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."
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..
Because if you steal something, then get caught, you don't get to just pay for whatever you stole. I can't just shoplift something, and then give them the money for the item if I happen to get caught later. Same deal, you steal the movie, you're taking a risk. You get boned it's your own fault.
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.
>That'd prove far more agreeable to the users and pirates
Yeah, but it's not about the users and pirates, it's about the dinosaur trying to survive the meteor impact. And it'll destroy every single small mammal he can to try and perpetuate the species.
Why try to adapt? Changing your corporate ways is always a risk, it's much better when you can scare everyone into submission with absolutely insane punishment to give example.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
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
Punitive damages? $25 in actual damages, $2000 in court costs (not sure about this number) and $147,975 in puninitive damages.
That sounds a little excessive to me!
Score:-1, Zoom, right over moderator's head.
You're mistaking what the plaintiff is asking for in damages with what the actual damage amount is. It's pretty common in civil cases to ask for a huge amount of damages (whether they can be supported or not) to make a splash. They could just as easily ask for $20 million if they wanted to. There's no requirement that they show any rationale to support the amount of damages at this stage.
At trial, the plaintiff would need to provide evidence to support their claim of damages. And the actual amount of damages would be determined by a jury. But at this stage, they can ask for however much they want.
This is a "statement" amount--scare tactics. They want to use the amount to make people think twice. And until and unless one of these cases actually goes to trial and comes back with a jury award, the "$150,000 per file" number will be hanging over everyone's head.
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.
So that makes it OK to download movies you haven't paid for, right?
Just verifying my Slashbot groupthink baseline.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The only "rights" involved in this story are the property rights of the film makers, which have been violated.
And that's why it belong here. Some people don't think that Intellectual Property is actually property, you see. What has happened is not theft, but a violation of the government-sanctioned monopoly over reproductive and distributive rights for these films. In other words, your right to download and watch whatever you want off the internet like any other site has been trampled on.
Perhaps you think this is right, and perhaps you think this is wrong -- that is up for debate, but either way it is most certainly at least partially about your rights online.
501 Not Implemented
(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!!!
If someone doesn't like this law, they can move to a country that doesn't have such laws (or run for government and try and have the law changed). If you don't want to be punished, do something about it that doesn't involve breaking the law.
Before anyone jumps in and talks about lost sales, let me just say I don't believe you. There is _no way_ all the people I know who download this stuff would have bought it if it weren't available "for free"
There is also "_no way_" that none of the people who downloaded this stuff would have bought it if it weren't available "for free."
I personally own a Hong Kong bootleg of "Battle Royale", the notrious Japanese exploitation film which has no US distribution deal, and none planned. It will probably never be released in the US, but if it ever is, will I buy it, or even rent it? Nope. Probably not. Neither will most of my friends, who have now already seen it. If this movie were ever released to the US market, my ownership of this particular bootleg will have cost them about two dozen sales.
Of course, it's a moot point in this case, as I never would have bought this bought the bootleg were it not for the film company in question formally announcing that they would never release the film in America. As an artist myself, I take copyright infringement fairly seriously.
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
...do something about it that doesn't involve breaking the law.
Or at least break the law creatively and demonstratively (civil disobedience), then suck it up and take your knocks when you get caught.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
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.
I just read it for the first time. I didn't see it on the tv...because....
..in addition..
I don't have a TV
I don't buy CDs
I don't buy movies
I don't buy software
and I block ALL internet ads
If you could sue someone for NOT consuming I'd be right up there on the list.
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.
"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.
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.
Are there any capitalists who aren't scumbags, or is a large business automatically evil?
Large corporations are not necessarily "evil", however one wants to define that term, but in my experience the vast majority of publicly-held companies are amoral, meaning there is no real sense of right/wrong. There is only a sense of what increases the bottom line. These are the kinds of companies that will, for instance, continue to spew pollution as the fines for it are cheaper than actually lowering emissions. Another example would be of an automaker that saves money by settling with plaintiffs as opposed to making a safer vehicle. In general, the law doesn't mean a whole lot to them if it's cheaper to break it than to follow it, even if they get caught. I wouldn't categorically say that all large companies are evil, but I would say that it's a safe bet that most will do whatever makes them the most money, regardless of right or wrong, and unfortunately the upper management of said companies could be considered to be in breach of their fiduciary duty if they didn't.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.
It's amazing how you can spin things so it seems as if breaking the law is a noble act.
What has happened is not theft, but a violation of the government-sanctioned monopoly over reproductive and distributive rights for these films.
That damn government, giving people full rights over their own creations. I wish we lived in an anarchy where I could take someone else's movie that they'd paid millions to make, then run an empire of shops nationwide selling the DVD for a tenth of the normal cost. This should be completely legal, otherwise my rights are being violated.
In other words, your right to download and watch whatever you want off the internet like any other site has been trampled on.
Fucking hell, the bastards. Next you'll be telling me I can't plagliarise people's works, photocopy money, download all my music illegally off the Internet. Fucking governments, trampling on my rights.
Hollywood is dying. Every movie follows the same formula.
- First 10 minute is some high budget explosive action
- followed by hours of plot
- last 15 minute is more high budget explosive action.
If you weren't too busy stealing Jerry Bruckheimer movies in the Internet, you might have gotten out to a theater last year, in which case you could have seen "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" or "Napoleon Dynamite" or "Ray" or "Shall We Dance" or hell... even "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story", and then you would not make such an idiotic post.
I can't stand people who go out of their way to watch crap like "Son of The Mask" and then complain that Hollywood is "out of ideas." News flash: Keep going to crappy movies, and they will keep meeting your demand for them!
Why try to adapt? Changing your corporate ways is always a risk, it's much better when you can scare everyone into submission with absolutely insane punishment to give example.
Adapt? You can already download legal songs off the Internet, what are you talking about? Anyway it's not your place to force a company to change how it does business, you can either do business with it legally or not at all, those are your choices. If you want to download a film but you can't legally, then 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. Actually you have a third choice, to break the law, but then don't whine about the consequences.
All this talk about 'rights' and corporations not updating their business models makes me laugh. Pirates don't care about any of that, they just want stuff for free. Yeah some people might download stuff they couldn't otherwise buy, but there are always exceptions, most people are just cheap.
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?
There is no reset button in life; however, there are bonus levels.
If you want total control over the product of your intellectual excertion, then do not tell anybody about your idea (or your song or novel). Then it will be safe.
The nature of ideas that they are not physical and once the idea spreads to other minds you cannot take it back (Maybe we should be charging you for polluting our minds with your ideas).
Copyrights are an artificial construct which is there to encourage people to publish the ideas that others can benefit from, in exchange for a limited time monopoly.
Current problem is that the copyright laws got out of whack and the copyright owners (not usually the idea's creators) just want to have total thought control over the idea they think they "own".
Let copyright last as long as patents (17 years). Why is it that if I invent a cure for cancer I get a patent for 17 years, but if I write a song about cancer it's "protected" for 150 years?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
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.
Well, what about going over to a friend's house when he or she rented a movie. With local tv, there are movies, but they are paid for with advertising. Simply watching a non-advertising-supported film which you did not pay for is not a crime. It's not an issue of having the right to watch it or not.
BDR Gear
Outdoor gear, MREs, and more!