizing any kind of traffic.
If I go into a shop and steal a DVD, I might end up in court and get a small fine at worst (more than likely I'll just get a warning from the police,etc). The fact is, something bad will happen to me, but its not that bad since the DVD isnt that expensive. Though I still could have used the stolen dvd to make copies or let everyone I know watch it.
Now, along comes the MPAA. Somehow, they have this idea that downloading a film is different...massively different. This is simply crazy.
The law is based on deterent and punishment. Seems the MPAA opted for some new option of also making money.
single-world wide release dates for DVD's (I know there is an argument about stagering cinema releases to get the stars to all the premiers around the world, but no excuse why you can download US DVD rips while it's in UK cinemas)
A movie will often have several underlying works owned by several different owners, such as a story, soundtrack songs, etc. Sometimes, different holding companies own exclusive licenses to a given underlying work. It takes time to negotiate with each owner. For an example of a particularly bad case, look at Eyes on the Prize .
In addition, digital projection isn't ubiquitous yet. It takes time and money to make thousands of prints of a film for thousands of screens, which is why a movie opens in different countries at different times.
It also takes time to dub the film into foreign languages, especially for G and PG films (where small children can't easily read subtitles) and for films shown in countries that prefer dubbing over subtitling.
OK, the parent can't seem to spell a word right (especially capitalist) but he makes a very sensible point. People are so quick to overly generalize, these days! What he states should be obvious but is often lost in the current us vs them mindset.
So the fact that Arab or Muslim terrorists are evil doesn't mean that all Arabs or Muslims are terrorists or even evil. Actually, you can't even say that all Arabs are Muslims nor that all Muslims are Arabs. In the same spirit, someone who says (s)he dislikes American Neocons doesn't hate America or think all Americans are Neocons.
Now, I agree it gets a bit confusing. The implications reach too far. That would mean that you could disagree with someone on one issue yet stay friends. You could oppose the mission but still support the troops!
After all, it seems to complex. It will never get any traction in the market: too subtle. Let's stick to us vs them.
if linux can compete with microsoft, why can't we have "lisney" compete with disney?
Movies from big name studios use all-rights-reserved plots and characters. How will independent cinema compete with the name recognition of Spider-Man?
Movies from big name studios use all-rights-reserved songs in the soundtracks. Independent cinema producers can't use original songs because there simply are no original songs left.
and then distribution and advertising is a no-brainer: all web
Broadband penetration in the United States is pitiful.
Name one other investment which can pay off 3:1 over its first year for investments up to 300 million (1000:1 for smaller investments) and will continue to generate revenue for more than 100 years? Sure there is risk. But it's mainly that the people investing in movies have no idea what a good movie is because they're too busy snorting coke and shooting heroin into the tip of their penis.
That some more ecclectic fare might disappear isn't a result of piracy, it's a result of a cartel investigating strategies for maximizing profits. While they'd like the stability of a few nice 3 or 2 to 1 returns spaced out nicely for each quarter, the visability and payoff on one of the 1000:1 keeps them swinging. And there will always be enough change left in Weinstien's rolls of fat to gamble with.
The real danger to the movie industry's model, isn't some dumbass in Sandusky who downloads everything as a substitute for Pokemon cards. It's that they might alienate their customers who discover a bigger bang for their entertainment dollar. And what's killing their growth is the piracy in asia that you can buy on the street in Hong Kong.
What they don't understand is it's a spectrum. At one end their is the exhuberant embracing of change, and at the other there is weilding one's power against the market. Change will not be stopped, and in the case of the one fighting the market, it insures that when the change comes it will be sudden, and the aristocracy will not survive the transition. Which, honestly, is for the best.
The Incredibles.
For one thing the asian pirates produce a much better product. The picture is perfect its a full copy of the DVD usually indestinguishable from the originals.
This is complete nonsense. I lived in Beijing for a while, and bought a fair few bootleg DVDs. Sure, the quality of movies more than a few months old was usually pretty good - often a direct rip of the official discs. But for new movies, the quality was variable to say the least.
They were usually taken from video cameras pointing at the screen, often had weird colour tinting, and it wasn't at all unusual for them to have the video artifacts you mentioned. I'm pretty sure that most if not all of the new movies you see on the streets of Beijing or Hong Kong are made from files downloaded over the Internet.
Good points. hopefully a mod will spot it
The consumers?
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Continuously the mantra is "if you download it" you will be punished. NO! It's only if you share it where the infringment happens. Yes you share bits of it when downloading on some P2P's but get it straight it's publishing it that's illegal, NOT downloading it.
(I don't condone downloading of anything you don't have a right to)
How's that for a bonus feature, you monopolistic assholes?
Some asian pirated DVD's are good, some are filmed with a hand camera in a movie theatre and some don't work at all. The quality varies to say the least.
