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
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..
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.
"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.
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
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).
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
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!
something like that. they need to save up for the $500k per occurrence new FCC fines. and with Chris Rock hosting, they're probably trying to save up a few $20-40 million
vodka, straight up, thank you!
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!!!
"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.
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 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
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.
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
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?
"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
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 has nothing to do with the courts -- Congress set the statutory damages at up to $150,000 per work infringed upon.
And anyway, while we've been forgetting the public interest here, I wouldn't praise Europe. You guys have traditionally far worse copyright laws than us, and have been pressuring the US to make ours worse.
If we had any sense we never would've joined the Berne Convention, and would've kept copyrights sharply limited in term, scope, with strict formalities required for them to come into existence.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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 |
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL AND YOU CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR DOWNLOADING MOVIES. ONLY FOR UPLOADING.
Actually it is illegal, and you can be sued civilly or in some cases even prosecuted. The relevant portion of the law is 17 USC 106(1) which prohibits reproduction. Downloading is a form of reproduction.
Napster was successfully sued ultimately because its users infringed by both uploading and downloading, and it helped them do it. It's hardly unique.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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?
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.