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!
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.
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).
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!
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
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.
They need to study foreign and independent films some more to get some different ideas.
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
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 this was a criminal case, you'd be right. But this is civil court. You have a plantiff, and a defendant. In criminal, its ALWAYS assumed the defendant is innocent, and the state has to make the argument why he is guilty.
This is not so in civil court. Initally, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, but after they file their first motions and state what evidence they have, it is the defendants job to prove why they are innocent. Furthermore, the plaintiff wins in civil court if there is a preponderance of the evidence for one side or the other (In other words, the MPAA only has to convince a judge that there is over a 50% chance that the defendant is guilty). This is in stark contrast to criminal court, where they have to be almost 100% sure the defendant did it. Thus, a civil case can be won almost based entireley on circumstantial evidence.
Best example: OJ. Not guilty crimially, but sued out the ass in civil court by nicole's family.
So, it is the right of the defendants to prove why they are innocent, not the other way around. Therefore, completley constitutional.
Conversely, a given downloader typically has no way of being certain of what they're downloading until it's complete. What if my friend says that there's an amateur porn movie with the title "Sideways", I download it, and it turns out to be the current theater release? I had no way of knowing this before completing the download. Is there a law that says that once a studio uses a word as a title, that no other work may be distributed while named the same word? IMO that would amount to copyrighting the word itself, which is clearly public domain.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
You many many good points, X-Knight. A person prosecuting for this "crime" would have a lot of very difficult obstacles, and might find it impossible to actually get a conviction.
The problem is, these aren't going to court. A huge organization with money is sueing individuals for HUGE sums of money. That's really threatening, especially when the victim can bow out of the whole ordeal by settling out of court for a mew few thousand.
The worst part is this: Even if you were SURE you would win in court, the court costs alone make settling outside the system more affordable.
J
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
You can't legally download a copy of a movie offered for distribution by someone other than the copyright holder or an authorized agent thereof. The server/network you're downloading it from either has to be legit or it's copyright infringement. Full stop, the end
=======
Um, it's not necessarily that clear. Section 117 of U.S. Copyright law states that the owner of a lawfully acquired copy of software (defined as something that can be read and used by a computer to create a desired result - information on a DVD itself may be considered "software" under this definition - e-books are - and ESPECIALLY if the DVD contains "DVD-ROM" extras) may reproduce - or authorize third parties to reproduce - copies for him for archival purposes.
The question then becomes, "can downloading a copy of a movie I already legally own be construed as authorizing a third party to prepare a copy for me for archival purposes?" If it can be, I am not in violation of US copyright law by downloading something I already own. Assuming the uploader and downloader both have lawfully obtained copies (since the uploader rarely deletes the files after someone downloads them), it seems to me that both could be in the clear under this clause.
IANAL, TINLA.
--AC