I run an 46 unit apartment complex for college students. I provide an unencrypted wireless access point for their usage. Supposing some of them decide to download movies or music, the IP would point directly to me as the responsible party. How does one protect themselves from this (other than not provide internet)? ISP's are never held responsible for their users actions, why should I be if the above scenario were to happen?
Good thing I download all my new movies off my neighbors unsecured wifi :P
It's been said before, but apparently bears repeating, that corporations are required by their fiduciary duty and by law to increase value for their shareholders. .
For a non-profit corp., that "value" may or may not be monetary, but for nearly all the rest, it certainly IS
This naturally discourages corporations from squandering resources on moral issues that do not contribute to the bottom line. Parent's "amoral" characterization is right on target.
The bigger problem comes from the focus on QUARTERLY results. If they were somehow forced to take the longer (10+ years) view, then a moral sense might emerge naturally. Lumber companies, for example, might do more planting and less clear-cutting, maintaining customer goodwill over the long haul would be more highly prized, etc.
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
The parent's poster was being serious. Civil disobedience is one way to protest what you consider to be an unjust law. But as the parent stated, be prepared to "do the time".
... living in the US, and if they actually manage to succeed in that outrageous claim of theirs... I'd be packing my bags. But I don't think there is any sane judge in that country that can rule such a thing.
Frankly those guys sound like people who just don't give a dingo's kidney about our "legitimate use" or "i was downloading legal files, like the herd kernel, honestly!" claims. They damn well know that's so out of place. And they damn well know that clueless gulible journalists will be swarming like horny bees to help them get their point across. That's not about getting, that's about FUD. And it's working.
Now think about that. You can't just put more than half of all of your population into jails. That's just not civilized. You can, however, pass laws that make half the people criminals. Then, it's easy to fingerpoint.
Likewise, you just can't sue everybody at once. It just won't work, not even in the US. But you can spread FUD and see what happens. Sometimes scam like this works. Even if it is for a short period of time, it works. It buys you time, it brings a little more profit. Like spam: if only one person in every one million responds positively (gets scared), you've won a truckload of money.
You feel angry about that? Don't! They can't "own you"! Let them be, they will die out as a useless piece of junk of the old times. Enjoy your lives, to hell with those people, what do they concern you? Don't respond to their actions, let them cry their lungs out. It won't save their business, only finding new ways to do useful business will. But then again, perhaps that's why they need to buy time - to reform their businesses?
I would question whether "digital technology is putting the ability to make films in anyones hands", as creativity and skill are both rather important.
For instance, buying a Canon 1Ds Mk II camera won't make one a good photographer. It -may- help a good photographer take pictures that he couldn't take as readily with inferior equipment, however. Even an expenditure of millions of dollars won't guarantee a good movie if the writing, directing, and so forth isn't there -- as numerous expensive crapfests such as the Matrix sequels, Catwoman, or Event Horizon could testify.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
They cant realy expect any average joe nobody to pay them off any signifigant amount of money. They get more money simply from the scareing people off of downloading than the actual law suites. If your caught you cant pay them back its just a load of time in jail. Its more of revenge than compinsation for losses or damage.
If I walk into a local Best buy and shoplift a DVD, I'm only risking a slap on the wrist and a $50 fine.
But, if I download something, where no physical material is at risk of loss, I face a $150k fine?
That's just plain stupid.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
* Information wants to be free!
you're a dumbass. information has no urges. and wtf are you talking about anywise?
* Down with the man!
if the man is corrupt, yes, down with him indeed. also, down with the clown.
* It's not stealing, cause like they still had their copies!
no, seriously, are you about 4 years old or mentally retarded? re-read that sentence - I had to. And noone here says making copies is legal. Here's the problem summarized, for people like yourself - the slow the fat and the ugly.
It started: the top record companies are in monopolistic competition, snoozing by with their outdated business model. This was in the late 90's, when to get the song I wanted, I had to buy a $17 CD. If it was a hit, I may be able to get away w/ a $5 single. I would then listen to that CD about a hundred times, until I was sick of it.
What people wanted to do, is get several hundred individual songs, put them in a playlist and shuffle them for a month. Scour, Napster, WinMX, and some other networks provided this service. Instead of providing a pay-per-play option where you would pay a few cents per play, they started suing people. That's when the people said "last strike", and swore to never give them their money again and do everything possible to put them out of business. The people ARE stronger than the companies. Your chances of getting sued for downloading are less than spontaneously combusting - let them lose money in court - do you think anyone will pay them their $150k? But someone may blow up a couple of buildings - just keep pushing.
* Microsoft sucks!
again, noone here says they're not the right choice for games or office products. For anything serious though - ms products are a joke. I work with enterprise scale production environments with companies accross the globe on a daily basis. From my experience - noone puts mission-critical systems on microsoft platforms. Bad handling of high i/o throughput, bad scalability, lack of stability, the worst implementation of threads out there. But yes, I do run windows on my laptop. Just not on anything serving up a 3-node 20TB Oracle RAC that needs to scale well to 12k tpm.
* Piracy is just another term for "fair use"
redundant is just another term for your posts. what the smart people (not you) are trying to say is that much of what should be considered fair use is being presented as piracy by the *aa.
* Software patents suck!
now I know for a fact that you're an uninformed idiot who likes to yell for attention. Did your mom keep washing dishes as you were sitting in the dirty kitchen w/ your yellow toy truck? did you walk up to her and pull on her apron, but she looked down annoyed and said "goldspider, mommy is busy - go play with your truck". Most software patents indeed do suck. Have you seen any of them? Do you know wtf they are for? Things like scroll bars, radio buttons, drop-down menus, online shopping carts!!! You know, I pattented a way to pull on an apron back in the day - me thinks you owe me some money.
* They should have made their money on customer service.
don't even know wtf you're talking about here. I'll assume something to do with people bitching about overpriced products. These are people like you, not the guy you're replying to. You like to bitch for attention. The guy you're replying to is like me - we just don't buy the product.
Here's some free advice. Stop being a loser and writing things like "0mg d00d 175 n07 5t34l1ng!!" - What the fuck does that mean? Is your keyboard so full of cum your fingers slip when you type? Or does a fat ugly loser like you actually have fat fingers. Stop dissing people and being a general annoyance w/o any creative critisism. Try being friendly and social. get some decent clothes. go to the gym. get laid once in a while (not by the ugly wife you settled for as a last resort to riding the hershey highway). you fucking loser.
The studios argue that the lost revenue means fewer artists will work to create movies or TV shows. Traditionally the films that are rewarded by Oscar voters at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are those that take thematic and commercial risks.
...Because Titanic, Saving Private Ryan, and Gladiator all screamed of "thematic and commercial risk."
Checksums, byte counts and other mechanisms can ensure that they're looking at the suspect file to a great degree of accuracy. Even if the byte count of your PI printout is the same, it won't pass the other checks. Once they locate a cloned file, it's not hard to look for others that are just like it. Help yourself when/if you download. Add ID3 tags, change what's there, trim a second from the end, add some space at the beginning.
[If every possible melody is copyrighted,] That means there would be no music produced, yet there IS music being produced this very moment.
By the incumbents. Apparently under yerricde's conspiracy theory, the major incumbent music publishers have agreed to pool-license all possible minimally copyrightable melodies to one another. For instance, take the verse from "Can't Fight the Moonlight" written by Diane Warren and the chorus from "The Flame" written by Mitchell and Graham and you get "She Will Be Loved" written by Levine and Valentine. But the problem of cross-licensing and pool-licensing is that it forms a barrier to entry because newcomers have much fewer works to offer in a license trade and thus can't negotiate decent terms.
Heck, there actually *are* cheap animated knockoffs of the same stories redone by Disney.
Which I buy whenever I can find them because I love to support Disney's competitors. In fact, a couple of the Pinocchio knockoffs stick much closer to Collodi's novel than does the Disney version. However, doesn't Disney bring (allegedly frivolous) lawsuits against the producers of such knockoffs, alleging misappropriation of the visual designs of characters?
it's up to the rights owners to offer it IF THEY WANT TO. If they don't, then don't do business with them.
I do not understand. How is not buying Kill Bill, Spirited Away, Finding Nemo, or any other title distributed by Disney going to convince Disney to release Song of the South on region 1 DVD?
just go to vid stores and rip a copy, instead of attempting a download. And, you are giving some money back to to those poor studios (albeit not as much as the $45 they want).
You'd soon complain if a company tried to force you what to do, so what makes you think you can force them to do something?
Copyright is a privilege, a government subsidy to fund the creation of works of authorship. Why do you believe that privileges should not come with responsibilities? Do you think letting orphan works sit unused "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?
I beg to differ that checksums, byte counts, etc can have even the slightest degree of accuracy. The reason is that one can compress/encode/etc the particular media file a million different ways with a million different codecs. There is no way that you could have every possible method of formulating the file available to compare to or even have the checksums to compare to. Also, the file can be encrypted for download and in that case that is even a bigger jumbled mess...there is no way to know what you are looking at is encrypted or not, zipped or not ... UNLESS, you know exactly the scheme used to encrypt it or ZIP it. SO, there is no way they can prove any media file is what they say it is...
That sounds ridiculous to me. They should only be able to sue for what it would cost that person to actually BUY that movie.
No sig for you!!
YHL
HAND
...while I puke.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The suit names the defendants as "John Doe," but officials from the plaintiff, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), declined to say how many suits were filed. The studios are represented by the MPAA and will take their message to the public during the Oscars this Sunday.
Broadcasting their message at the Oscars will highlight the studios' focus on the lose of artistic talent that file sharing reportedly creates. They argue that lost revenue from downloaded files means artists will be paid less to appear in movies resulting ion a smaller talent pool.
Man, this will be great. I can't wait to download the Oscars on Monday and find out what happens.
I wonder if anybody in the audience will boo?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere