Slashdot Mirror


MPAA Under Investigation for Illegal NYPD Payoffs

An anonymous reader writes "The New York Post is reporting that two NYPD officers are being investigated for taking illegal payoffs from the MPAA for busting sellers of pirated DVDs. According to the article, MPAA investigators would tell the cops where pirated movies were being sold, which is perfectly legal, but, after the bust, they'd give them several hundred dollars in gratuities, which is illegal. Naturally, the MPAA denies all of this."

500 comments

  1. pirated movies/games.... by npfscayle · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm all for free movies, but when people sell them, they should get arrested.
    Save the bandwidth for me. :)

    1. Re:pirated movies/games.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm all for free movies, but when people sell them, they should get arrested.

      Fine by me, but when police officers take bribes they should get arrested too. (Accepted that these are merely allegations under investigation; these police officers may not have done anything wrong).

    2. Re:pirated movies/games.... by DenDave · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why pirate the movies when real life is just as exciting..

      corrupt cops, big industry interests, the justice department gets involved, maybe the feds, why heck where's Jack Bauer?

      --
      -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
    3. Re:pirated movies/games.... by macdaddy357 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah! And when the cops let murderers, armed robbers and rapists run amok beacause busting simple copyright infringers pays a kickback, that's cool too. After all, you get free bandwidth! ;b

      --
      How ya like dat?
    4. Re:pirated movies/games.... by SA+Stevens · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's the Court System that lets murderers, armed robbers, and rapists run amok.

    5. Re:pirated movies/games.... by TommydCat · · Score: 1
      Yeah! And when the cops let murderers, armed robbers and rapists run amok beacause busting simple copyright infringers pays a kickback, that's cool too. After all, you get free bandwidth! ;b

      But while the cops are running after the murderers, armed robbers and rapists, who's left to watch out for the children?!

      --
      This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
    6. Re:pirated movies/games.... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Of course of course. It seems likely to me that of all possible allegations to make that Internal affairs would just pull this whole movie industry bribe thing out of thier asses.

    7. Re:pirated movies/games.... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      How about the parents watching thier own damned children instead of depending on the law, the police, and the tv to raise them?

    8. Re:pirated movies/games.... by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      But while the cops are running after the murderers, armed robbers and rapists, who's left to watch out for the children?!

      There are still more cops left to deal with the children. Personally, after seeing the tape on TV, I think they should have handcuffed the mother instead, jailed her, tried her for child endangerment, and forced her to take parenting classes.

    9. Re:pirated movies/games.... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      The court system is very good about convicting criminals. The statistic I recall is that above 90% of all criminal cases result in a conviction. In fact, the conviction of the innocent (even in capital cases) is a mounting problem: we have too many hanging juries.

      The problem is one of enforcement: you can't prosecute a crime without a criminal, and you can't dissuade crime without a presence on the streets.

      Actually, though, the real crime rate (you know, the crime rate that is in the real world, not on TV) is the lowest it has been for almost 40 years. In general, for violent crimes other than homicide, the US is lower than most of the rest of the world. The homicide rate is disturbingly high.

    10. Re:pirated movies/games.... by donscarletti · · Score: 1
      I get more bandwidth when the cops let murderers, armed robbers and rapists run amok too.

      I hear the net really sucks in prison.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    11. Re:pirated movies/games.... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      On your point about non-homicide crimes, look around at stats for sexual assault and rape in various countries. There are some very scary numbers out there.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  2. strange by scenestar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For a rightious organisation out to protect the lawfull rights of artists they have a rather odd way of practice

    --
    perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
    1. Re:strange by Hinhule · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seems right up their alley to me.

      Anti-Piracy Bureau of Sweden Planted Evidence

      Anti-Piracy Bureau of Sweden has nothing to do with the swedish government, and is funded by the record/movie companies.

      This has also caused a lot of debate in sweden.
      From what I can tell, as long as you are not selling warez/pirated music, it will most likely be perfectly safe to use P2P programs in sweden.

    2. Re:strange by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For a rightious organisation out to protect the lawfull rights of artists they have a rather odd way of practice

      Yeah, but for a greedy organization dedicated to stealing money from their users, that's no surprise to me.

      Unfortunately (for the *AA enemies) I think this is an isolated case, rather than their modus operandi. After all, it's reasonable to expect that one or two cops (or even a P.D.) can be corrupt, isn't it?

    3. Re:strange by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "it's reasonable to expect that one or two cops (or even a P.D.) can be corrupt, isn't it?"

      Yes but is unreasonable to think that corporations operate on isolated incident scales. Corporations are too big and disorganized to do things like this on a case by case basis. Corporations depend on blanket policies that filter down to smaller management who is only authorized to handle individual cases within the authority granted by those policies. There may only be two cops on the force who are willing to accept free money, but without a doubt if the MPAA is tipping two cops they have a policy to do so.

      But hey, it's not like they are accepting money from the mob to look the other way. They are simply getting tipped for doing what they are supposed to do and busting crooks, right? So, maybe there was that one time that Joe was a little behind on the rent and we slipped the dvd in the street pushers pocket. He was just street trash anyway. And, maybe we do tend to lean toward going after pirates instead of other types of crooks, but hey what difference does it make, laws are laws and crooks are crooks, right?

    4. Re:strange by Zemran · · Score: 1

      I am far more surprised at how cheap it is to buy a NY cop. I though the price would be in thousands, not hundreds.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    5. Re:strange by unitron · · Score: 1
      " I am far more surprised at how cheap it is to buy a NY cop. I though the price would be in thousands, not hundreds."

      If the cops start charging too much the MPAA will just outsource it to illegal aliens, just like they do their yardwork back in L.A.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  3. Money making by markild · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that it loses $3.5 billion in potential worldwide revenue because of movie piracy."

    Surely the can't expect that their raids of arrests will provide them with more sales.

    Where they thinking that as long they're already on the red number side, they could just buy themselves some police forces?

    --
    Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
    Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
    1. Re:Money making by mangus_angus · · Score: 1

      Why not? The RIAA seems to be under the impression that they are one.

    2. Re:Money making by Rs_Conqueror · · Score: 3, Funny
      Surely the can't expect that their raids of arrests will provide them with more sales.

      Apperantly they do, and don't call me shurley...

    3. Re:Money making by laird · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Surely the can't expect that their raids of arrests will provide them with more sales."

      If I understand your claim, I think you're wrong.

      Yes, I think that they do in fact think that when people buy bootleg copies of DVD's that they don't buy legit copies of the DVD's, so shutting down illegal manufacturers (i.e. factories that manufacture DVD's that they don't pay royalties on, and street vendors who burn DVD-R's and don't pay royalties) they reduce the supply of bootlegs and thus increase sales of legit DVD's.

      Is there something there that you disagree with?

    4. Re:Money making by x_codingmonkey_x · · Score: 0
      "The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that it loses $3.5 billion in potential worldwide revenue because of movie piracy."

      I love the potential part. I think that this is ridiculous. Just because they could make that money does it mean they will? I think no. Personally I don't buy DVDs and won't until they go down to a reasonable price (around $5). I think the same mentality is around for a lot of people. And the people who are downloading movies would probably not be buying them in the first place.

    5. Re:Money making by maxpublic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is there something there that you disagree with?

      Reducing the supply of bootlegs doesn't translate into increased sales of legitimiate DVDs. Economics tells us that the higher the price vs the perceived value, the less people who'll buy the product. It could very well be that the price of the bootleg is acceptable to bootleg customers, but that the price of the legal DVD is not.

      Which means that you might get *no* increase in legal DVDs by shutting down bootleg operations. You will, however, acquire power that you didn't have before (by definition).

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    6. Re:Money making by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      That should be "no increase in the purchase of legal DVDs".

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    7. Re:Money making by mirkob · · Score: 1

      I could pay 5$ for a dvd that is marginally interesting to me if I stumble on it, I will HARDLY pay 20$ for the same dvd, that independent from the legit or illegal state of the dvd. without a low cost alternative to the legal dvd I will wait some year, so the price of the dvd drop to 5$ and then I buy it. the industry will have my 5$ some year later (or never) when it could have it immediately if it offer an acceptable price.

    8. Re:Money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that it loses $3.5 billion in potential worldwide revenue because of movie piracy."

      Shit like this is nonsense.. they always exaggerate for many reasons beneficial to them. It sells them as being more valuable (towards stock holders for example) or advertise it as being more serious than it really is, so higher priority is given to it, or whatever more reasons they have to exaggerate these figures.

      They aren't losing even half of that I'm sure because many ONLY watch those movies because they are free.. that absolutely doesn't mean that if they couldn't get those movies for free, they'd still want to see them bad enough to pay money for it.. I sure as hell wouldn't. Most of it is crap.. and we can't get refunds on it.

      And those few movies that are cool, impressive, we want to buy a DVD if they were affordable.

      The opposite is more true.. artists are getting larger adiences than ever before.. their stage on which they play is bigger than ever.. even the smaller movie makers are gaining recognition by these channels.. so maybe these actors won't make 20 million for a movie but 15 instead.. boo hoo.
      They do get more recognition world wide in return.

      Good actors don't need expensive sets and materials and special effects.. and those special effects can be accomplished cheaper all the time.. looking at how much money these guys make, who complain the most, who are WE to feel sorry for them? If they want, I'll trade my life with theirs in this regard any time of day.

  4. What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know who's worse: people paying cops to enforce the law, or cops that won't enforce it unless you pay them extra.

    1. Re:What's worse? by odaen · · Score: 1

      Maybe because some of the cops already break the law at home, away from work. Personally if I was a cop I wouldn't give 2 hoots about piracy. I'd care more about the person being mugged 2 streets away.

    2. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MPAA are greedy bastards. How about we allow bribing of police officers and forget about the killers, thiefs(pirates != stealing) and all of the other true criminals and start focusing on the so called 'criminals' that are having a micro impact on the media industry income, So sad these people cant sit on there ass anymore and bring in millions.

    3. Re:What's worse? by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not every crime is equally important.

      I think I can see the logic of this - most cops probably don't give a damn about who's selling DVDs, especially since the people who do it (at least here) are usually immigrants (sometimes illegal) who have a very poor knowledge of the language and can't get a job.

      Doesn't seem to be much point to me in arresting some guy who managed to get some income that way, when there are much more harmful people out there. I think most cops would be pretty happy with that at least they're not selling drugs or mugging people.

    4. Re:What's worse? by Sparxter · · Score: 5, Informative

      Maybe because some of the cops already break the law at home, away from work. Personally if I was a cop I wouldn't give 2 hoots about piracy. I'd care more about the person being mugged 2 streets away

      As a cop I can tell you that this is indeed the case. As a small department with a lot of area to cover, piracy is the LAST concern any of us have. To put it in perspective I would rather write someone for J-walking...

    5. Re:What's worse? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      I don't know who's worse: people paying cops to enforce the law, or cops that won't enforce it unless you pay them extra.

      Why people paying cops to enforce the law of course. Cops are not very well paid to begin with, so they have my empathy for accepting tips enforcing the law. To be honest this sounds very sloppy for the MPAA standards, but I can't argue that tipping police with just enough money to help pay that credit card bill but not quite enough to make you feel obligated to your new employers would be an effective means to get them to enforce laws they would otherwise ignore.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    6. Re:What's worse? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      To put it in perspective I would rather write someone for J-walking...

      You must be from Seattle. It's among one of the few cities I know of where cops actually take the time to write J-walking tickets. But at least you can argue that J-walking can affect public saftey, after all someone jumping out into the middle of the street might get hit.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    7. Re:What's worse? by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >but I can't argue that tipping police with just enough money to help pay that credit card bill

      If this is the case, then there is something wrong with the system. I thought that was what a salary was for.

      Can I pay a guy to be busy with minor offenses so that my major offense will be ignored?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    8. Re:What's worse? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're a cop and you can't spell jaywalking ?

    9. Re:What's worse? by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Others would argue that they should be allowed to be hit in order to increase the average intelligence of the race.

    10. Re:What's worse? by zotz · · Score: 4, Informative

      "I don't know who's worse: people paying cops to enforce the law, or cops that won't enforce it unless you pay them extra."

      Sure, if it were as simple as that. But could it be that you are buying a change in their priorities? For instance, they really should be dealing with the mugger that has been in Central Park recently, but because of your "tips" they ignore the threat of physical harm to citizens and instead help you enforce your copyrights.

      Another thought just came to me. Haven't I seen something in the news recently about cities refusing to have local police enfore federal laws? So aren't copyright violations, violations of federal laws? Was this the FBI getting "tips" or city cops? Hmmmm. Anyone care to bat this thought around?

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    11. Re:What's worse? by disntrstd · · Score: 0

      There isn't enough manpower to enforce every little law that comes around without turning the country into a police state. All the RIAA is saying, "Hey, here's some money. Lets see what you enforce now." It's really no different from lobbying.

    12. Re:What's worse? by zotz · · Score: 2, Funny

      "To put it in perspective I would rather write someone for J-walking..."

      "You're a cop and you can't spell jaywalking ?"

      Dud3, y0u 3v3r 7h1nk h3 m4y b3 4 |337 c0p?

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    13. Re:What's worse? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think selling illegal copies of other people's works is bad, and I'm not for distributing illegal copies of other people's works for free, but I wonder about jurisdiction here. Is it really the job of state and city cops to enforce federal law? Or are there city and state laws against this?

    14. Re:What's worse? by zakezuke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If this is the case, then there is something wrong with the system. I thought that was what a salary was for.

      There is something wrong with the system when cops for example feel it necessary to accept tips or moonlight as security with their uniform in order to make ends meet. I'm very offended by the practice but i'm not going to get angry with the cop because of it.

      Can I pay a guy to be busy with minor offenses so that my major offense will be ignored?

      Indeed you can... doesn't make it right but i'm sure you could. Look at speeding ticket quotas. A system punishes police for not writing a specified amount of infractions esp in times where a city needs extra money. Talk to police along major interstates and see what they have to say about the subject.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    15. Re:What's worse? by macdaddy357 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No surprise there. Police agencies intentionally reject applicants with high intelligence. Don't believe me? Check this out, or this, or this. A cop who can't spell his own name would not surprise me.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    16. Re:What's worse? by GeckoX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So how's about you focus your energy on fixing the system instead of promoting breaking it more.

      --
      No Comment.
    17. Re:What's worse? by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
      Not every crime is equally important.

      That's precisely the attitude of Hollands law enforcement. Opposite to popular believe Marijuana is not a legal substance in the Netherlands. The "Opportunitsprinizp" however allows cops and DAs some leeway in which crimes are prosecuted.

      They rather save resources for more serious crimes then pot smoking youngsters; or even - adults, come to think of it.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    18. Re:What's worse? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      So how's about you focus your energy on fixing the system instead of promoting breaking it more.

      I don't promote breaking it more. I do however have empathy for law enforcement who take measures to make ends meet. I do promote awareness of the issue and support pay increases. Problem is people don't want their taxes raised and have the same attitude as your self, "Why don't you fix it".

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    19. Re:What's worse? by zootread · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not every crime is equally important.

      Doesn't seem to be much point to me in arresting some guy who managed to get some income that way, when there are much more harmful people out there. I think most cops would be pretty happy with that at least they're not selling drugs or mugging people.


      well then, stop arresting pot smokers! People who sell pot should also be ignored, it is about the same as selling pirating DVD's, only LESS harmful! They are not hurting anyone, they are not even hurting a business like those that belong to the MPAA.

      Legalizing (or ignoring crimes related to) marijuana would only hurt the business of arresting marijuana users.

      --
      Zoot!
    20. Re:What's worse? by mellonhead · · Score: 1

      No, I don't believe you. One website says the DOJ is trying to get changes to the way applicants are tested because they discriminate against minorities. You conveniently left out that most departments are strenuously fighting this, in fact one or more have taken DOJ to court over the issue. Another of the websites you listed talked about ONE department (New London, CT.): "The case began when Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, applied for the New London police force. When he took the entrance exam, he scored 33 points - which indicates an IQ of about 125. But the department only considers candidates who score between 20 and 27, with 20 representing an IQ of about 100, which is supposed to be average. "The department's theory is that those who score too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after receiving costly training. "Mr. Jordan sued, saying that he was the victim of illegal discrimination. Two federal courts have now refused to uphold his claim, though, saying that because the same standards were applied to all applicants, no illegal discrimination occurred. The courts also ruled that even though the policy might be unwise - we would say flat-out stupid - it was at least arguably a rational way to reduce expensive job turnover." (Atlanta Mobile Register 09/11/00) Even the New London department doesn't want "dumb" cops, their minimum score is 20, which is average intelligence. Do I think rejecting higher intelligence applicants because "they might get bored" is stupid? Yes. But to use this as evidence that all police departments want applicants with lower intelligence is just patently wrong. Your third example is the "Copwatch" website that has posters regurgitating much of what you said and allows posters to anonymously detail police abuse. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't think you can take the Copwatch website as proof that police agencies want dumb cops. Check your bias at the door next time.

    21. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard they take the middle third of the intelligence tests. Not smart enough to break the rules and not get caught, but smart enough not to break the rules in a stupid way either.

    22. Re:What's worse? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Moonlighting is one thing, this is double dipping which is outright wrong. The cops in question should not act as agents of the state when they are actually the hire of a private organization. The application of justice shouldn't be swayed by money. I know that in fact it is, but turning a blind eye will make it worse, while punishing these cops will help.

    23. Re:What's worse? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      The problem is their getting hit can hurt other people.For example, people swerve to miss them, hit someone else or at least someone else's car. That's why jaywalking is illegal...it's because its a 'traffic' violation, like swerving into other people's lane, and can cause others to get hurt, not a safety issue of the person doing it, like failing to wear a seatbeat.

      But I've never heard of anyone written up for jaywalking unless they actually caused an accident with it, or at least almost caused one. (Causing enough of a commotion to get the police out there.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    24. Re:What's worse? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Most cops don't go after pot sellers.

      Do people not watch any of the numerous cop shows on TV?

      Police departments have sections. One part works on homicide/violent crimes, one on vice (prostitution/drugs), one on traffic...although they can be split up more.

      That's not to say cops can do more than one, but the investigative people don't, the people who actually track down criminals and set up stings.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    25. Re:What's worse? by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Further there isn't really a TOP GUY... With drugs or smugled goods hundreds of sellers at street level are all controlled by one drug importer, grower or smuggler.

      DVD producers are a distributed system they make their own often and only rarely buy from the big producers in China.

      Who btw the cops can't touch unlike say columnbian drug lords.

    26. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think I can see the logic of this - most cops probably don't give a damn about who's selling DVDs, especially since the people who do it (at least here) are usually immigrants

      Seems like it's mostly American black people selling DVDs, but I haven't done a formal survery.

    27. Re:What's worse? by Aeiri · · Score: 1

      But at least you can argue that J-walking can affect public saftey, after all someone jumping out into the middle of the street might get hit.

      This is like creating a law that would make it illegal to smoke anywhere because it's bad for your health. Why do you care what I do to my body? I'm the one doing the dying, not you, if I get hit by a car.

      I think deep down inside, you are really actually concerned about the other guy's car getting damaged.

    28. Re:What's worse? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      I do however have empathy for law enforcement who take measures to make ends meet.

      It's called "committing a crime". Stop trying to justify it and gloss it over. Any copy who accepts a bribe is just a thug wearing a badge.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    29. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, you must have it all figured out. Yet you still can't figure out how to spell "theives" or "their".

    30. Re:What's worse? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      It's called "committing a crime". Stop trying to justify it and gloss it over. Any copy who accepts a bribe is just a thug wearing a badge.

      Those damn copies taking bribes.

      Really, no one needs morality when there isn't enough it eat. If we keep police's salary at the poverty level, we shouldn't be shocked if they take bribes and tips. If raising pay would reduce crime then by god raise the damn pay, these are public servents not public surfs.

      The key in fighting crime is actually acknowledging the root cause and doing something about it. There can be no justice so long as law is absolute.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    31. Re:What's worse? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Is it really the job of state and city cops to enforce federal law?

      Yes, as a matter of fact, it is.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    32. Re:What's worse? by TLLOTS · · Score: 1

      ...or possibly about the guy swerving to avoid you and plowing into another car and killing a small family perhaps. Yeah, real foolish.

    33. Re:What's worse? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Police agencies intentionally reject applicants with high intelligence. Don't believe me? Check this out, or this, or this.

      I still don't believe you.

      First is about the DOJ suggesting the ELIMINATION of IQ testing (for reasons we don't need to go into).

      Third is a complain that cops just simply aren't smart enough.

      The second is the only one that even SUGGESTS that police agencies intentionally exclude those with high IQ, and that is comprised of some idiot typing a single-sentence on an online forum. You could have been the one that created that post for all I know. That has no more credibility to it than your own post.

      Would you care to try and prove it again? Some slightly less idiotic links this time?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    34. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is dumb, as with smoking you ARE killing the people around you with your damn second hand smoke (which I am allergic to).

      And like you said you are damaging personal property and creating risk to other around if the accident causes secondary accidents.

    35. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Houston, they're heavily into ticketing Jaywalking in the Downtown area - about the only place anyone ever walks

    36. Re:What's worse? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      these are public servents not public surfs.

      Those damned surfs. Only of use to slacker beach bums. To hell with them all.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    37. Re:What's worse? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "we keep police's salary at the poverty level, we shouldn't be shocked if they take bribes and tips" The salary is well above the poverty level. If they take bribes and "tips", they are on the wrong side of the bars.

      "god raise the damn pay, these are public servents not public s[m]urfs.

      Ah. The blue uniforms explained.

      "The key in fighting crime is actually acknowledging the root cause and doing something about it"

      Why, certainly. The root cause is craven, violent and/or greedy behavior by immoral sociopath-types.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    38. Re:What's worse? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      The problem is their getting hit can hurt other people.For example, people swerve to miss them, hit someone else or at least someone else's car. That's why jaywalking is illegal...it's because its a 'traffic' violation, like swerving into other people's lane, and can cause others to get hurt, not a safety issue of the person doing it, like failing to wear a seatbeat.

      Actually I thought it was a ticketable infraction to help assign guilt and accounability in the event of a ped-auto accident. If jay walking wasn't illegal the driver would always be accountable if hitting some jack ass that jumped out into the middle of the road.

      But I've never heard of anyone written up for jaywalking unless they actually caused an accident with it, or at least almost caused one

      The first time I saw someone issued a Jay-walking ticket was in Seattle. I thought it was a joke. No accident that I could see just enforcement. After being issued the ticket they used the cross walk and got hit by a car.

      At least the officers were on bikes and not in cars. It's one thing to pull over a car, but to block traffic for a pedestrian offence which would require passing in the on comming lane?

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    39. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think more of us surf the blog sites than you realize. ;} As far as enforcing piracy laws goes, I could probably not care any less about piracy laws than I already do. I think I can speak for most other cops when I say this covers just about all of us. Also, most states have nothing in their compiled state criminal laws that covers copyright enfringement. Most of that all falls under civil law, unless a local government, like New York City for instance, adopts an ordinance that prohibits copyright enfringement.

    40. Re:What's worse? by Kirth · · Score: 1

      As a small department with a lot of area to cover, piracy is the LAST concern any of us have.
      I sure hope so, except if your department covers a lot of open sea.

      Don't call copyright infringement piracy. Because there is REAL piracy out there: Weekly Piracy Report

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    41. Re:What's worse? by GORDYmac · · Score: 1

      Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayum!

      I didn't expect this turn on the cop. You guys kinda suck.

  5. Why not? by DerekJ212 · · Score: 0

    You say they lose $x billion per year to the underground industry is ludacris, but here in a college dorm, you have NO idea the know of movies being copied and distributed. Given all of us wouldnt be buying all these, we certainly would be buying a lot more if it wasnt simply easier to download. The MPAA, like the RIAA needs to find a new buisness model involving and embracing technology if they want to survive.

    1. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      p2p is, as of now, the easiest system for getting entertainment on a computer. They simply can't do better. They can however do "just as good" and appeal to people's moral. I don't think they have the ability to trust their customers:(

      If they did something with 3G or GRPS (mobile networks), which downloaded the music directly to my mp3 player, I'd buy it! Then it's hard to provide a good interface, and the files must be playable on many devices. All in all, they need a brilliant system, which does not exist yet!

    2. Re:Why not? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny
      "You say they lose $x billion per year to the underground industry is ludacris"

      No, no; a lot of other bands are being copied too, not just Ludacris.

    3. Re:Why not? by Punboy · · Score: 0

      I shan't comment on the ludicrity of mentioning Ludacris on slashdot since nobody here has enough of a life to know who he is.

      Whoops... i did it anyway.

      --
      If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
    4. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I shan't comment on the ludicrity of mentioning Ludacris on slashdot since nobody here has enough of a life to know who he is.

      George Ludacris... a man who made an entire industry out of three films. A man who wanted VCRs banned in America.

    5. Re:Why not? by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Right, because based on the number of Slashdot references to the movie "Office Space", no regular or even occassional poster would ever listen to rap music.

      I'd continue, but words do not exist to express my contempt. That, and spittle does not work well over a digital medium.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    6. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, whigger.

    7. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of the stupidity of your parallel drawn between knowing who Ludacris is and having a life, you've earned an overrated mod.

      Thank you for the opportunity to abuse the moderation system. Have a nice day.

    8. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You say they lose $x billion per year to the underground industry is ludacris, but here in a college dorm, you have NO idea the know of movies being copied and distributed. Given all of us wouldnt be buying all these, we certainly would be buying a lot more if it wasnt simply easier to download. The MPAA, like the RIAA needs to find a new buisness model involving and embracing technology if they want to survive.

      Dude. Your college sucks.

    9. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ludacris sucks

      have you heard his stupid songs, or seen his stupid videos?

      he's stupid.

  6. Full Text if /.'ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    April 21, 2005 -- Two NYPD veterans are being investigated by Internal Affairs for allegedly accepting payoffs from the motion-picture industry to arrest vendors of pirated DVDs, law-enforcement sources told The Post.

    One officer, a sergeant on the force since 1992, has been transferred from the Staten Island Task Force to the 122nd Precinct pending the internal investigation.

    The other, a cop for five years, still works on the task force.

    As members of the unit, the officers, ages 36 and 32, would arrest the sellers of illegal DVDs and confiscate their stock.

    Often they would act on tips from investigators with the Motion Picture Association of America, many of whom are former cops, sources said.

    There is nothing improper about that practice. But on at least four occasions in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Staten Island, the task force officers arrested the vendors, confiscated the illegal movies and then allegedly received gratuities of several hundred dollars from the MPAA itself or its investigators, the source said.

    The MPAA strongly denied that the payoffs came from the trade organization.

    "We don't give cash to police officers," said Bill Shannon, an MPAA anti-piracy official.

    "We work with law-enforcement organizations by providing information and logistical support, and the police make the arrests."

    No department charges have been filed against the NYPD officers, and neither is on modified duty.

    The Staten Island Task Force last made headlines in 2003, when one of its members, Officer Bryan Conroy, allegedly shot and killed Ousmane Zongo, an unarmed African immigrant, inside a Manhattan storage warehouse.

    Conroy and other officers were at the warehouse to bust DVD pirates.

    Zongo, who spoke little English, was an innocent bystander. Conroy's trial earlier this year ended in a hung jury. He will be retried this summer.

    The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that it loses $3.5 billion in potential worldwide revenue because of movie piracy.

    Hollywood has stepped up its effort to bust video and DVD pirates.

    An MPAA tip, for example, led to the recent prosecution of Randy Guthrie, the black sheep of a blueblood New York family, who was recently sentenced to 21/2 years in a Chinese jail for selling nearly $1 million in pirated movies over the Internet.

    1. Re:Full Text if /.'ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      As members of the unit, the officers, ages 36 and 32, would arrest the sellers of illegal DVDs and confiscate their stock.

      What? They even confiscate your 'stock'?

    2. Re:Full Text if /.'ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll confiscate your 'cock' if you won't shut up.

    3. Re:Full Text if /.'ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT.
      HAND.

    4. Re:Full Text if /.'ed by v1 · · Score: 1

      The text refers to "gratuities", whereas the MPAA says they don't give cash to cops. What this probably was is they took the cops out to dinner or something to celibrate the bust. Bribes don't have to be cash in hand, "favors" work just as well, and it's still a bribe.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    5. Re:Full Text if /.'ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgot the 'YHL' bit?

  7. Re:Umm. by Omniscientist · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No. Law enforcement is a public service. What they do is to be expected, not rewarded. Tipping will lead to favoritism which must be avoided.

    Telemarketer called you; you're on the do not call list?
    click here

  8. Re:Umm. by ForestGrump · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So where do you draw the line between tipping an officer for doing you a "favor" and bribing him to do you a "favor"?

    --
    Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
  9. Campaign funds by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Funny

    The MPAA giving to someones campaign funds is perfectly legal, lets say a Police Chief, who then in turn is tough on copyright crimes.

    Yup, business as usual.

    1. Re:Campaign funds by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Where exactly do you live that police chief is an elected office?

    2. Re:Campaign funds by theCoder · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the cheif of police, but the sheriff is often an elected position. At least it is in the county where I live.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
  10. Re:Umm. by Tab+is+on+Slashdot · · Score: 0

    If you were to follow that ingenious line of thought to its logical conclusion, you'd wind up with a state where the government bends over to the rich, and, oh... wait... fuck.

  11. Which it be? by n0dalus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FTA: Two NYPD veterans are being investigated by Internal Affairs...
    From title: MPAA Under Investigation for Illegal NYPD Payoffs

    So, who's under investigation here?

    1. Re:Which it be? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 3, Insightful

      2 cops and the MPAA I would imagine. ;-)

    2. Re:Which it be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The allegations are being investigated. Since the allegations are about the activities of the MPAA and of the police officers that means that the actions of the MPAA and of the police officers are under investigation.

    3. Re:Which it be? by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 1

      So, who's under investigation here?

      I'm thinking it's the attention to detail of the /. editors.

  12. Life is easy... by William+Robinson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Uh.. No Officer.. I just read it on slashdot that you accept cash.

    1. Re:Life is easy... by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 3, Funny

      Damned! If only they'd accept paypal too!

    2. Re:Life is easy... by prash_n_rao · · Score: 1

      "Officer, I don't have cash at the moment, but as a token of my gratitude, here is a collection of DVDs with GBs of the most populalar MP3s and porn, custom burnt just for you."

      --
      This is not my sig.
    3. Re:Life is easy... by dodobh · · Score: 1

      I am sure you could give them a cheque and ask for the excess money back in cash.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    4. Re:Life is easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha that paypal joke made me laugh

  13. Commie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Are you a commie or something? What do you have against privatization of the law enforcement? It's the libertarian way and the libertarian way is also the American way.

    1. Re:Commie? by generalleoff · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Screw the liberals, screw the conservatives, God bless the commies.

      Hey everyone else is posting useless crap so I might as well join in the fun and atleast I dont do it as Anonymous Pussy :)

    2. Re:Commie? by ChuyMatt · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      PSSSST!

      you forgot to click that Anon button, General Pussy.

    3. Re:Commie? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      If law enforcement gets privatized, can I dispatch my police to harass the MPAA?

  14. Re:Vic Mackey sez... by rincebrain · · Score: 1

    The sad thing is, I suspect that most of the lusers of the US wouldn't argue with this statement (much).

    I disagree with that policy, but I'm in the minority, apparently.

    --
    It's only an insult if it's not true.
  15. that's great by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 1

    so tack even MORE onto their record of illegal activity. Idiots.

  16. I am not surprised by andydread · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The MPAA and the RIAA will stop at nothing to protect their monopolies. These 2 corrupt officers are just a tip of the giant iceberg of people that recieve huge sums from the MPAA and RIAA. Some others - Several politicians, Virus writers. Yes they employ these people to create nastyware to disrupt p2p networks. and many many more people are bribed by these organizations. The MPAA and the RIAA are among the most corrupt organizations in America. And the blatantly lie about their the root cause of their losses almost every year. It is about time they are investigated but I fear they may buy out the investigation.

    1. Re:I am not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, thats a nice conspiracy theory there. Got any tin-foil hats for sale?

    2. Re:I am not surprised by ibm1130 · · Score: 1

      Well D'uh!
      Anyone who hasn't been asleep for the past half century ought to be well aware of the fact that the entertainment industry's accounting practices would be listed under fiction if they were a published work.

      IBM

    3. Re:I am not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      business as usual.
      And A lot of web designers will create honey-pots of porn keyword spam in the header section of their html doc to lure in porn surfers.

      It is sleazy and discusting.

      Same as it ever was.

    4. Re:I am not surprised by geekee · · Score: 1

      "It is about time they are investigated but I fear they may buy out the investigation."

      Right, we should spend our time investigating officers getting kickbacks for enforcing the law. That should be a much higher priority than investigating officers who are paid to break the law.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  17. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Presumably it was modded that way because there is no "mind-numbingly stupid" rating.

  18. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then you get a situation where whoever pays the cops the most gets the most justice.

    We already have a problem with police going after more high profile crimes involving a lot of money, rather than going after less high profile crimes which involve less money but more harm to the individual.

    For example, if a little old lady is scammed out of $10,000 by a guy who says he will fix her leaking roof, that causes her a lot of harm.

    In contrast, if someone distributes music online and costs the music industry $100,000, which is highly unlikely, the police will go after those guys with more vigor, even though the music industry won't feel the sting of that guy's actions much if at all.

  19. Re:Umm. by ispepalocacoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree completely... and I also can't understand why we tip the servers at restaurants... I mean, if they don't do a good job shouldn't they just be fired?

    --
    I Love Alberta Beef
  20. Loosing revenue? by Darvin · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that it loses $3.5 billion in potential worldwide revenue because of movie piracy."

    Perhaps the reason the MPAA and RIAA is loosing 3.5 billion is because spending the money on bent officials?

    1. Re:Loosing revenue? by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      $3.5 billion dollars? Think of how much cocaine and blowjobs that sort of money can buy.

      No wonder the record industry is feeling so ripped off.

    2. Re:Loosing revenue? by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

      "The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that it loses $3.5 billion in potential worldwide revenue because of movie piracy."

      Perhaps the reason the MPAA and RIAA is loosing 3.5 billion is because spending the money on bent officials?


      Isn't that what they just said? Not that I have proof or anything like that, but if I was an MPAA accountant, funds spent to combat piracy (bribes) would definitely fall under 'money lost to piracy.'

      Y'know, unless I was ethical, or some such nonsense.

  21. Obviously they paid you to say that. by TCaM · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shill!

  22. Re:Umm. by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

    I agree that law enforcement is a public service. However, I can't think of any public service (other than maybe the post office) where every day on the job means putting the government employee in a life-threatening situation. Every traffic stop is an opportunity for a bad guy to blow one of our public servants away. It's really fucking scary when you think of it.

    We sit in our cubes or doored offices and pontificate on what we think we are owed by society, but there are men and women out there making the busts, stopping the speeders, and putting the bad guys away every day and they don't make half what we make.

    Some do it because they don't have any other skills, but I think they are few and far between. Most do it out of a sense of duty. They know they are the "thin blue line" that stands between us and lawlessness. And they know that the next window they knock on may be their last.

    Perhaps we expect too much when we ask them to put themselves in harm's way to save us time and again for peanuts.

  23. Re:Umm. by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So where do you draw the line between tipping an officer for doing you a "favor" and bribing him to do you a "favor"?

    You don't.

  24. Irregular verb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So where do you draw the line between tipping an officer for doing you a "favor" and bribing him to do you a "favor"?

    I tip
    You bribe
    The MPAA induces massive police corruption

  25. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess it was a "rethorical question" where no one expected an answer.

  26. They may be bad, but.... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Funny
    "The MPAA and the RIAA will stop at nothing to protect their monopolies"

    They may be bad, but they do not have monopolies. By definition, they can't be with all the freely available, legal non-pirated non-MPAA/RIAA films and music out there.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:They may be bad, but.... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      Funny mod?

      Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. Especially after having in "heavy rotation" on my CD player a bunch of great music I got off a web site as MP3's provided by the artists themselves with no encumbrance of any kind. There is a LOT of this available.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    2. Re:They may be bad, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They may be bad, but they do not have monopolies."

      Joke or no, when the Canadians started collecting "copying tax" supposedly covering all such media, there was only one organisation to receive money from it.

    3. Re:They may be bad, but.... by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "Cartel" or "Trust" is a more accurate description of the MPAA and RIAA.

      There's a reason there's a law called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

      A true Republican president would be fighting against the trusts, unlike the corporate whore who occupies the White House.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    4. Re:They may be bad, but.... by LokieLizzy · · Score: 1
      unlike the corporate whore (here) who occupies the White House.

      There's no need to call Ann Coulter corporate.

      --
      My digital rights don't need management.
    5. Re:They may be bad, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may be bad, but they do not have monopolies.

      Yes they do. The fundamental nature of copyrights, patents and trademarks is that they are government-granted monopolies.

      By definition, they can't be with all the freely available, legal non-pirated non-MPAA/RIAA films and music out there.

      They don't have monopolies on film and music. They have monopolies on particular films and music.

    6. Re:They may be bad, but.... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Sure, and so does the independent musician or filmmaker that copyrights his work. That's largely irrelevant in terms of what is happening with the entertainment industry. What the **AA's had that makes them different from that independent producer was, until recently, a monopoly on the means of media distribution. Ultimately, that is what these cartels are fighting to regain (and retain) because all of their profit flows from that, not just from copyright. Copyright means nothing if you don't have the ability to deliver your product. The big media companies have been very good at stifling anyone that isn't under contract to them, and many that are. We, the consumers of the world, have missed out on a lot of good stuff because of that.

      All that the advent of the CD/DVD burner and Internet-based file-sharing did was take control of the distribution channels and give it to the consumer. That's why the media companies spend so much of their time lying about their supposed losses to P2P. Even if they are losing money to downloading (yet to be proven), the truth is they want downloading eliminated so they can get back to controlling the means by which we receive our content. They have proven that they are willing to go to extreme lengths to reassert this control, bribing Federal officials and establishing laws detrimental to the nation as a whole. As I write this, I must say that their behavior sounds almost treasonous. Certainly the official actions of Berman, Coble and that Hatch character are in that category. Malfeasance in office, at least.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:They may be bad, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A true Republican president would be fighting against the trusts, unlike the corporate whore who occupies the White House.

      You know TR quit the Republican party and ran for President under his own political party, right?

    8. Re:They may be bad, but.... by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      They may be bad, but they do not have monopolies. By definition, they can't be with all the freely available, legal non-pirated non-MPAA/RIAA films and music out there.

      They're oligopolies, not monopolies. And according to Webster they fit that definition perfectly. Neither an oligopoly or a monopoly has to have absolute control over a market to make the grade.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    9. Re:They may be bad, but.... by Byzantine · · Score: 1

      ...after he'd made public statements to the effect that he wasn't going to run, and then--suprise!--the Republican Party didn't give him the nomination. The short-lived Bull Moose Party was Teddy Roosevelt wanting to have it both ways.

    10. Re:They may be bad, but.... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Why do you hate America?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    11. Re:They may be bad, but.... by menace3society · · Score: 2, Informative

      "There should be less government in business and more business in government." -- Warren G. Harding, a Republican

    12. Re:They may be bad, but.... by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1
      I thought true republicans believed in small government? From the referenced article:


      " I did not usurp power," he wrote, "but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power.

    13. Re:They may be bad, but.... by mink · · Score: 1

      Because for years he thought "Horse with no name" was an Eagles song?

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  27. This wouldn't surprise me.. by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Living in New York is an expensive lifestyle. But on the other hand, New York cops really seem to enjoy themselves when it comes to corruption. Take for example last year's Republican convention. New York Cops did their best to round up thousands of people, stick them in an asbestos contaminated concentration camp and then charge them with crimes they never committed.

    The Banno Story - Corrupt nyc cops lie, the DA encourages and participates in the lies.. get caught red handed
    Police Perjurers
    another story related to the new york DA editing/manipulating video tapes

    Google the story, hundreds of cases have been dropped because the Police were inventing stories that never happened and then having the DA charge innocent people with full knowledge.

    1. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ' Take for example last year's Republican convention. New York Cops did their best to round up thousands of people '

      it would not have happened if the extremist thugs had not organized an effort to "shut down" the convention and proceeded to harass the convention-goers. If these people had stayed away from the convention, there would have been no arrests. They need to learn to respect the rights of those they hate to have their own meetings and speak without being harassed.

    2. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

      off-topic ? Blah.. that's completely on-topic.. Oh, we're only supposed to talk about the evils of the RIAA ? Okay, my mistake, I assumed police corruption was a on-topic since that's what the story is suggesting...

      Unless people are surprised to hear that the RIAA is pushing ethical boundaries.. ya, right.

    3. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Asbestos contaminated concentration camp"?

      I'd say it's off-topic -- I thought the worst of you bitchy little drama queens went off to K5 a few years ago. Go beat your drum elsewhere.

      Next time you're in a "concentration camp", please stop by the gas chamber.

      And stay the fuck out of my city.

    4. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by ikkonoishi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So the police make a bunch of arrests among large crowds of people then drop the charges later.

      I really don't have a problem with that. It is a widely practiced tactic in highly charged crowds. If the DNC had been held in Austin Texas the same thing would have happened.

      As for the inventing of stories, the only mention of that was in one case where footage showing him not doing anything was removed. That could have easily been due to brevity. I don't know. I wasn't there.

      Frankly the link to Ted Rall as a source really just lowers the credibility of the story. He is the one who called Condoleezza Rice the Bush administration's "House nigger" after all. I don't trust him, but that is just my opinion.

    5. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go 2600.com and look up Emmanuel Goldstein's report as well.

    6. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2, Informative

      If the DNC had been held in Austin Texas the same thing would have happened.

      I take it you are not from Texas. In Austin everyone loves the Democratic party. It is everywhere else in Texas that does not. Austin is known as "The Hippie Capital of Texas" by many conservatives in the state.

      I merely posted this to point that out, not to dispute any other point you make.

    7. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 3, Informative

      " So the police make a bunch of arrests among large crowds of people then drop the charges later.

      I really don't have a problem with that.
      "

      No, what happened was, police were making arrests & making up phony charges that the accused parties had never committed, and then the DA tried to prosecute those crimes by manipulating video evidence. Had they presented the entire video evidence uncut, their case against the accused parties would have collapsed. Luckily, third parties filming the same events from the sidelines jumped in and showed exactly what happened (Peaceful demonstrators being rounded up for no bloody reason. Some of them weren't even demonstrators, just locals walking home.)

      Willful and deliberate treachory on the part of the cops and da.

    8. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're a fool. Its not the beat cops that came up with that tactic. It was City Hall, federal gov't, and the Police Commissioner. The cops were just following their marching orders. Processing time was not the cops fault. It was an obvious plan to keep protesters away from the convention. Illegal, of course, but apparently the attention of City Hall.

      The perjurers obviously need to be punished, but its the inevitable result when you're arresting a city block, rather than people "disturbing the peace", i.e. the protesters.

      If you really want to stop those tactics, you have to send a message to City Hall, not the beat cop. I like Bloomberg's general management of the city, but I'm still voting against him come November.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    9. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment goes against the constitution, so far as I'm aware. I believe that there's something in the constitution about a right of "the people" to "peaceably assemble" and about "freedom of speech".

      Now, I've been on mass protests. Except I was fortunate to do so in a free country, Britain. I marched with several hundred thousand people about a topic I must admit I've changed my mind on since in the early nineties. And been with several thousand people protesting on another issue at roughly the same period.

      Unlike America, I wasn't arrested or under threat of arrest and the authorities cooperated with the protest and its organizers. In Britain, the right to protest is not considered something to be stamped upon. Riots are rare because the tactics designed to provoke them are rarely if ever used by British law enforcement. You don't, for example, as is common in the US, herd protesters into a closed area, surround them, and then order them to disperse or be arrested.

      In most free countries, the right to protest isn't dismissed as easily as you do:

      So the police make a bunch of arrests among large crowds of people then drop the charges later.

      I really don't have a problem with that. It is a widely practiced tactic in highly charged crowds. If the DNC had been held in Austin Texas the same thing would have happened.

      We don't consider extreme limitations on the right to protest compatable with freedom. Indeed, the day law enforcement appears to be deliberately doing what it can to stir up trouble, the day it clearly starts making arbitrary arrests, et al, is probably the day the government doing this work finds itself likely to be thrown out. We don't do that kind of thing. We don't tolerate it. And we find it bizarre the country whose countrymen usually pride themselves on the degree of Freedom they have consider their right to start a business and then fire employees for what they do in their spare time as more important than the right to protest.

      Not that I'm saying all Americans are like you. I know plenty that aren't, right and left. But I'm surprised that, generally, you don't get the kind of backlash against Fidel Castro clones in local government in the US as you do in other western democracies. Maybe, because you, as citizens against a government, haven't had to fight for basic democratic freedoms for the last 250 years, many of you have forgotten how important they are.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      " So the police make a bunch of arrests among large crowds of people then drop the charges later....I really don't have a problem with that."

      Then I really hope it starts happening to your race, political affiliation, or whatever else defines you in society, and soon. People like you are a pox on freedom and democracy.

    11. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to kuro5hin you fag.

    12. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you're going to complain about the NYPD, why not complain about a more obvious problem:

      Feds: Cops Moonlighted As Hitmen:
      http://election.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/ 03/11/nat ional/main679493.shtml

      Two former NYPD detectives arrested in Mafia killings:
      http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaki ng_news/v-p friendly/story/288673p-247098c.html

      New York cops 'were Mafia hitmen':
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4339 729.stm

      Former N.Y. police detectives charged as Mafia hitmen:
      http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories /nevada/2 005/mar/10/031010231.html

    13. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by laird · · Score: 1

      "it would not have happened if the extremist thugs had not organized an effort to "shut down" the convention and proceeded to harass the convention-goers."

      Yeah, free speech is sometimes inconvenient, but despite the efforts of some extremists, we still have constitution that protects our freedoms.

    14. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then, a knack for selective perception is an essential tool of the true activist.

      So you "selectively perceived" the fact that the people arrested at the DNC were not charged with a crime and were simply arrested to make an example of them, while the link you provided discussed arrests due to destruction of property and blocking roadways. All you really proved is that at least London police are competent enough to make up an excuse, as opposed to the buffoons here who couldn't come up with a reason for the arrests to save themselves from looking stupid.

    15. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1
      Perhaps there is another difference between UK and US protests--American protestors might have a higher propensity to get violent.

      Granted, I remember when the latest Michael Jackson round of media blitzing came about (well over a year ago, probably more), a bunch of Floridians were shot at and thrown in jail protesting something like the Patriot Act. It was really disheartening to see the MJ nonsense "cover" it up.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    16. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      'Yeah, free speech is sometimes inconvenient, but despite the efforts of some extremists, we still have constitution that protects our freedoms'

      Free speech does not include the "right" to deny others their rights of assembly and free speech by shutting their convention down. The protesters did not respect the rights of these others. If they had wisely chosen to protest at another place (instead of on top of someone's event), they would not have been rightfully arrested for their harassment and trespassing.

    17. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ' but despite the efforts of some extremists, we still have constitution that protects our freedoms'

      All the more interesting considering that the anti-GOP protesters oppose the Constitutional process of electing the President. They instead believe that "if the winner does not share our views, he is not the real President".

    18. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you're so right! Especially lucky they got those two under the Terrorism act. Who knows what those terrorists might have done.

      Most of the arrests were under public order legislation, for offences such as blocking the highway and criminal damage. But police said at least two arrests this week had been under the 2000 Terrorism Act.

      Here's another account:

      Meanwhile, Anti-War demonstrators are still being threatened with - and receiving - harsh sentences. Protestors from Fairford come to trial next week while some are still fighting to get the charges reduced before they come to trial (Background to the case). Yet others are still looking for witnesses and some, like Ulla Roder (who was arrested for damaging a Tornado war-plane), have had their trials delayed numerous times....

      At 4pm the Reclaim the Streets party mobilised many of the roaming affinity groups at Rathbone Market where a crowd of around 300 took to the streets soon meeting up with a critical mass bicycle group complete with sound system. On the A13 the crowd was eventually blocked in by police (video), later being forced into a park (video), which police had cleared with mounted riot police (video). They were slowly released in small groups after being photographed

      Also, it was the RNC, not the DNC.

    19. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      no.

      What really needs to be done is lawsuits filed against the police for false arrest.

      Saying 'You can always vote the fascists in charge out' is idiotic. Police shouldn't break the law even if ordered to. The fascists, meanwhile, control the media, and thus you can't vote them out.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    20. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by vidarh · · Score: 1

      Unlike America, I wasn't arrested or under threat of arrest and the authorities cooperated with the protest and its organizers. In Britain, the right to protest is not considered something to be stamped upon. Riots are rare because the tactics designed to provoke them are rarely if ever used by British law enforcement. You don't, for example, as is common in the US, herd protesters into a closed area, surround them, and then order them to disperse or be arrested. Perhaps not, but they certainly do herd protesters into closed areas and refuse to let them leave for hours - a May day a couple of years ago they for instance applied that tactic on Oxford street, including sealing off Oxford Circus for hours on end and let nobody leave until the evening. I'm not so sure I consider that much better.

    21. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why was this moderated Redundant when nobody else said it, and it's in contrast to a +5 insightful post?

      Is it another case of, you're anti-US, or you're modded at -1?

    22. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Now, I've been on mass protests. Except I was fortunate to do so in a free country, Britain.

      Haha! Hate to tell you, but I've heard about many cases of police abusing protesters.

      What the UK has going for it is it's small size. The USA is so large that the sheer number of abuses is high. Compare the number of police abuse cases in the UK with, say, South Carolina alone, and see how the UK comes out looking...

      Conversely, there are MANY, MANY people in the USA who have marched in protest, and never been subject to police abuse of any kind.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    23. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      That's not what the GGP said or advocated. The GGP actively supported arbitrary arrests and imprisonment to quell peaceful protests. My response was a response to that.

      The fact is, this kind of BS isn't tolerated in Western Democracies outside of the US. You don't get the kind of overwhelming support for active abuse of protesters that you do inside the US. When abuses happen, they provoke controversy, enquiries are held, and enquiries that cover-up or issue apologia for abuses tend to be discredited to the extent that nobody takes them at face value.

      Here, in the US, I just don't see that happen. It's the one serious fault I see with this country, ordinary people do not appear to see the value in a society that tolerates peaceful but public protest.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    24. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think pointing out that the parent poster was a prong was redundant, since he did such a good job of it himself.

    25. Re:This wouldn't surprise me.. by laird · · Score: 1

      "Free speech does not include the "right" to deny others their rights of assembly and free speech by shutting their convention down. The protesters did not respect the rights of these others."

      Speaking as someone who lives in NYC, and thus saw this all first-hand, this is a misrepresentation of the protestors, and of those that arrested the protestors. The protestors weren't trying to shut down the convention -- they were trying to make their opinions known to attendees of the convention. This is _precisely_ the kind of speech that is constitutionally protected (i.e. political speech).

      The police and organizer's goal was to prevent the protestors from getting their message out, by (1) restricting their right to free speech in ways that are (IMO) unconstitutional, and (2) arresting as many people as fast as possible, simply to keep them tied up with the police, where the attendees couldn't see them. The result was that 90%+ of the arrests were later thrown out, often because independent videotapes showed that the police straight out lied...

  28. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they don't think the job is worth the pay then they need to look for a job that does.

  29. I think I speak for most of us here... by mikeb39 · · Score: 1

    When I shake my head at the screen and am reminded once again...

    These guys (the **AA's) are a bunch of thugs.

    1. Re:I think I speak for most of us here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trying to get karma by expressing (what you think is) popular opinion without actually saying anything, eh?

    2. Re:I think I speak for most of us here... by Metostopholes · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hate the NCAA... Thinking they're as good as the professional leagues just because they end up on TV. The hubris!

      --
      "With rare exceptions people cannot use that picture to masturbate, therefore it is not the internet."
    3. Re:I think I speak for most of us here... by mikeb39 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you get it. I'm pointing out that once again they demonstrate themselves to be just a few levels above street gangsters. What's the issue?

  30. how ironic by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the MPAA breaking the law to enforce the law. oh the irony.

    People have been saying for years that the MPAA need to try harder to stop piracy before the movies get leaked. Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Maybe it's time they started listening.

    1. Re:how ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not ironic at all. It's hypocritical.

  31. Re:Umm. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "Perhaps we expect too much when we ask them to put themselves in harm's way to save us time and again for peanuts."

    You were going great until the last sentence. Most of them are quite well paid. Where unions are involved, they can even be overpaid. The pay level can negatively impact public safety: in order to pay them more, you have to cut down the size of the force. However, if they think the pay is too low, they should find another career rather than augment their pay with criminal activity.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  32. At last by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The wolf reveals it's true colours. Now do the same to the RIAA and throw all their court cases out untill further investigate (which will lead to price fixing and various other crimes being "discovered"). And since it's been proven that this companies buy people off it'll be impossible to buy off the judge/jury because people wille xpect it and if it seems fishy it'll be looked into.

    Good game gentleman. You lose this round and hopefully won't come back.

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:At last by geekee · · Score: 1

      "The wolf reveals it's true colours. Now do the same to the RIAA and throw all their court cases out untill further investigate (which will lead to price fixing and various other crimes being "discovered"). And since it's been proven that this companies buy people off it'll be impossible to buy off the judge/jury because people wille xpect it and if it seems fishy it'll be looked into."

      Yes, let the guilty go free over technicalities. I love America. And while we're at it, let's portray the victims as wolves for trying to give cops incentives to enforce the law.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  33. Re:The best video ever! by Chris+Kamel · · Score: 1

    You're a stupid moron. This is not funny and moreover it is NOT worksafe.

    --
    The following statement is true
    The preceding statement is false
  34. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's the first post then we've got to mod it down for SOMETHING. It's in the moderation guidlines. 'Redundant' seems as good a choice as any.

  35. Why is it that.... by sugapablo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why is it that this makes me want to do a little happy dance? :)

    I bet the MPAA thought that while their actions might have been *technically* illegal, they certainly weren't hurting anybody.

    Sound familiar?

    1. Re:Why is it that.... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny
      " bet the MPAA thought that while their actions might have been *technically* illegal, they certainly weren't hurting anybody. Sound familiar?"

      The next step is to call them thieves.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    2. Re:Why is it that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The next step is to call them thieves.

      I think you'll find that "racketeers" is the accepted term.

    3. Re:Why is it that.... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "I think you'll find that "racketeers" is the accepted term"

      If the word "thief" can be applied to content duplicators and copyright infringers (as the RIAA and MPAA do), it can be applied to any crime.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    4. Re:Why is it that.... by kbogert · · Score: 1

      The next step is to call them thieves.

      Really? I thought nowadays we just skip ahead to terrorists.

    5. Re:Why is it that.... by swiftstream · · Score: 1

      Thieves and Pirates.

      Yarr, Matey! Join the club!

      --
      Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
    6. Re:Why is it that.... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      You MEAN Torrentists!

      --
    7. Re:Why is it that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you search "Ladrones" ("thieves" in spanish) in google, the first link you get is from SGAE, the "spanish MPAA".

      Google can't be wrong

    8. Re:Why is it that.... by geekee · · Score: 1

      " Why is it that this makes me want to do a little happy dance? :)

      I bet the MPAA thought that while their actions might have been *technically* illegal, they certainly weren't hurting anybody.

      Sound familiar?"

      Yes, another /.er who wants copyright to be unenforcable so he can get free stuff.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    9. Re:Why is it that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The next step is to call them thieves.

      Ok, The RIAA stole the police officer's time, which should have been spent in pursuit of crimes that have direct impact on New York's citizens, and used it to selectively increase the priority of their own private interests. Since New Yorkers pay taxes to support this police force, they collectively own all of the police's time. Undue time spent on behalf of the RIAA, and that the RIAA feels the need to illegally 'buy' through a bribe, is time stolen.

      The police officers sold something they had no right to sell: prioritzation of cases in their folio.

      RIAA is a thief, and the officers are complicit in the robbery.

      Enjoy!!

  36. Bad cops bad cops by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny
    Bad cops, bad cops

    New York's finest paid by MPAA
    Bust down your door and take your movie away!
    In de car or on de horse,
    They'll take your DVD's with excessive force.

    Bad cops, bad cops.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  37. Re:Umm. by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

    And while you're tipping him to take care of other people, how much extra is it to ignore your own illegal activities?

    --
    "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
  38. Re:Umm. by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 0, Troll

    However, if they think the pay is too low, they should find another career rather than augment their pay with criminal activity.

    You would leave the upholding of the law to those who found nothing more available to them than the low pay offerred by the police department?

  39. Re:Umm. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "You would leave the upholding of the law to those who found nothing more available to them than the low pay offerred by the police department?"

    No, I would leave it to those who are in it for public service, rather than those who are in it to get rich. Besides, the pay is quite adequate.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  40. Hypocrites by Kaorimoch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think we should run an ad in every movie theatre for MPAA members and affiliates to remind them that "Paying off cops is a crime". We could even show the cops who were paid off in the ad to remind them what happens if you bribe law enforcement officials as part of the cops settlement arrangement.

    They want us to obey the law but forget to do it themselves. Great example guys.

    1. Re:Hypocrites by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Except that the Cartel, er, MPAA.. would threaten action (maybe they don't receive new movies, anymore?) on the theatres until they pulled the ad.

    2. Re:Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I think we should run an ad in every movie theatre for MPAA members and affiliates to remind them that "Paying off cops is a crime".



      Show an MPAA member in a prison cell
      "I got three years because I bribed a cop."

      Thomas
  41. Re:The best video ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You actually clicked, didn't you? And they say /.ers are supposed to be smart...

  42. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the police force finds it can't recruit the right people with the pay structure as it is then that's a sign that pay needs to be increased. That's got nothing to do with allowing them to accept bribes.

  43. Meesa so ludicrous! by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "George [Lucas]... a man who made an entire industry out of three films. A man who wanted VCRs banned in America."

    As the VCR is fading technology, maybe we can let him do this, in exchange for his removing Jar Jar from subsequent DVD and other "Star Wars" releases.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  44. Re:Umm. by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

    I think you're the first to mention the "B" word. What is the problem with underpaid law enforcers from accepting tips?

  45. Laws enforced only if officers tipped. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Informative
    "What is the problem with underpaid law enforcers from accepting tips?"

    Aside from the fact that they are not underpaid, there is this problem. If you have a "tip" system, pretty soon they only enforce laws to benefit those who tip them. Want that burglary investigated? Tip them, or they will "ignore it due to more pressing matters".

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Laws enforced only if officers tipped. by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

      Then you accept that the officers are underpaid, which is contrary to your previous post which claimed that they are "adequately" paid. If the pay for enforcement of the law can be overcome by the acceptance of "tips", then the base salary is too low to prevent the officers from breaking their oaths.

      In addition, if someone is willing to pay extra to have extra police protection, then how is the police officer who assents to investigating "tipped" crimes at fault for spending more time looking into those crimes than into "untipped" crimes?

      I don't mean to state the obvious but that's what we've got now.

    2. Re:Laws enforced only if officers tipped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the pay for enforcement of the law can be overcome by the acceptance of "tips", then either the punishment or the rate of prosecution of police officers who accept "tips" is too low.

  46. Re:Umm. by Babbster · · Score: 1

    In my experience, a fifty takes care of most of my activities. Police officers are underpaid, so it rarely takes much...besides, what's a C felony between friends? For the really trivial stuff like speeding tickets, just keep a few ten-dollar Dunkin Donuts gift certificates handy. You know how cops love their donuts!

  47. Wait a sec by theskipper · · Score: 0, Troll

    Isn't the NY Post like the Enquirer or Fox News in journalistic integrity? The article said they were being investigated, not arrested. How 'bout reserving judgement until there's an actual charge filed instead of acting like a lynch mob.

    Just a thought.

    1. Re:Wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ' Isn't the NY Post like the Enquirer or Fox News in journalistic integrity? '

      The NY Post is much worse than the Enquirer, which is much worse than Fox News (which ranks rather high on integrity, unless you happen to be on the far left and really hate them just for being centrist).

    2. Re:Wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Isn't the NY Post like the Enquirer or Fox News in journalistic integrity?"

      Waitasecond. You either mean Fox News or journalistic integrity. You can't have the two together!

    3. Re:Wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... but... but....... but.....

      Awwww, come on! The one chance we get to do unto them as they have done unto us, and you want us to just LET IT GO?

    4. Re:Wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you kiss my ass? Hou nasty liberal hippie! Why can't the lot of you just fucking die already?

    5. Re:Wait a sec by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

      How 'bout reserving judgement until there's an actual charge filed instead of acting like a lynch mob.

      You must be new here.

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
    6. Re:Wait a sec by dr3vil · · Score: 1
      Fox News (which ranks rather high on integrity, unless you happen to be on the far left and really hate them just for being centrist)

      Damn you. I just laughed coffee all over my screen.

  48. Re:Umm. by smutt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You have clearly never worked in the service sector. When I worked in the state of Virginia as a waiter I earned roughly half of minimum wage. The rest was expected to be made up with tips. The federal guvment assumes you will get 8-9% of each check in tips and the IRS taxes you for it. So if you don't tip your server still has to pay the IRS taxes on that tip they didn't receive.
    Please tip. If you can't afford to tip then go eat at McDonalds.

    --
    The Information Revolution will be fought on the command line.
  49. Poor people can't tip the police. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "Then you accept that the officers are underpaid"

    Nope. Read the parent.

    "If the pay for enforcement of the law can be overcome by the acceptance of "tips", then the base salary is too low to prevent the officers from breaking their oaths."

    You make no sense here. The corruption and "we only work if you give us extra money" situation would apply even if the pay was $200,000 a year. The MPAA has big money going here. How many hundreds of thousands do you want to pay each officer a year to remove any possibility of an MPAA bribe affacting their actions?

    "In addition, if someone is willing to pay extra to have extra police protection,"

    That reminds me of an obvious thing I overlooked. The poor already are ignored too much when they are victims. As they would not be able to pay the tips, this problem would get much much worse.

    "then how is the police officer who assents to investigating "tipped" crimes at fault for spending more time looking into those crimes than into "untipped" crimes?"

    Ever hear of "to protect and to serve"? There is NOT an asterisk there that says in fine print "only protecting those who pay us extra under the table".

    I thought that enforcing the law only to protect those who bribe you was universally considered to be a problem. You seem to think it is a great reform.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Poor people can't tip the police. by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

      In fact, I don't think that police should only serve those who pay them tips. I do believe that they should be paid enough that the penalty for accepting a bribe is more than the benfit of accepting it.

      "Adequate" pay, it ain't.

  50. Re: you missed the "why" by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There are two ways to improve the bottom line for a firm:
    Increase Sales
    Reduce Cost

    The MPAA considers piracy to be a "cost" that they wish to control, to assist their bottom line.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  51. Hardly surprising... by dysjunct · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The music industry has been involved in payola for years and years, despite it being illegal. Why should they see this as anything different? They'll just come up with yet another excuse as to why this isn't payola. Is it a private gift from one individual to another, which -- totally coincidentally -- happens to be from an RIAA member to a NYPD officer? You can't prove anything! What, you want to outlaw gifts?

    (In Soviet Russia, gifts outlaw YOU!)

  52. Re:Umm. by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

    So in other words, the minimum wage and tax systems are screwed up, so we should perpetuate them?

  53. Tipping by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The tip is supposed to be paid for services above and beyond the most basic acceptable service. If a waiter doesn't provide acceptable service, it is the customer's responsibility to not only NOT TIP, but also to inform the manager of the bad service.

    What is wrong in the above statement is that not tipping is only acceptable in the case of bad service. This is totally wrong, and contrary to the whole concept of tipping.

    Tipping is intended as a means of a waiter/tress to earn income above and beyond what they normally earn (which is typically below minimum wage). However to earn that, it is expected, from the customer's perspective, that the waiter must perform services above and beyond what is acceptable as "normal", not what is accepted as "bad service".

    I hate bad tippers. I think they are cheapskates and are ripping off good waiters. However, I have to reproach any waiter who thinks that it is my responsibility to pay him extra just for providing "adequate" service. If I wanted expected service, I would have gone to McDonalds.

    1. Re:Tipping by k33bz · · Score: 1

      I tend tot tip very well, but I also expect a decient amount of care and attention. "I hate bad tippers. I think they are cheapskates and are ripping off good waiters. However, I have to reproach any waiter who thinks that it is my responsibility to pay him extra just for providing "adequate" service. If I wanted expected service, I would have gone to McDonalds." Couldn't have said it better myself.

  54. Get off your high-horses by t_allardyce · · Score: 0, Troll

    Now now we all want to think the MPAA are guilty but as TFA says its an allegation thats being investigated. Even so this is hardly the break we've been waiting for - only 2 cops and they would have done their jobs anyway - why would the MPAA pay them afterwards? If it turns out that they were paid to prioritise their policing or to plant extra evidence then yes, but this seems a bit pathetic, why would the MPAA or the cops risk the PR and legal damage of this getting out for something this pathetic?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Get off your high-horses by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 2, Informative

      We know they are guilty. It's fucking obviously so why "wait". Theres no smoke without fire and you can look at any major company you want and there is always smoke.

      MS, Apple, MPAA, RIAA and hundreds of others now having to compete with the internet. The internet is seen as "the wild west", the general people don't care and us geeks are in the minority with no money. So they do whatever they wish with the money they have and if they get caught who really cares but their lawyers who just wants the cash?

      --
      I like muppets.
    2. Re:Get off your high-horses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS, Apple, MPAA, RIAA and hundreds of others now having to compete with the internet

      Remember folks:

      Competition is bad. It's very bad.

      Poor, starving executives will have to sell their 10th bmw so that they could afford their caviar and truffles.

      Would someone please think of the executives?

  55. surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    businesses in large cities have always tipped police in order to obtain adequate protection...

  56. Exactly. Not a matter of low pay. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "If the pay for enforcement of the law can be overcome by the acceptance of "tips", then either the punishment or the rate of prosecution of police officers who accept "tips" is too low."

    Exactly. This is not a matter of "low pay" at all: it is a matter of just plain "bad cops".

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  57. A New Yorker's View by Royster · · Score: 1

    It's not hard to find bootleg DVDs in NYC. I can think of three places where you are likely to find someone with a selection of recent theatrical releaes lined up on a cardboard box on a Friday afternoon. The last guy I passed had Hitch, Guess Who and Beauty Shop plus at least a half dozen other titles. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with what's currently playing (and in NYC all you have to do is look up at the billboards) will recognize that these are current titles and not yet released on DVD. It usually takes a week for a big, new release to hot the bootleg table.

    Mostly they display the DVD boxes on a cardboard box. Some of the guys will use a blanket so that they can just hide their wares and take off if the police show up.

    Of course, it's unconscionable that the police would take bribes to enforce the law. But it's equally clear that the MPAA wasn't paying enough because those guys are in the same places week after week.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
    1. Re:A New Yorker's View by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's totally true.

      I remember just a month ago when I was interviewing for a gig on Wall st, there was a guy selling pirate DVDs right there.

      Even though there are cops EVERYWHERE on that street. The ones with the black kevlar helmets and M4 assualt rifles, just standing around, not even caring in the slightest about the guy selling DVDs.

    2. Re:A New Yorker's View by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      >It's not hard to find bootleg DVDs in NYC.

      If it's hard to find *anything* from the fringe in NYC, I don't want to know, because it would be detrimental to the comfort of my illusions.

  58. Criminal activity is normal for the RIAA by bani · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not the first time the RIAA has been involved in criminal activity.

    Law enforcement goes wild and imprisons students for sharing a few thousand dollars worth of mp3s. It's about time we start imprisoning music industry CEOs who steal $143 million from the public.

    1. Re:Criminal activity is normal for the RIAA by beelsebob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize that the MPAA and the RIAA are different?

    2. Re:Criminal activity is normal for the RIAA by digidave · · Score: 1

      Really? Please point out these differences as I am having trouble distinguishing them based on their actions alone.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    3. Re:Criminal activity is normal for the RIAA by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The MPAA and RIAA are different the way the Mafia and the Yakuza are different.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Criminal activity is normal for the RIAA by sik0fewl · · Score: 2, Funny

      The MPAA are Italian and the RIAA are Japanese?

      Did I take this too literally?

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
    5. Re:Criminal activity is normal for the RIAA by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      :) Just a bit.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  59. Re:The best video ever! by Chris+Kamel · · Score: 1

    It doesn't have to do with smartness, I'm not at work and the filename is not enough, I had to make sure before I yell at the stupid AC.
    Just not used to spam on /.

    --
    The following statement is true
    The preceding statement is false
  60. Why is this so terrible by brw215 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If it were an old lady who was arrested baking a pie for police officers who caught a burglar we would all laugh at how dumb our legal system was.

    The MPAA gave these guys a couple free DVDs, it is not like these gifts were large sums of money.

    1. Re:Why is this so terrible by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A few DVDs is different to being polite. If someone comes tot he house to repair something I'll always offer them a cup of tea and a biscuit. Same for the cops when they came here a few months ago (not relating to myself). These guys have a hard job and being polite to them isn't going to make you a favourite at all. Where as giving them free swag will.

      Tea/coffe/snack/whatever = fine
      Goods/services/favours = no

      I suggest you check the difference between being polite and a bribe. Unless you're a little kid theres a big differencr.

      --
      I like muppets.
    2. Re:Why is this so terrible by zotz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The MPAA gave these guys a couple free DVDs, it is not like these gifts were large sums of money."

      No, no, you are using the wrong equation. You need to use tyhe one where each work is worth $150,000.00:

      http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/504.html

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    3. Re:Why is this so terrible by Bullfish · · Score: 1

      Yes, paying off cops is just part of how the market works. It's a tradition dating back to cops eating for free, the pinkertons, and even well before that.

  61. Re:Umm. by IdleTime · · Score: 1, Troll

    I only tip if I get extraordinary service.

    Not my problem that you are stupid enough to accept a job with such conditions! Don't like it? Get a different job!

    --
    If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
  62. Bribing them to obey oath they swore to... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "I do believe that they should be paid enough that the penalty for accepting a bribe is more than the benfit of accepting it."

    Even if they are paid 10 cents a year, that is no excuse at all for this corruption. Your proposal to overpay them becomes a sort of bribe in itself: "See? We'll pay you EXTRA in order to actually stick to the oath you swore to in the first place!"

    Any cop who will pick and choose whether or not to stick to their oath based on the level or presence of bribes from the MPAA or your proposal do not belong on the force. I have yet to see a single police oath with an asterisk (fine print) that says the oath does not matter unless there are bribes to "make" it matter.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Bribing them to obey oath they swore to... by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

      Based on your post, I guess we have come to an impasse.

      I live in reality and accept that there are serious problems with underpaying police officers and treating them with kid gloves. You seem to live in a fantasy world where all police are true to their oaths and are not tempted by external monies.

      I don't believe that for a second. Not for police, not for any public servant. I believe that they are willing to turn over whatever information the payer wants because I know that the policing of such violations is essentially nonexistant.

      If you believe that police are working in their jobs because of some "duty" or obligation to the common good, then I have to believe that you are the one who is misguided.

      But hey. I'm the one getting modded down, so fire away with whatever "arguments" you've got from that fantasy world of yours.

    2. Re:Bribing them to obey oath they swore to... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "You seem to live in a fantasy world where all police are true to their oaths and are not tempted by external monies."

      See other post, about the problem of not enough penalty for giving into this temptation.

      "If you believe that police are working in their jobs because of some "duty" or obligation to the common good, then I have to believe that you are the one who is misguided"

      Do you actually know anyone in law enforcement? Personally? Have you ever talked to any? Most of the police/etc I talk to are working their jobs for this reason and take their "duty" seriously. Or perhaps all the police you know really are heartless mercenaries with no sense of civic duty, and don't care about their oaths? If this is the case, no wonder you hate the police.

      "But hey. I'm the one getting modded down, so fire away with whatever "arguments" you've got from that fantasy world of yours."

      It is like you have never read the messages. After I post several about the real problems of police corruption, you say I am in a fantasy world where "all police are true to their oaths and are not tempted by external monies." You have me confused with someone else.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  63. Re:Umm. by zakezuke · · Score: 1

    When I worked in the state of Virginia as a waiter I earned roughly half of minimum wage

    That would explain why when I visit the east coast that everyone expects exactly 15%. I got chewed out many times for just rounding to the nearest dollar in cases where I was out of small change and dollar bills and only tipped 14.25% to 14.75%. I had NO idea the employers could be so cheep and not pay their staff at least minimum wage. I guess I could be more forgiving about underpaid waitstaff demanding an extra quarter, or just not eat out in states that don't pay waitstaff at least minimum wage.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  64. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just cost the waiter at the next place I eat a tip. If you want waiters to receive tips, how about shutting your damned mouth?

  65. Re:Vic Mackey sez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your sick ness is leaking into your post.

    Hope you have beautiful grandchildren who are
    half Puerto Rican or half African American.

    You might think that your being cute with those racist terms, but actually you are being very hateful. Grow up.

  66. Don't treat the symptom, treat the cause by kc01 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I still say the MPAA (and RIAA) would do a LONG way towards reducing or even eliminating piracy if they sold the products for a fair price in the first place.

    The huge profits that are made on movies and music are way out of line. True, there are many execs, producers, direcetors, actors and musicians who don't get wildly rich, but there are loads who do. Rich beyond all comprehension. Why? These people are simply doing a job, one that has tremndous volume. If they cut prices in half or even lower, they'd still make a spectacular living, and they'd sell a lot more. It might even keep their total revenue the same. But I for one would be a lot happier buying a DVD for $5. I suspect many would, and wouldn't resort to buying cheesy bootlegs.

    I do wish they'd lose that "penny-wise, pound-foolish" attitude.

  67. That is not a matter of pay by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    " I do believe that they should be paid enough that the penalty for accepting a bribe is more than the benfit of accepting it."

    Why not just hit the root of the problem: make the penalties for accepting bribes much stiffer? This is much better: the law enforcement system gets money from the penalty payments, and they don't have to cut back on the size of the force in order to pay for a huge pay raise in an ill-conceived attempt to make it so a few bad apples might feel less incentive to break their oaths.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  68. Prostitution is illegal too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and yet you see the same ho's lined up on the same corners night after night, no matter how many times the cops bust em.. the fact of the matter is the guys selling pirated dvds on street corners are probabbly drug addicts, and need the easy money to score some more hits.. you really can't stop criminals from commiting crimes, because there are always new people becoming criminals due to circumstances. our society respects individual rights so much that it makes genuine lock downs of authority difficult. it's not like we have a society where it's traditional for individuals to have no freedom..

    1. Re:Prostitution is illegal too... by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      It would be trivial to stop prostitution. We could just keep arresting them, every ten minutes. And arresting people for solicitation.

      One week spent arrest hookers, fining them, letting them go, and arresting them again the next day, or even the same day, and doing the same to the customers, would seriously cripple prostitution.

      The fact we don't do that implies we don't actually wish to stop it. Why, I'm not entirely sure. But we don't.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    2. Re:Prostitution is illegal too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make a death penalty for sex, and *everything* will be solved inside of a single generation. Children are evidence of sex, so it's easy to convict the parents, and since the children are the product of an illegal act, they can be liquidated after being used for evidence. Problem solved.

  69. From the article by Nebu · · Score: 3, Funny

    An MPAA tip, for example, led to the recent prosecution of Randy Guthrie, the black sheep of a blueblood New York family, who was recently sentenced to 21/2 years in a Chinese jail for selling nearly $1 million in pirated movies over the Internet.

    Why don't they just say 10.5 years?

    1. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's 2.5 years :D

      (Dang, isn't a Chinese prison like worse than any Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass-Prison around?)

  70. come on by nomadic · · Score: 4, Funny

    You're SUPPOSED to tip police officers, it's only common courtesy.

    1. Re:come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, if /. was watching My Blue Heaven they would know they are suppose to tip cops.

    2. Re:come on by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

      Well they do provide a service.

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
    3. Re:come on by mister_slim · · Score: 1

      No no no! Common courtesy is that bribery starts at the top. The MPAA should have begun with Congress or at least the state legislature, and worked down. Oh, they're doing that? I'll shut up now.

  71. do not call by clymere · · Score: 1

    thanks for the "do not call" link. i've been getting more and more calls during the day, and they seem shocked when i tell them that we are already on the do not call list... I'm going to just taking down the company name and number, and telling them that i'm reporting them right at that moment :)

    --
    once you go slack, you never go back
    1. Re:do not call by kaens · · Score: 1

      Hey I used to be a telemarketer, so I can fill you in on a few things.

      Firstly, if it is a for-profit organazation that is calling you (or that the telemarketer is calling you on behalf of) they are told to sound surprised if you say you already are on the do not call list.

      If a non-profit organazation hires telemarketers to call you then the do not call list doesn't matter, as it only applies to for-profit organazations.

      That said, never donate to a non-profit organazation through a telemarketer, it's pretty much just a big sham. The telemarketing company recieves a good 70% of the donations in some cases, more than half in most.

      And all of what the telemarketer says is scripted. The telemarketers get to sit in a chair and read the same thing a few hundered times an hour to either a hang-up or someone cussing them out. While wearing a button-up shirt and tie because it "projects a proffesional image" in a job where what is making the profits is voice, and not image at all.

      GOD THAT SHIT SUCKED.

      Of course, my view on the matter is biased as I have not worked at every single telemarketing company - in fact, I have only worked at two to date, the last one a couple of years ago - and I do not plan on working at one ever again, unless I need some quick cash.

      But yeah, my point was this: telling them that you're reporting their company is not going to get your name off the list, unless it is a for-profit organazation. There's NOTHING you can do to get your name off of the non-profit organazation's lists permanently, as the telemarketing companies buy the lists from a third party, and the lists get refreshed every month or so. You could get it removed for a month or so buy doing this:

      1. Confirm that you are the person with whom they were wanting to speak to

      2. SPECIFICALLY request to be removed from the list.

      That is what we were told was required to remove your name from the list, you do that then the telemarketer marks the call as DNC and it gets processed. Until the new lists come in, and then it's probably back in.

      I pointed out to my manager that it would be possible for us to keep a black list of numbers of people that didn't want to get called (we had a few cases of the same person getting called multiple times in a day after requesting to be removed) and was given the response that it doesn't matter if the person doesn't want to get called or not, if it's a non-profit organazation - which makes a certain kind of sense. Or at least it would make sense if it was the organazation calling you, and not the for-profit telemarketing company that is taking most of the non-profit's donations.

      Anyhow, most of the employees that I worked with that actually enjoyed the job were greedy, self-important stuck-up assholes. Everyone else hated it, but either couldn't find another job, or couldnt afford to take a job with lower pay. Then again, this was in west virginia, land of low-income, so again my view is biased.

  72. How much to have someone arrested? by bcmm · · Score: 4, Funny

    How much does this great service cost? I can think of people I would like to have arrested...

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  73. Re: you missed the "why" by krayfx · · Score: 1

    probably getting the price of each dvd/ vcd/ "whatever form" down will be a realistic start. few years back they would cite that they need to pay the artiste's royalty, stockist, dealers, wearhouse, transport, associates to be paid off the Marked price of the movie on sale. but now they do not see the same - nor cite the reasons where the money is spent on - in online sales. they sell the same tunes/ movies online for the full cost they previously used to sel the same minus the infrastructure and associate payoffs! well, they are fully responsible for the piracy themselves!

  74. Bugger me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Paying Cops to bust people!

    Next thing you know they start paying politicians to change laws.

    Oh shit, nevermind...

  75. OT movie reviews in the future by Sark666 · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Couldn't hit the delete key fast enough" - the pirate's post

    "What a waste of bandwidth" - Copying News Network

    "Wasn't worth the 2 cd's I burnt it on" - the bandwidth tribune

    Wayyyy OT, but I just thought of those, thought it might give someone a chuckle.

  76. I apologize. I misunderstood your argument by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

    I thought that you meant that we should hire the best police officers possible.

    I didn't realize you thought that we should hire those officers most afraid of the "stick".

    I intended to argue for a better "carrot" but you were intent on arguing for a better "stick".

    We are not at odds. I think that the penalty of losing the carrot should outweigh the benefit of taking a bribe. You think that the penalty for taking a bribe should outweight the benefit for upholding the law.

    We are arguing at each other when it is clear we have completely opposite and irreconcilable differences in opinion.

  77. Re:Umm. by Triskele · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm a Brit and we generally don't tip. It used to be considered insulting in many sectors - "I work for a living I don't need charity" or "Am I a serf?". In fact I will tip if service and the meal is particularly good.

    Though when I'm in the US I do try to remember that the waiters really are serfs and if I don't tip they'll starve. What a lovely system you guys have...

    --

    --
    USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

  78. I think DVD prices are not too high... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "probably getting the price of each dvd/ vcd/ "whatever form" down will be a realistic start"

    Maybe it is just me, but I think DVD prices are decently low right now (for the most part). I was just at a store yesterday and saw a huge selection of recent discs, new, for $7.50 each. Sure, the new ones are espensive when they first come out, but the prices often drift down.

    I aay "for the most part" because I'd like to get those Babylon 5 sets sometime, and they are still very expensive.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by digidave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah well thost Babylon 5 sets cost just pennies to manufacture. The shows were already produced, so no production costs went into making them for the DVD. A few special features cost very little: a cameraman might cost $20/hour and the interviewees are probably not paid at all, or maybe a couple hundred bucks. There is more profit to be made on TV show sets because production costs are nearly zero and costs are still high.

      So, tell me again why DVDs cost as much as they do? Ah yes, what the market will bare. Looks like a significant portion of the market has decided that prices are too high.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    2. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by acroyear · · Score: 3, Interesting

      actually, interviews for actors for dvd-special-features cost a lot more than a couple hundred bucks. heck, just getting the rights to use interview footage from other sources like a movie's "red carpet premiere" can cost in the thousands. (consider how the documentary market is getting stagnated because the news people who hold the rights of post-viet-nam footage are charging too much to the point that non-profit companies like PBS's CPB can't afford it).

      the only exception are those for whom their contract involved a percentage of the gross, like the producers, directors, and lead actors. they get paid a substantially higher portion of the dvd sales than the regular actors do.

      for this reason, some dvd releases of classic movies don't get the "special edition" treatment up front (ala Mary Poppins, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and Chariots of Fire) -- the sales of the first release measure the interest. the profits are then used to pay the actors and other people (critics such as Leonard Maltin in the Disney films) to film the new interview footage.

      its akin to getting a public speaking engagement. those generally run in the thousands, plus transportation and hotel fees, even for small actors like the various Imperial generals/admirals at Star Wars cons. Agents of actors NEVER let them do anything for free, because it reduces their value in the next film's negotiations.

      however, its extremely rare for TV show actors to get a percentage of the gross unless its the fifth season and beyond of a HUGE hit like seinfeld or friends. just as the actors normally don't get a piece of syndication sales, they also rarely get a piece of dvd sales.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    3. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by Pollardito · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Agents of actors NEVER let them do anything for free, because it reduces their value in the next film's negotiations." actually i think the Screen Actors Guild prevents them from getting paid nothing. actors get paid 50 bucks or so for even a Leno appearance. i'm not saying that they make the same amount for a DVD interview, but if they do than that amount of money is so little that you could consider it free if it is divided over the volume of sales.

    4. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by Viceice · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That because you live in the USA. in the rest of the world, especially in the developing world, the price of movies are grossly over prices.

      I live in a country where if you look at purchasing power parity, our courrency is nearly 60% undervalued against the USD. So stuff here ought to cost only about 40% of what they cost in the US (in other words 60% cheaper).

      Yet, the price of a non bootleg DVD movie here is about US$50 and it stays that way. So that makes it 700% more expensive then your US$7 instead of 60% cheaper which is the fair price.

      Anyway, thats moot, my point is that the MP/RI-AA's arguement is flawed. A people with very low disposeable incomes are either going to buy a bootleg or not going to buy it at all. So there is no loss there because nobody would have bought the original if piracy didn't exist anyway.

      --
      Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
    5. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, even though the first Opteron costs billions to produce, each additional Opteron costs just pennies to manufacture, because all the design and engineering work has already been done, so no production costs go into making it. So tell me again why Opterons cost as much as they do?

    6. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the market will bare

      Wait, who gets bare in the Babylon 5 DVDs? Are you thinking of those other DVDs you have?

    7. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anonymously because I've had some contact with the industry. This is true; SAG rules prevent actors from working for nothing, and even prevent them from working for non-union studios (which can suck if you've only been in one film - want to act in a college film student's movie? Can't. Want to be in your company's promo stuff? Can't.). It makes sense that they do it; that's how unions stay alive. And SAG has done a great deal to protect actors, particularly child actors - they aren't all making millions per movie, y'know. But the restrictions can be a pain in the ass, and it's not like you can just leave the union; the health insurance is quite attractive for some of us, even if you'd have to go back to work in the industry to get it.

    8. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by loraksus · · Score: 1

      Not to troll, but...
      Thousands? The sticker price for the set is $500.
      I'm not saying that there aren't incidental costs, etc, but really, even paying an actor $10,000 for an hour long interview is just the cost of a dozen sets.
      I'm pretty sure that Bruce Boxleitner isn't getting ten grand for an hours work either.
      And yes, the actors get screwed, no surprise there.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    9. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      Where did you get $500 for Bab5? It's $425 at best buy for the first 5 seasons. That works it out to 85 bucks a season, and it looks like there's about 22 episodes a season for Bab5. So it's workin' out to about 3.50 an episode, is that really that bad?

      Sure, some seasons for TV shows are priced better, from what I've seen they average 80 for the less popular stuff that will probably still sell like hotcakes (Twilight Zone, Bab5, Sopranos, Band of Brothers [however, Band of Brothers was worth its $100 price tag and then some]) and I've seen some that are out there for a very good price, usually somewhere between 30 and 50 (Miami Vice, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Simpsons, Sex and the City, Married w/Children). However, these lower priced gift sets usually have SEVERAL seasons, (Simpsons, MWC) so they're going to end up costing you a lot more anyway.

      That being said, I think the seasonal box sets are rather fairly priced in general. Sure some of them should never be priced at the 80 dollar mark, but they are, and they're in the minority anyway. (Unfortunately that includes a few that I want) What *I* hate are the George Lucas-like Special Editions. Take "The Professional" for example, they created a special edition, then they released Leon:The Professional (The 'extended foreign version with extra footage' ala ApocNow Redux) Then they released Leon:The Professional Special Edition with more footage.. what, did you FORGET SOME!? Boy that pisses me off.. ApocNow had the original version, and the really f'ing long version, LOTR had the original version, and the really f'ing long version, why do these other companys have the original version, the special edition, the really long special edition, then the really long-er special edition with even more footage that they forgot to add when they made the first really long special edition? Have some originality.

    10. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Firefly's one and only season is available for 35$. And it rocks.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    11. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by nacturation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah well thost Babylon 5 sets cost just pennies to manufacture. The shows were already produced, so no production costs went into making them for the DVD. A few special features cost very little: a cameraman might cost $20/hour and the interviewees are probably not paid at all, or maybe a couple hundred bucks. There is more profit to be made on TV show sets because production costs are nearly zero and costs are still high.

      So, tell me again why DVDs cost as much as they do? Ah yes, what the market will bare. Looks like a significant portion of the market has decided that prices are too high.


      Ignoring your ignorance about what things in the real world cost, if it's too expensive then just don't buy the shit.

      Every non-commodity item is sold at a price-point of what the market will bear. Do you think your salary should be based upon the minimum it costs you to pay rent, buy a few articles of clothing, and pay for some food? Maybe you're happy with subsisting through life, but most people want to get paid what the going market rate is. If the market will bear a $100K a year salary, I doubt you'll find people saying "Well, I can really get by on only $30K, so I'll cut my employer a deal."

      Let some other store buy DVDs and you can rent it on the cheap. Or get some friends together and split the cost. Next you'll be whining about how cologne and perfume is just a chemical solution in an alcohol base and that it shouldn't cost more than $2 for a bottle of that new Calvin Klein "Pretension" cologne.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    12. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $85 bucks a season?!? I picked up the B5 seasons at Costco because they were about $65.

    13. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how anybody can believe the market lies. Are people really so dense to think markets end up with the "right" price? A free market depends on complete and total information sharing, a condition which DOES NOT EXIST. Seriously, lay down the free market crack pipe and think.

    14. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "I don't see how anybody can believe the market lies"

      I don't either. The market as such can never lie.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    15. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      exactly. Non-commodity- there isn't a free market.

      Copyrights destroy the free market of ideas.

    16. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by Zemran · · Score: 1

      shouldn't cost more than $2 for a bottle of that new Calvin Klein

      You really pay that much? I live in Thailand and can get you some for 3 cents/c.c. You see, your arguement is BS because the market is fake. Here, because there is a strong market in copied products you can get genuine DVDs for $3 (120 baht for say 'Kill Bill 2'). They lower the price to a more reasonable level so that people will see the better quality (not seeing someone get up and walk across the screen) as worth the cost. The MPAA etc. are just trying to keep your bogus market going so that they can continue to screw you.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    17. Re:I think DVD prices are not too high... by jeephistorian · · Score: 1

      Good arguement, please explain minumum wage since there simply is no way a person can live on less than $6/hour?

      --
      Huh?
  79. Re:Umm. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

    Real goods I'd say is the line.

    Offering a cup of tea or a slice of cake = no problem. You're being polite

    Offering anything with a value above a light snack = bribe IMO.

    "Are you sure you don't want to have a drink or a peice of cake?" = acceptable

    "Here having some DVDs, a bag of money with a $ sign on it and a new diamond plated watch" = bribe

    --
    I like muppets.
  80. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Am I a serf?

    If he's a Briton and waiting tables then he's probably not of royal blood, so he is indeed a serf by the standards of free men today.

    You're a serf, too, so here's a gentle reminder not to talk to your betters the way you did in your post.

  81. Re:I apologize. I misunderstood your argument by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "I thought that you meant that we should hire the best police officers possible."

    Absolutely. But, while paying them more can get better officers, that is not the most of it. Corruption and bribery scandals happen at the top of the law enforcement pay scale (between $100,000 and $200,000 for big cities). Surely these are not poverty wages, yet these big chiefs/leaders/etc still take bribes.

    "I intended to argue for a better "carrot" but you were intent on arguing for a better "stick"."

    When you swear an oath, you swear an oath. No "carrot" should be necessary, or the oath is worthless.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  82. This is about the MPAA not the RIAA by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't get the two mixed up.

    The RIAA is a criminal cartel that buys their own cops
    The MPAA is a criminal cartel that buys their own laws

    (oh and if any lawyers representing either of those organisations are reading this, please sue me for sying that, I'd just love the chance see the expression on your faces when a judge agrees with me)

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    1. Re:This is about the MPAA not the RIAA by HiThere · · Score: 1

      They BOTH buy their own laws.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  83. Re:I apologize. I misunderstood your argument by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

    ,i>When you swear an oath, you swear an oath. No "carrot" should be necessary, or the oath is worthless.

    You have more faith in human nature than I have.

    I hate to make a big deal of who I am, but as Santa Claus, I have a pretty good idea of of who is naughty and who is nice (I gots da lists).

    If you think that the Nice list outnumbers the Naughty list, you've got another thing coming. (You've been good (enough) so far this year, if it matters.)

  84. Shhh. Don't anger the Canadians by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "Joke or no, when the Canadians started collecting "copying tax""

    Shhhh. Don't anger the Canadians. For some reason, they get all snitty when you call this tax a tax.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Shhh. Don't anger the Canadians by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      That's because it's not a tax, it's a tariff :D Seriously though, it goes to a private organization, not the government. It's more like a royalty really.

  85. Wrong by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "well, they are fully responsible for the piracy themselves!"

    No they're not. Candy costs about 55 cents a bar now, when it used to be about 33 cents when I was a kid. Does this mean if I were to shoplift a candy bar, it's the store's fault? Or the candy manufacturer?

    While I'm certainly not defending the MPAA's actions or saying that things are hunky dory, their shitty actions are not a reasonable justification to steal.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:Wrong by Chuq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I'm certainly not defending the MPAA's actions or saying that things are hunky dory, their shitty actions are not a reasonable justification to steal.

      I didn't realise DVDs being taken off store shelves was such a huge problem in the US.

      (Hint: If you meant "copyright infringement", say it. Don't say "steal", as that means something else.)

      --
      - Chuq
    2. Re:Wrong by JayBlalock · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Just to take the contrary position: Say you were to put your money into a bank, and it turned out the bank's preferred method of security is to leave the money in piles out on the floor. Obviously, it gets stolen. While in the strictest sense, it's a case of one person committing one crime, only a fool would say the bank was not partially at fault, since their policies made the theft so attractive.

      An extreme case to be sure, but I wanted to illustrate the point. A business has to take reasonable safeguards for their product *AND* make sure they have a viable business model. When the entire world is clamoring for lower prices on music\movies, with the customers being fully aware that these products can be obtained far more cheaply (or for free), then the media conglomerates are inviting piracy by refusing to respond to the market.

      And that's what it all boils down to. The world is moving towards digital distribution, and the media companies are doing everything in their power to try to stop that from happening. They are refusing to update their business model for a new generation. This SHOULD be death for a company. Instead, they have grown so large that they simply attempt to outlaw the new technology that threatens their 1950s mentality.

      Now, personally I think pirates who *profit* off their wares are scum that deserve to be locked up. BUT, that does not mean that the media companies are in any way blameless. The world is changing; they refuse to - and this is the result.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    3. Re:Wrong by neoform · · Score: 1

      no, but being FORCED to watch commercials at the begining of a dvd that i just purchased, along with an anti piracy message (that no one ever reads) that cannot be skipped, i can't help but wonder "Gee golly, why would anyone want to have a copy without that?".

      If there was an easy way to copy all my DVD's to my computer and remove those bullshit ads and warnings i would buy SO many more DVDs and rip them all, but since the industry loves to push their clients around, i say fuck them and just download the movie. saves me a whole lot of time.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    4. Re:Wrong by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 0

      (Hint: If you meant "copyright infringement", say it. Don't say "steal", as that means something else.)

      Copyright infringement, which is denying the companies and artists money that they deserve for your "ownership" of their property. That's stealing.

      --
      R.Mo
    5. Re:Wrong by antiMStroll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wrong analogy, no one 'shoplifts' anything by making a copy of a movie. Copying is not the same as theft, no matter how much people here like to bang their shoe on the table and pontificate otherwise. The original media remains untouched. Think more along the lines of selling home-made Mars bars.

    6. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not. Stealing involves taking the physical property of someone else. If I go and take a candy bar from a store shelf, that's stealing. Since I phsyically took it and they paid for that candy bar and are only reimbursed when someone buys it from them, they lose money. After all, they can't sell what they don't have. Pirating movies doesn't involve any profit loss. It's only the loss of alleged POTENTIAL profit and still doesn't really harm. Pirating is not significant enough to affect DVD/Cinema sales. Companies do like to make up big numbers to impress everyone but the MPAA has been caught making up numbers before. And don't try that denying artists money line. The one denying artists money and the smaller companies money is the MPAA and other big companies in the movie industry. You try to seem self-righteous but your post is just ignorant.

    7. Re:Wrong by scsirob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assuming there's about 20 years difference between 'now' and 'when you were a kid', then today's 50 cents is less money than the 33 cents back then. It's called inflation.

      If today's bar was raised to $14.99, then I would indeed call it the store's fault for trying to make unfair amounts of profit. Which just happens to be what the MPAA does...

      The MPAA has to step into reality by understanding that their super-profitable distribution system (CD, DVD) no longer fits today's reality. They should try to adjust instead of fighting the inevitable.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    8. Re:Wrong by Njall · · Score: 1

      Candy costs about 55 cents a bar now, when it used to be about 33 cents when I was a kid. Does this mean if I were to shoplift a candy bar, it's the store's fault? Or the candy manufacturer?

      That's a valid point. However, I would also point out that it is priced at 55 cents. And that price reflects what the market will pay not what the candy manufacturer has to charge because of costs to produce. Cost and Price of a product are related only in whether the manufacturer can "stay in business" at that Price.

    9. Re:Wrong by JDevers · · Score: 1

      Here's a better analogy. Imagine that candy bars in stores cost 55 cents each now, they come with wrappers that explain the ingredients nutritional value, a list of those ingredients, a pretty package, and a sanitary seal. Many different middlemen were involved in getting it from the factory to you (the manufacturer, the wholesaler, the various distributors, the stock room, and finally the display room). Each one of those costs money as does store shelf space. Also you can't buy just one candy bar, or even just a few of the ones you like. The company makes you buy an assortment of what they think you might like, bringing the total to about $10. Now imagine that you happen to live right next door to the Mars factory and want to buy a Mars bar, well you head over there and ask how much it is to buy one right off the factory line and the response is 90 cents. Mars has saved all the various money they would have spent getting the product to you, the packaging, etc and yet they want MORE money. Oh, and they also put the stipulation that you CAN NOT take the candy bar with you, you HAVE to eat it right there. Does that make sense? While you going to the Mars factory and stealing a bar isn't exactly legal still, part of the reason you would make that decision is because of their arcane logic of charging more for less.

      This analogy isn't perfect, but the truth of the matter is probably actually worse. This analogy also has more to do with downloading music and movies than actual street piracy, which really is a bad thing and SHOULD be illegal, regardless of the practices of the seller.

    10. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (Hint: If you meant "copyright infringement", say it. Don't say "steal", as that means something else.)

      Only for those with an agenda, 90% of whom post on Slashdot. In common usage, they're the same thing.

    11. Re:Wrong by shmlco · · Score: 1
      Stop playing word games. Someone spends their time, effort, and money creating a work and offers it for sale. You, however, feel "entitled" to it, don't pay for it, and as such you benefit from the result and they don't.

      In essence, you stole their time, their effort, and their money.

      Anything else is just a rationalization.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    12. Re:Wrong by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

      Steal - [i]To take or appropriate without right or leave, with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully.[/i]

      You were saying?

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    13. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I'm certainly not defending the MPAA's actions or saying that things are hunky dory, their shitty actions are not a reasonable justification to steal.

      No, but there's little reason not to download stuff, either - since they are willing
      to lie, cheat and bribe to get their way. If they decide you are likely to pay them something, they will just claim you stole from them whether you did or not, and plant evidence if there doesn't
      happen to be any.

      They know you're likely to cave in under the pressure of all their lawyers, and even if you
      win, you're out the lawyer fees anyway.

    14. Re:Wrong by trezor · · Score: 1
      • In essence, you stole their time, their effort, and their money. Anything else is just a rationalization.

      No I didn't and no it isn't. I could reply to any post in this thread misapropriatly using the word "steal", but I chose yours because of your arrogant "everyone who doesn't agree with me are wrong"-type attitude. Oh, remember: I devoted my time and creativity to write this work of a post.

      In essence, if you don't read this post you stole my time, my effort and my money.

      Anything else is just a rationalization.

      How is that for seeing your argument being flawed? Dumbass.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    15. Re:Wrong by Excen · · Score: 1

      . . . instead of fighting the inevitable.

      Hmmm. I just had a thought: Agent Smith as the director of operations of the MPAA.

      And if that's the case, who's Trinity?

      --
      "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
    16. Re:Wrong by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I didn't realise DVDs being taken off store shelves was such a huge problem in the US.

      It probably will be, before long. The penalties are far less harsh if you're caught. And people have gotten used to getting movies for free now.

      Personally, I use the public library.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    17. Re:Wrong by Nevyn · · Score: 1
      No they're not. Candy costs about 55 cents a bar now, when it used to be about 33 cents when I was a kid. Does this mean if I were to shoplift a candy bar, it's the store's fault? Or the candy manufacturer?

      While I wouldn't advocate that you violate the copyright protection on a DVD, doing so is vastly different than walking into a store and stealing a copy off the shelf. By the same measure copyright violation cannot be compared to stealing a candy bar, and I assume you know this and are intentionally lying. A more accurate comparson would be to not being able to afford the candy and so going home and making your own candy using a recipe for said store candy that you "aquired" from somewhere.

      And even that isn't a great comparison, but at least both involve breaking the same law.

      --
      ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
    18. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that for seeing your argument being flawed? Dumbass.

      touché!

    19. Re:Wrong by evilviper · · Score: 1
      their shitty actions are not a reasonable justification to steal.

      You're absolutely right. Fortunately though, copyright infringement is not stealing in all but the most remote sense of the term.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    20. Re:Wrong by Lillesvin · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Jesus! Every time this stealing/infringing copyrights subject is brought up people start splitting words! It's ridiculous!

      I'll just answer to all of you dictionary-nazis with a previous post attached to another story.

      Why can't I mod myself up to +2 Angry?

      --
      "Live free or don't."
    21. Re:Wrong by Microlith · · Score: 1

      And that's what it all boils down to. The world is moving towards digital distribution, and the media companies are doing everything in their power to try to stop that from happening. They are refusing to update their business model for a new generation. This SHOULD be death for a company. Instead, they have grown so large that they simply attempt to outlaw the new technology that threatens their 1950s mentality.

      No, no.

      Digital distribution is what we have. What you want is electronic distribution, and they're trying not to outlaw the technology but protect their copyrights, which the lot of the slashbots mistake as attacking a technology. Not hard when the use of that technology seems to involve mass violation of their copyrights.

      This is because slashdots are largely fucking clueless, and only want shit for free. The hypocracy comes in when people shit a brick about a GPL violation, then they make every excuse they can to say "OH NOES ITS NOT THE SAME1!" Which is a fat load of crap. If you can rip off their movie, I can rip off your GPL licensed program. Or neither can be OK and we can all be better off.

      They will change in time. They just don't want you ripping their shit off. And I don't blame them. No one else seems willing to respect their copyrights, so they're suing the fuck out of those who don't. More power to them.

    22. Re:Wrong by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      It probably will be, before long. The penalties are far less harsh if you're caught. And people have gotten used to getting movies for free now.

      The penalties are far less harsh if you're caught. However, unless you know what you're doing, the odds of getting caught while shoplifting are much higher than the odds of getting downloading a file.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    23. Re:Wrong by fiter · · Score: 1

      Hey, you can rip it off as long as your rip off is free :)

      And can you really say they're not resisting change with a straight face?

    24. Re:Wrong by shmlco · · Score: 1
      You devoted your time and effort, but didn't offer it for sale, and didn't create anything of value.

      As such worth every penny paid...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    25. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason this difference should be pointed out is the same reason people should call the estate tax the estate tax, and not a death tax. It only affected the top 2% of american estates but by calling it the death tax republicans managed to convince people who will never have to pay it to fight against it. Maybe some people do have a philisophical opposition to a tax that only effects the richest people in America, but I think the false term "death tax" had more to do with it. And calling copyright infringement theft will only cloud the issue.

    26. Re:Wrong by Chuq · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The definition you gave says "To take or appropriate" - nothing about "To duplicate".

      --
      - Chuq
    27. Re:Wrong by Digital+Pizza · · Score: 1
      Candy costs about 55 cents a bar now, when it used to be about 33 cents when I was a kid

      Time to start another off-topic thread:

      I remember candy bars being ten cents when I was a kid, and I'm not really that old (I'm routinely mistaken for a college student).

      --
      We apologize for the inconvenience.
    28. Re:Wrong by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      The penalties are far less harsh if you're caught. However, unless you know what you're doing, the odds of getting caught while shoplifting are much higher than the odds of getting downloading a file.

      My point was, this gap is narrowing (as getting caught downloading becomes increasingly more likely), which will begin to make shoplifting more attractive than it currently is.

      As you said, "unless you know what you're doing" - people will learn.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    29. Re:Wrong by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Until they "lobbied" to get the Sonny-Bono copyright extension act passed, I was a supporter of copyright enforcement. Since the DMCA was passed, I would consider the person or company who bankrupted them a hero. By whatever means necessary.

      Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I do feel that every movie and record company executive should be declared outlaw, with a price on their head. Head wanted, body not desired. (There's a few politicians I feel that way about, too. Unfortunately, it's the majority in congress and both elected officials in the executive branch. Bribery is a crime, but so is accepting bribes.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    30. Re:Wrong by Lillesvin · · Score: 0

      Let me guess... You didn't follow the link, right?

      In case you did - I don't think you got the point... My point is that you can bicker about the dictionary definition of a word - but you can't change the way it's used. Below is a copy/paste of the comment I linked to above.

      [paste start]

      Should you still be clinging to your dictionary definition, then I'd like you to explain commonly used phrases such as:

      • identity theft
        You don't lose your identity because someone knows your SS# and your credit card number and "claims" to be you. At least, if your entire identity is based on relatively few informations, then it's just plain sad.
      • stolen data
        You don't actually lose the stolen data, but someone broke into your system and made copies of the data. (Just look at the whole ChoicePoint incident.)

      When will people realize that dictionaries only gives clues about a word-meaning and usage --- they're not in any way the ultimate definition?

      It's the language users that form the language, not the other way around! Otherwise you'd have to go back to saying "a napron" instead of "an apron" and "an eekename" instead of "a nickname".

      [paste end]

      Take it from a linguist - trying to convince people to "use the right words in the right ways" doesn't work! It never has and it never will! Of course you're entitled to your opinion on whether it's theft or infringement - but so is everyone else.

      --
      "Live free or don't."
    31. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it is a big problem here.
      Often box cutters are taken from the hardware department and are found hidden all over every mega-mart in the U.S. every day, along with the external plastic wrap and the RFID tag which was stuck to the inside of the DVD. All that anti-theft wrapping you cuss about when you remove it takes a thief about 2 seconds to circumvent.
      Just ask the next mega-mart employee you see stocking towels, pillows, bedding etc. and that extremely low paid person will tell you they find box cutters hidden on the shelves every day. I'd venture to guess that more DVD's are stolen every day at Wally-World than are downloaded off of the internet in a month.

    32. Re:Wrong by LuYu · · Score: 1

      The arguement that the dictionary is just a guide is just fine until you consider that if the dictionary is considered to be wrong, there should be a source of information more reliable or more believable than the dictionary. Do you honestly believe that the RI/MPAA's definition of "theft" should supplant Mr. Webster's or the English legal definition of theft? Why should these lying organizations be redefining the language for us? Does the popular press decide how you speak and think? Are you then not advocating Newspeak?

      --
      All data is speech. All speech is Free.
    33. Re:Wrong by LuYu · · Score: 1

      You devoted your time and effort, but didn't offer it for sale, and didn't create anything of value.
      Who are you to say whether his creative work is valuable or not? Who died and made you God?
      --
      All data is speech. All speech is Free.
    34. Re:Wrong by Lillesvin · · Score: 1

      I don't consider the dictionary to be wrong - I consider it an attempt to describe the common meanings of words (i.e. if you look up a word in the dictionary you can be sure that it can have at least the definitions listed there, but that doesn't mean that there's not more to it). For a more reliable/believable source try the language users (ie. people).

      RI/MPAA may or may not have started the use of "theft" with this additional meaning - but that doesn't really matter, 'cause it's in the language now. People are using it. Besides, people have been "stealing ideas" from each other for centuries and centuries...

      Redefinition of words is quite common, if you're so much of against it I suggest you start looking for new words for "window", "chip", "bookmark" etc...

      --
      "Live free or don't."
  86. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan, too. Basically in any civilized country tipping is considered an insult.

  87. on the other hand by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

    Bribing the police is as american as Apple pie and rigging elections.
    (that was a joke)
    Seriously though It is the job of the police to uphold the peace and act when someone violates criminal law (or upona court order) so i have no idea why they would be prosecuting people who violate civil laws.

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    1. Re:on the other hand by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      I hate to respond to myself but .. This would apply in Scotland(iirc , go to the baras in glasgow if you want an example), the police couldnt bust a seller of pirated DVDs etc(copys not stolen property) without a court order , i should note i am not sure if its under criminal law or civil in the USA

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    2. Re:on the other hand by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

      Bribing the police is as american as Apple pie and rigging elections. (that was a joke)

      Of course it was.. everybody knows that apple pie predates the US.

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
  88. Waiters in the US by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

    I believe that waiting tables in the US is the closest you will come to pure capitalism anywhere. You tip based on their performance. If they suck, you pay them nothing, but if they provide excellent service, you pay them well. I've been known to give 200% tips for excellent service.

    But most countries are socialist-leaning, so I'm not surprised you think so lowly of people who actually have to "sing for their supper".

    1. Re:Waiters in the US by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Insightful


      But most countries are socialist-leaning, so I'm not surprised you think so lowly of people who actually have to "sing for their supper".

      How is it that so many people in the US see everything in an axis of Capitalism-Socialism?

      The situation is as follows: Restaurant owners make money from the work of waiting staff. However, the waiting staff are paid on the whim of the customer (with less than minimum wage from owner contribution). The restaurant owner is essentially getting a free ride from the waiting staff. The waiter or waitress has no security and never mind the fact that many of the factors that contribute to "good service" are outside of the waiting staff's hands. If the restaurant owner understaffs, serves bad food or hassles the waitress so that maybe she doesn't feel like smiling or flirting with a customer, then it's not his problem because he's not the one that will be short-changed.

      There's a lot to be said for a system in which everyone knows how much they're getting paid and how much they're expected to pay.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    2. Re:Waiters in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, you're totally ignoring the fact that the restaraunt owner gave the waiter a job. A poor person never gave anyone a job.

      And what's wrong with the customer paying for performance. It's called "incentive".

      There's a lot to be said for a system in which everyone knows how much they're getting paid and how much they're expected to pay.

      Yeah, there's a lot to be said. A lot of it bad. The classic aphorism from Soviet Russia applies here: "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us".

    3. Re:Waiters in the US by rollingcalf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I believe that waiting tables in the US is the closest you will come to pure capitalism anywhere. You tip based on their performance. If they suck, you pay them nothing, but if they provide excellent service, you pay them well. I've been known to give 200% tips for excellent service."

      That is much closer to socialism. They do something for you then hope and pray you'll pay them out of the goodness of your heart.

      I hate tipping because a customer's idea of a good tip isn't necessarily the same as the waiter/waitress's idea. I'll give what I think is a good tip, and by the expression on their face I can see they weren't pleased with it. I've even had a waitress actually call me cheap after getting a tip for more than 20%. I stormed out of the place in anger so I wouldn't do something that would get me arrested. But on further thought I should have called the manager to get the damn bitch fired.

      With real capitalism, you either know the price up front or you negotiate it before making the purchase. Thus the transaction only takes place if the dollar amount is mutually acceptable. If the wait staff up-front declared a dollar amount or percentage that they'd be willing to serve me for, I can decline if it's too high, and if I accept their terms they can't complain about not receiving a high enough tip.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    4. Re:Waiters in the US by orionware · · Score: 1

      In anything less than the top resturants, the waitstaff expects the usual 15%. If they are upset because 20% just wasn't enough, then it's time to get a better job.

      Someone has to sweep the streets, pick up trash and wait on other people. If they don't like it, get a different job. I've worked as a waiter in a middle of the road restaurant and on normal days I made 15-18 an hour in cash tips. I guarantee I'd NEVER be paid that much per hour by the place.

      Where's the complaint!?

      --


      Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
    5. Re:Waiters in the US by winwar · · Score: 1

      "And what's wrong with the customer paying for performance." It's called "incentive".

      A better term would be "bonus". For going above and beyond the required amount. Paying for performance is what I call a wage. Incentive I define as doing well enough to keep my job :)

      Why not just add a gratuity and allow customers to remove it? If you have bad service you (owner) have a good way to track it. Adequate to good service, it's easy. Excellent service, well they can tip more.

      Or, they could operate like every other business and pay their employees a regular wage, price their products appropriately, and reward their good employees (or not, as is often the case....)

    6. Re:Waiters in the US by winwar · · Score: 1

      "I hate tipping because a customer's idea of a good tip isn't necessarily the same as the waiter/waitress's idea."

      That's the real reason I hate tipping. What is "good" service. What isn't. This definition also varies depending on my mood-some days what I would consider good service would be annoying. Frankly, I don't think too hard about tipping any longer. Which means my tip varies-and is often not dependent upon quality of service. Oh well, not my problem...

    7. Re:Waiters in the US by ring-eldest · · Score: 1

      In anything less than the top resturants, the waitstaff expects the usual 15%. If they are upset because 20% just wasn't enough, then it's time to get a better job.

      This depends on where you live, as well as what type of restaurant it is. Here in Memphis TN, 20% will usually pass muster at all but the finest restaurants, but this is Tennessee. In New York or LA I have seen the "normal" and "nice" tips being quite a bit higher.

      The original poster never did describe the type of restaurant it was, though. 20% may actually not have been enough, or it may have been very generous.

    8. Re:Waiters in the US by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      capitalism Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm) n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. It really bugs me when people spout out about what's capitalism and what's socialism and they don't even know what the hell they are talking about.

      --
      This space available.
  89. Re:Umm. by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    I agree completely... and I also can't understand why we tip the servers at restaurants... I mean, if they don't do a good job shouldn't they just be fired?

    That's the way it is in most places outside the US.

  90. Re:Vic Mackey sez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your really liked the tolerance lessons at school, didn't you? Good pupil you are.

  91. NOTICE: The MPAA did NOT deny it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Notice what the man from the MPAA said:

    -->
    "We don't give cash to police officers," said Bill Shannon, an MPAA anti-piracy official.
    --

    Isn't that an odd way of putting a "denial"?

    So Billy, what kind of gratuities do you actually use if not cash?

  92. Re:Umm. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    I'm a Brit and we generally don't tip. It used to be considered insulting in many sectors - "I work for a living I don't need charity" or "Am I a serf?". In fact I will tip if service and the meal is particularly good.

    In some eastern Europe communist country, there used to be signs in caf*s "Tipping is an insult". But when someone didn't tip, waiters would ask, shocked, "you don't insult me???"...
  93. The Antipiratbyrån "misshap" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apparently have the Swedish "Antipiratbyrån" (read Antipirate-Bureau) has been doing some not-so-legal stuff when they not long ago raided the swedish ISP Bahnhof.

    Bahnhof states that hey planted evidence through a informer inside the ISP. They payed for the servers which then was filled with warez, mp3s and such.

    Then they come and raided the stuff and now they're under investigation by the swedish government computer agency (which might lead to police investigation, i hope!).

    FYI, the "Antipiratbyrån" is a non-government agency which are funded by Sony and other recordcompanies and the like.

  94. Interesting...but WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because there is a single non-RIAA record company doesn't mean there isn't monopoly.

    Microsoft Windows is considered a monopoly, yet there are plenty of alternatives available.

    I don't think you understand what is meant by "monopoly".

    1. Re:Interesting...but WRONG by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

      "Just because there is a single non-RIAA record company doesn't mean there isn't monopoly." Actually, it does (monopoly means one). Aside from that, there are hundreds (thousands)? who are creating and making music recordings available without the RIAA.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  95. Stop race baiting with Rice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He is the one who called Condoleezza Rice the Bush administration's "House nigger" after all. I don't trust him, but that is just my opinion."

    Condoleezza may be a useful idiot and the ugliest* goddamned woman in Washington, but it has nothing to do with her race.

    If she were white, she'd still be an idiot and goddamned ugly*.

    ----

    *(look everybody is allowed to be a little ugly, but she abuses the privledge)

  96. Do you see the irony here? by tkrotchko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    " Now now we all want to think the MPAA are guilty but as TFA says its an allegation thats being investigated."

    Isn't this similar to the record and movie companies who want to get info from ISP's about alleged copyright infringement without going to a court of law?

    The media companies have *seen* people stealing, so they assume people guilty and want to just fine them directly without doing that long, involved courtroom stuff.

    Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:Do you see the irony here? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Well not really, thats what internal affairs does - investigates, in accordance with the law. The MPAA allegedly wants the police to investigate with accordance to a brown paper bag.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:Do you see the irony here? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Your comparation is a bit flawed. We are not making use of illegaly gathered data and we are not charging MPAA for anything based on our data without going into a court.

      Tapping other people internet data is a crime, asking for money using that tapped data is, at least, dubious. Just creating an oppinoin based on the information that we don't trust MPAA and it is been investigated (all legaly gathered) is completely legal.

      Also, if they really saw people "stealing", their property, they must have enoght information for incriminating them, what they want by asking info from the ISP is to create a mechanism for observing permanently the net traffic just in case anyone pirates something and they don't see it by other means.

  97. Re:Umm. by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That really drives me up the wall. The idea that the IRS needs to extract taxes from someone who isn't even paid minimum wage. Rather than people who actually earn more money than they need for survival. The working poor shouldn't even be taxed.

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  98. Can't blame him by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    You're a cop and you can't spell jaywalking ?

    Not his fault. His department probably rejects anyone who scores too high on the entrance exam as they do here (scroll down a few stories).

    1. Re:Can't blame him by e1618978 · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that there is a link between intelligence and the ability to spell. I am a horrible speller, and I consistantly score in the top 5% for intelligence.

      Maybe there is an inverse corrilation? Surely spelling nazis seem to be below average intelligence, according to my informal review of various message boards (no statistical accuracy implied) 8-)

    2. Re:Can't blame him by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      You are assuming that there is a link between intelligence and the ability to spell. I am a horrible speller, and I consistantly score in the top 5% for intelligence.

      A lot of departments give tests for general intelligence, and reject anyone who scores too high. I was just taking an opportunity to make fun of cops, and I wasn't the spellNazi.

      For what it's worth, you sound just like my wife. Very intelligent, can't spell for shit. But I don't think there's an inverse correlation either. Grammar nazis are just assholes.

    3. Re:Can't blame him by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 1

      Grammar nazis are just assholes.

      Thank you for supporting our cause.

      BBH

    4. Re:Can't blame him by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      Cute. Nice parse job. See if you can do the same with:

      "Grammar Nazis are pigfuckers."

  99. A *Brit* busting on non-Brit culinary industry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's like Yugo telling Ferrari how to make cars.

  100. What's really ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What a lovely system you guys have..."

    What's ironic is that waiters in the U.S. in the smallest, cheesiest diner are better than waiters in England. in pretty much everywhere except the most expensive restaurants.

    Waiters in England will rarely check on you to see if you need more drinks, food problems, more condiments. In the U.S. even in Denny's you get better service.

    Now, I agree with the spirit of your post, but I think England is a bad example.

    P.S. The food ain't none too good either in England, except for pubs, which have decent tasty food.

    1. Re:What's really ironic by Triskele · · Score: 1
      Waiters in England will rarely check on you to see if you need more drinks, food problems, more condiments. In the U.S. even in Denny's you get better service.

      This is one of the subtle little cultural differences between us. I like to be served and then left to get on with my dinner. I hate it when waiters keep butting in and asking if everything's all right. If I need their service I'll ask. Brits tend to find American waiters very intrusive as a result.

      --

      --
      USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

    2. Re:What's really ironic by Nrlll9 · · Score: 1

      Eh.. in Taiwan we don't tip and the service is a lot better than in USA. The food is too.. for about $5 you can get equivalent of a $100 meal in USA and the service is better too.

  101. Re: you missed the "why" by bird603568 · · Score: 0

    or they could stop making shitty movies like daredevil and troy

  102. What kind of cop are you? by MisterSquid · · Score: 4, Funny

    The only cop I would ever expect to surf Slashdot is Robocop.

    Cheers, officer. Just having a funny.

    --
    blog
    1. Re:What kind of cop are you? by Sparxter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only cop I would ever expect to surf Slashdot is Robocop.

      That is funny. I am something of an enigma. (Actually I've been told I look like that shape-shifting cop robot in T2...) It's amusing that at my workplace the brass alternates between blaming me for the computers breaking and asking me to fix them. My co-workers, however, just love the free computer help and advice.

      Rest assured that my ultimate goal is to work in hunting down child porn as I hate the MPAA and couldn't care less about they're childish crusades.

  103. better law enforcement by baomike · · Score: 1

    Hey if you want better law enforcement you gotta pay for it.
    To paraphrase:
    The wheel that pays gets the grease.

  104. Re:note to mods by Psykechan · · Score: 2, Informative

    The quote is from The Shield (warning: link has heavy use of flash) which is (sadly) one of the best shows on television right now.

    While Vic Mackey is the main character, the quote was actually said by Claudette Wyms; a black detective who is justifying the excessiveness of Vic to the police captain.

    I would actually say that this is on-topic simply for the fact that FX is, of course, FOX which is a member of the MPAA and "The Shield" is about cops going above the law.

  105. Why not? by spiritraveller · · Score: 1
    They're just skipping the legislative branch and going to the executive... and they're going to the people who actually enforce the laws, instead of the people who delegate enforcement of the laws... and they're paying them after services rendered instead of "donating" beforehand.

    I'd say they've chosen a much more efficient method of getting their policies enforced.

  106. Wasn't always this way. by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

    What a lovely system you guys have...

    Actually, the system in place in much of the US is fairly recent (for someone old as myself). When I was a bus boy in the mid 1980s, I was paid minimum wage PLUS tips.

    In the mid 1980s, there was a big hoodeehaw whipping around the Federal tax code and one of the blustering gusts was whether employees who received gratuities should declare tips as income. Reagan and his supporters successfully redefined tips as declarable income, which change enabled employers to pay less than minimum wage as long as customers made up the difference. If a service industry employee does not make an average of minimum wage for a shift (or is it a pay period?) then the employer must kick in enough for that employee to have been making minimum wage.

    Given this extremely owner-favorable and employee-indifferent system, I'm surprised the champions and defenders of business have not moved to make gratuity-based occupations simply wage free.

    --
    blog
    1. Re:Wasn't always this way. by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Given this extremely owner-favorable and employee-indifferent system, I'm surprised the champions and defenders of business have not moved to make gratuity-based occupations simply wage free."

      If they thought they could, I'm sure they would try. But let's face it-politicians want to win elections. This would be bad from their point of view. Business owners want employees, even crappy ones. Based purely on tips, this wouldn't happen. Finally, how many people REALLY know that their server makes less than minimum wage? And if their tips don't make up the difference, how many would get fired for asking their employer to make up the difference (yes it is illegal, but you rarely take those jobs because you WANT to and they can always find another legal reason....)

    2. Re:Wasn't always this way. by renehollan · · Score: 1

      It used to be the case that tavern waiters paid the tavern owner for the right to work there, to earn the tips. Obviously, the more popular establishments with more generous patrons, were the most desirable at which to work, and so the price to work their was higher than elsewhere.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    3. Re:Wasn't always this way. by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      It used to be the case that tavern waiters paid the tavern owner for the right to work there

      When and where did such a situation exist? I don't dispute you, but I do want to suggest that the conditions which existed in the United States until 1985 can be usefully compared to the conditions which exist in the United States in 2005. Without some kind of basis of comparison, you could point to the fact that in 1850 some American laborers worked under threat of force, but that is not as useful a comparison to the contemporary conditions under which Americans work as 1985's conditions.

      --
      blog
    4. Re:Wasn't always this way. by renehollan · · Score: 1
      Europe. Middle ages to about 18th century.

      Some waiters actually became quite wealty this way, and the practice exists to this day in some industries: partners buying into a partnership, for example. I think it is prevelent in the hair styling industry, but I am not certain.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    5. Re:Wasn't always this way. by mister_slim · · Score: 1

      Tip plus pay is supposed to be calculated per shift, but most employers calculate over a pay period. This works out well for the employers, but means waitstaff get their wages squeezed pretty badly. I live in Oregon, where the minimum base wage ignores tips. As a cook this actually impacts my wage, but as precedent for actually paying employees a living wage I'll accept it. Why don't companies use stock options as an excuse to retroactively reduce salary?

  107. Re:Umm. by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

    Duh, obviously you've never really thought it through. I tip all the time and for one reason only. To ensure that I receive the level of service I'm comfortable with. By tipping large, I expect and receive better service. It's simply basic economics. I suggest you at least try it at your favorite eatery.

    One of the first times I went onsite, my manager paid a lavish tip upfront to the concierge, the maid and the hotel coffee shop waitress. The service we received was exceptional and allowed us privileges and services we'd have never received otherwise. It turned out to be a wise investment when on the last day we had to rush to attend a crucial unscheduled meeting.

    Pay to play, or go home.

    --
    Words to men, as air to birds.
  108. pedantic by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1

    I knew I'd get called on it, but it's really 6 of one, half a dozen of the other in this case.
    Justification of an illegal action because of the MPAA's actions with the police.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:pedantic by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      The difference is that stolen goods count as a sale as far as the MPAA/RIAA are concerned - retailers or their respective insurance company ends up paying for it but it changes nothing to the studios' revenues.

      On the other hand, financian losses due to unlicensed downloads is in no negligible part hypothetical - I suspect something like half (or more) of such downloads would never have been sales anyway - the "Download because I can but otherwise do not care (much)" attitude.

    2. Re:pedantic by shmlco · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I suspect something like half (or more) of such downloads would never have been sales anyway

      So by your own admission half would have been sales.

      And in all cases the creative work was stolen.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    3. Re:pedantic by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      The exercise here was to remind people that the RIAA/MPAA only report inflated absolute worst case (for them) scenarios where something like 1000% of illegal downloads are lost sales.

      There is a reason why studios rarely go after file sharers themselves: actual lost sales are not of the same order of magnitude as the RIAA&all want politicians&all to believe and the bad publicity from going directly after 'Joe-sixpack" sharers would result in many more REAL lost sales. Scaring one's customer base is not a good business practice, this is why studios let an anonymizing/racketeering service (RIAA/MPAA) to do most of this.

  109. Re:Umm. by Inda · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm a Brit and I like to complain about the crappy service I get.

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  110. MPAA Statement by kernel_dan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FTFA: "We don't give cash to police officers,"

    We'll give out cars, credit cards, movie screener tickets, anything but cash!

    --

    Illegal? Samir, This is America.
    1. Re:MPAA Statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anybody believe anything the MPAA claim or deny? They have lied in public repeatedly. They have tried to sue dead people. Sure nobody takes them seriously whatever they claim or deny.

    2. Re:MPAA Statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They know what the cops need, 100packs of dvd-r

  111. Re:Umm. by rob_squared · · Score: 0

    Just remember: 20%, of the total - tax, and not a penny less!

    --
    I don't get it.
  112. I wanna see them dangling from a rope! by Cryofan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is it that I am the only one who seems to understand that we need to go back to harsh punishments for powerful people (e.g., politicians, CEO's, etc) who are obviously crooked. We need to try, convict and sentence all this powerful and corrupt people. Sentence them to death by hanging.
    That is the only way to swing the pendulum back, to correct the culture.

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  113. Re:Umm. by getling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know this is flamebait and I should not respond but I still will...

    No, you shouldn't perpetuate a system you believe is wrong. However, that also does not mean you penalize someone trying to make a living under that unjust system! If you see something wrong, do something that has a snowball's chance of CHANGING the situation. Don't be a cheapskate and then claim that you are "fighting against unjust laws;" your waiter, who often works very hard for your money (which you may not even see half of - it's a waiter's job to make it all seem effortless), won't be very impressed with your supposed moral fiber.

    --
    "Life is tough but we're tougher. You only get what you give, so give all that you've got." --Tony LaRussa
  114. Re:Umm. by fermion · · Score: 1
    You tip a average servant because that is the way the servant makes his or her money. It is codified, for example, in the US minimum wage law.

    For someone like a police officer or teacher or other public servant, the tips are more complicated. I believe in the US the law is you are not supposed to tip. The base and overtime pay is all the compensation. Some may think it is not enough, but the contract and licensing forces you to formally agree.

    OTOH, every coffeehouse, every corner market gives away free coffee and food. This is good because if gives the police a place to hang out, and makes the surrounding 100 feet safer, but what about the little shop down the street that does not have anything cheap to offer?

    The parent post is correct. Tipping your waitstaff, especially if you are planning to return, a la Hemmingway, is good. But Police are supposed to protect equally, and it is human nature to favor those that give you free things.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  115. Re:Umm. by getling · · Score: 1

    I find it amazing what people believe is needed to garner appreciation. If you get extraordinary service, yes you tend to notice and pay well. But sometimes what you see as "adequate" service (in some restaurants) takes just as much or more effort and desire on the part of your server.

    Anyone who complains about tipping - I suggest you spend even a short amount of time waiting tables or some other sort of hospitality or service job. I guarantee you will tip more generously after that experience.

    --
    "Life is tough but we're tougher. You only get what you give, so give all that you've got." --Tony LaRussa
  116. Indict the MPAA under RICO act... by voss · · Score: 1

    Im completely seriously.

    If we can prove a pattern of bribery to police(the payoffs in more than one city or more than one instance).

    We can ask a federal prosecutor to charge the MPAA
    under the RICO act and seize THEIR assets. If you can get a conviction under the RICO act you can seize the assets of their members.

    The self-avowed members of the MPAA include

    Disney
    Sony
    Paramount
    Fox
    Universal

    We can apply forfeiture laws to their membership.

  117. At last... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A story that isn't a dupe? On slashdot? These days?
    Wow. Just... wow.

  118. A nice non denial, denial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think.

  119. are the MPAA Mafia members? by bananasfalklands · · Score: 1

    I thought the mafia used to do that paying policemen trick.

    Good to seee the 'good guys' learning from the corrupt.

    --
    Send Peter Clifford Francis Macrae comdoms to 23 Bedford St, St.Neots, PE19 1AX, England
  120. the shit rolls downhill by toothless_kinch · · Score: 1

    It's perfectly legal, even required, to bribe lawmakers by contributing to their re-election campaigns. But those same lawmakers will pretend indignation when they hear this story about police officers receiving kickbacks. They will probably pass a new law or two to curb this disgusting practice and then posture about campaign finance reform.

    It's broke dammit!

    kinch
    http://returnself.com/blog/

    1. Re:the shit rolls downhill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "It's perfectly legal, even required, to bribe lawmakers by contributing to their re-election campaigns. But those same lawmakers will pretend indignation when they hear this story about police officers receiving kickbacks."

      Lawmakers do not have the ability to use deadly force against citizens, but police officers do. Maybe you have a plan to eliminate corruption from politics, but corruption among police is a much more serious problem.

  121. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And whoever pays the politicians the most gets the laws and tax breaks they want.

    You're just learning about corruption now?

  122. Nasty site there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Escape the Matrix of Corporate Propaganda: Take [blogspot.com]"

    Nasty site there. Their current news item is fawning all over the fascist dictator of Venezuela, and even lauds him for seeking to get more weaponry. All the better to shoot those who disagree with you.

    1. Re:Nasty site there by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Nasty site there. Their current news item is fawning all over the fascist dictator of Venezuela, and even lauds him for seeking to get more weaponry. All the better to shoot those who disagree with you.

      Yeah, but you see Chavez called Bush43 a "pendejo" and is openly hostile to the US. Therefore, leftists love him and any criticism of him for his banana republic sensibilities is clearly just right wing bias. Never mind that he's as much a thug as the bastard he replaced.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  123. No Shit Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The OP was funny because it took advance of a typo. Apparently you forgot to 'emerge -uD funnybone' this morning.

  124. DVDs are $7.5 to $30 here by PromANJ · · Score: 1

    I live in Sweden. There's a stand at the mall with DVD movies for 7.5usd each, and they did have some interesting oldies, like Hellraiser.
    Next step is 13usd, I found Virus and Aliens for this price.
    Most movies are around 22usd.
    New movies like Robots, AvP, Van Helsing are usually 29usd, so I rent for 7.5usd or just skip seeing them.

    New games can be around 80usd here, so I play Star Control 2 (UQM) and other great free games instead.

    (I got the high prices from converting the SEK to USD. The USD used to be 11SEK but is now 7)

  125. It's true! The bastards nailed me! by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Granted, the title I was hawking didn't help...

    --
    --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
  126. USA: enemy of the free world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ' USA: the enemy of the free world '

    Thank you Mr. Orwell. Which one of Kim Il Sung's speeches did you lift this from?

  127. Cops can't find fake DVDs in NYC? by mveloso · · Score: 1

    Geez, NYC cops are incredibly lazy.

    Here are two prime locations where you can get bootleg DVDs:

    * near Century 21 downtown (behind Trinity Church)
    * near South Streeet Seaport. Specifically, Fulton street

    That wasn't so hard, was it?

    Instead of giving them "gratuities" they should have classified it as "walking around money." That way Democrats wouldn't be able to criticize them, because they'd be criticizing their own party's methods.

  128. They were not anti-war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ' Meanwhile, Anti-War demonstrators are still being threatened with ....'

    They are anything but anti-war. Pro-Saddam, maybe, or pro-terrorist. The situation in Iraq BEFORE the US invasion was anything but peace: with Saddam executing tens of thousands of civilians each year, and funding terrorists who were engaged in a war of aggression against Israel.

    1. Re:They were not anti-war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care what they were protesting.

      The whole point of this branch is that the op said, quite snootily, "We don't do that kind of thing. We don't tolerate it."

      A counterexample was provided. End of story.

    2. Re:They were not anti-war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      'I don't care what they were protesting.'

      I don't either as long as they do it well away from someone else's event, don't trepass, and don't block streets. Respect the rights of those who don't agree with you, or are unfortunate enough to be caught up in an illegal giant puppet parade for an hour just because they tried to cross the street to buy a cup of coffee at the wrong time.

    3. Re:They were not anti-war by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      That's not a reason to arrest them, even if you seriously believe that. (FWIW, most people I know who are anti-war have been opposed to Saddam Hussein since the mid-eighties, when he was everyone's "friend". Just because you oppose a particular mode of behaviour doesn't mean you support something unrelated. I'm anti-Death Penalty, that doesn't make me pro-murderer. But that's another issue.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  129. who would've thought by prurientknave · · Score: 1

    who would've thought that crooked cops and crooked justice would exist in a capitalist society. I thought our motto was "everything has its price"

    1. Re:who would've thought by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It sort of makes you wonder who the REAL criminals are...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  130. What country are you in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ' The fascists, meanwhile, control the media, and thus you can't vote them out. '

    You are probably not in the US, where the media are the least controlled and the most diverse of any in the world.

    1. Re:What country are you in? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Are you on drugs or something?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    2. Re:What country are you in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are probably not in the US, where the media are the least controlled and the most diverse of any in the world.

      Is that sarcasm or genuine ignorance?

      The USA is ranked joint 22nd in freedom of the press.

    3. Re:What country are you in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      'Is that sarcasm or genuine ignorance?'

      Maybe on your part. On my part, it is being informed. Most of the countries on your list have major government-controlled media.

    4. Re:What country are you in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the countries on your list have major government-controlled media.

      Firstly, it's not my list. It was compiled by Reporters Without Borders, and the source is a survey of reporters themselves.

      More importantly, though, is that you are making a true statement in an attempt to mislead.

      Yes, it may well be true that most of the countries on the list have government-controlled media.

      Most of the countries on the list rank below the USA. This is irrelevent, the claim was that the USA is the best in the world when it comes to press freedom.

      To the casual observer, since you disagree with me, it reads like you are claiming that the countries on the list that rank higher than the USA have government-controlled media, therefore the list is invalid, and therefore it can't be used to show that the USA is not the best country in the world when it comes to freedom of the press.

      This impression is misleading. Your claim can quite easily be true without making any judgement one way or the other as to the press freedom in the countries that rank above the USA on the list. Thus, the impression that you are trying to create, that the list is invalid, is baseless.

      If you intend to claim that the list is invalid, please state so directly, and provide information that is more trustworthy than Reporters Without Borders.

      Remember, the claim is that the USA is the best in the world when it comes to press freedom. The burden of proof rests with the person making that claim.

  131. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though when I'm in the US I do try to remember that the waiters really are serfs and if I don't tip they'll starve. What a lovely system you guys have...

    Thanks, we learned it from you. You should see Canada, it's almost impossible to get change.

    Don't think of waitstaff as surfs... they are your equal. But do think if you don't tip them they will starve. Many states allow below minimum wage for waitstaff making them totally dependent on the charity of others. Sometimes they don't get paid at all. Almost all are taxed on tips whether they get them or not.

    It's a horrid system, if it makes you feel any better after a 15% tip and 7% tax it's exactly what you would expect from home, but instead most is going in the pocket of the person who served you. In fact, a friend of mine often jokes about the fact that in our pubs, everything seems so much cheaper but after the tip it's exactly what he expects to spend at home.

  132. Attention, FBI Agents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I will pay a bounty of $10,000 per MPAA employee conviction following your investigation into these crimes.

    Reply to this post for more information.

    Thank you,
    A Concerned and Independently Wealthy Citizen

  133. Costs are amoratized by jonhuang · · Score: 1

    The dvd producers don't get the TV show footage for free. Either it's considered as part of the initial revenue stream (the DVD is produced by the same company) or there are licensing rights to be bought.

    DVD rights for TV shows are no different from DVD rights for movies.

  134. That is but a lesser crime by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "Show an MPAA member in a prison cell "I got three years because I bribed a cop."

    Nah. Show me one in a prison cell saying "I'm serving a hard 60 to life because I greenlighted Gigli."

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  135. Re: you missed the "why" by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    There is another way : increase the perceived value and therefore retail price of the products you are trying to sell.

    The demand for movies, like music, seems to be quite inelastic. Hence the price differential across the economic regions.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  136. OT, Thanks by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

    Thank you for quoting the posts you're replying to. I makes for much better reading :-)

    --
    Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    1. Re:OT, Thanks by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

      Doesn't everyone do this? Or were you sarcastic?

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    2. Re:OT, Thanks by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1


      Not being sarcastic at all.

      Sometimes people don't quote the what they are replying (that's no big deal in itself). It's only annoying when the replies are getting modded up while the original gets modded down (usually for being retarded). Then you see great replies but no context. :-p That's why I said thanks.

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
  137. Man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You are one stingy cocksucker.

  138. NYPD BLUE by xshariq · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for the reenactment of this on NYPD BLUE

  139. Not legal? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been led to believe it is not only legal, but common, to pay off police, lawyers, courts and the politicians that provably are above the law. I have seen many examples of this.

    Now I'm told it's not legal anymore?

    What's next? Microsoft releasing NT under the GNU GPL? Cats and dogs paw in paw?

  140. Re:I agree w/u by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    My point was this: An immoral act doesn't justify another immoral act. That simple.

    I'm against the MPAA for the reasons you enumerated in your analogy, but I'm not allowed to set them on fire.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  141. How I tip. by renehollan · · Score: 1
    I generally tip 15% in a restaurant if the service is adequate, up to 25% if it is exceptional. People who work in places I frequent know this and I seam to get slightly better service. I am loath to tip less than 15%, even if the service is slow, or the food bad, though I might not return -- it may be the case that the owner is stingy and has short-staffed the place on a busy day, and the waiter is not responsible for the quality of the food. However, I have been known to leave a penny tip for particularly bad service (getting the order wrong several times in a row at one sitting, rudeness, etc.)

    I usually tip 100% for a coffee at a coffee house, and 25% for alcoholic beverages in a bar (though I can't stand it when I order two single malts for myself and a friend at $8 each, pay the bartender with a twenty, and it's assumed that I'll leave the $4 change as a tip).

    I once paid an animal groomer 100% on a $50 fee to give our Persian cat a "lion cut" shave: it used to be the case that we had to anesthetize him for this at the vet's, and the bill routinely ran to $250. When we found a groomer that our cat liked, I happily offered to pay double if she could do the job from start to finish, with the cat awake, without giving up. (Long-hair Persions need to be periodically shaved, lest their hair get matted, even with regular brushing. They are not a practical breed, but make very good pets (and are particularly patient with kids) otherwise).

    I do not tip when it is not customary to do so or would be considered an insult.

    My mantra is to treat people that serve me with greater respect than I might accord those who do not need to perform such "lowly" or "degrading" work: if it is something I would not wish to do myself, then I should be particularly grateful that someone is willing to do it for me (and this is independent of how I tip -- I'm refering to simple curtesys like saying "please" and "thank you" -- too many just yell "waiter!" when they want service). However, I have little patience for incompetence -- if I treat someone in the service industry like a professional, they should act like one. There is no dishounour in earning an honest living, no matter how humble it might be. Teaching this to my kids, however, is a challenge.

    --
    You could've hired me.
  142. Re:fp by ArchAngel21x · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see people quit rushing to make a useless first post.

  143. Re:fp by Leiterfluid · · Score: 1

    This post is the troll and the parent is "offtopic?" Something's rotten in the state of /.

  144. That wasn't very insightful by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "Lawmakers do not have the ability to use deadly force against citizens, but police officers do"

    Who do you think authorizes the police? Who do you think funds them? No idea? The lawmakers. They have plenty of power here.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  145. Where, When, How and Why. by MMaestro · · Score: 1
    Different perspectives, different opinions, different facts distort heavily especially in mass protests. For a protestor on one side of the crowd, he may see a few minor crimes being committed: jaywalking, littering, obstruction of traffic... but nothing major. But this is one pair of eyes with hundreds, sometimes thousands of other people in the crowd. Do you know what the other side of the crowd is doing? For all a casual observer on the ground knows, on the other side there could be fires being started, windows being broken and fights are breaking out.

    Unless an observer managed to view the protest from an aerial point of view (nothing to block your line of sight), any opinion of the protest made on the ground can easily be made to EXTREMELY bias. You didn't see anything at your protests? Fine, but can you vouch for the thousands of other people you saw taking part as well?

    1. Re:Where, When, How and Why. by mister_slim · · Score: 1

      Why is it that the police, who should be coordinated and informed, tend to react to protests in violent and aggressive ways that later analysis finds unjustified?

  146. Not just payoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they also get to take home whatever DVDs they want, and they let other city workers (sanitation, housing, transit) do the same. So instead of the street sellers making whatever profit by selling them, they still get distributed to the public by confiscation & redistribution instead.

  147. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Working at a tip-paying job is one of the better-paying jobs you can get that doesn't demand a higher education. In a system where people are free to quit their job if they don't like it, perhaps to another job which doesn't have tips, I don't know how you can compare these workers to serfs. It seems it's more of a cultural difference than anything.

    One wonders why a person with an anti-American .sig and repeated nonsensical anti-American posts is browsing American technological web sites. I can't imagine a reason other than to troll.

  148. Re:Umm. by Leiterfluid · · Score: 1

    Let me explain how this works.

    The federal government has two different minumum wages. One is the "standard" that most of us are aware of, which is $5.15/hr.

    The other is a wage given to employees whose income is generated primarily from tips. This is $2.13/hr.

    The reason there are two distinct wages is because employeers who hire service works are given a "tipping credit," meaning that they can pay a smaller hourly wage as long as the combination of the earned tips and the wages meet the standard. For restaurateurs, this is important, because it minimizes the costs of running a restaurant, which is not cheap.

    However, a few states, like Washington, have a much higher minimum wage, and no tipping credit. In this state, it's not unusual for service workers at places like Applebees to make over $20/hr

    For this reason, I despise tipping in states that have no tipping credit. A tip is gratuity, not a requirement, and the cost of my service is included in the price of my meal.

  149. How Long Must I Sing This Song... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *cough* Bloody Sunday *cough*

    Excuse me, I had a bit of hypocrisy caught in my throat. Have you forgotten all about "the Troubles" and what it did to rights in the UK? I'm no fan of what's going on in the US right now, but maybe you should get off your high horse.

    1. Re:How Long Must I Sing This Song... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Ah! So because the authorities in NORTHERN IRELAND did something THIRTY YEARS AGO that the ENTIRE WORLD condemned, it's perfectly ok for US AUTHORITIES to clamp down on protests in NEW YORK.

      And what hypocracy is it you're talking about? Are you saying _I_ shot people in Bloody Sunday?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:How Long Must I Sing This Song... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't going to respond to you because I thought your post was so ridiculous, but somehow it's been modded insightful so here I am. Did you even bother to read my post?

      Read it again and then tell me which part of it gives you the idea that I'm okay with what happened in NYC. I'm a member of the ACLU for crying out loud! The police's actions were clearly illegal. They arrested people without cause and then trumped up the charges. It is only after being confronted with video evidence that contradicted their testimony that the cases were dismissed.

      Your hypocrisy comes from your selective memory. You try to set yourself up as having the moral high ground here and you falsely imply that the UK is immune to any criticism over its treatment of protestors or detainees. The state in the UK has powers the Bush administration would cream themselves over and your government has a clear record of civil rights abuses. You were the pot calling the kettle black, and that's what I took offense to. I'm sure you're just as against those abuses by your government as I am against those by mine, but as I said before, get off your high horse because the moral high ground belongs to neither of our countries.

    3. Re:How Long Must I Sing This Song... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think part of the reason the GP took the tack he did is because people respond well to good examples.

      If police mistreat people everywhere, the situation seems hopeless, and citizens are more apt to do nothing except avoid protests. If Americans think it's better in Britain -- regardless of how true that is -- they might think to themselves "another world is possible" and be motivated to change.

      A lot of American commentary on Canada is in that vein. It really is ass here too. But, the idea that some things that are fucked up in the US aren't completely fucked up north of 49 seems to rile up and sometimes motivate Americans.

      Then again maybe I'm just not wearing my cynical cap today.

    4. Re:How Long Must I Sing This Song... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Yes, I read your post. Your post suggested that I was being hypocritical for criticising the US and saying that I'd had no reason to fear peacefully protesting in the UK because of an incident that occurred fifteen years before I went on any marches, an incident that has been condemned the world over, an incident that is far from representative of the usual behaviour of the UK government, and an incident that nobody beyond a handful of extremists governmental apologists considers defensable. (They argue that there were actual terrorists in the group, a line nobody else takes.)

      I don't see the connection. That incident was condemned, and not representative of normal government behaviour. The only US incident I can think of that's comparable would be the campus shootings of Vietnam war protesters in the late sixties, again something that a handful of right-wing extremists routinely offer apologia for, but that nobody, again, would claim is typical of US protest control.

      Your claim of hypocracy falls on deaf ears here. I had no involvement in Bloody Sunday, it occurred when I was a child, I condemn it completely, and it is completely non-representative of ordinary protests. For ordinary mass protests, with a few honourable exceptions (million man march, et al), the treatment in normal Western Democracies is far more reasonable, humane, and with greater respect for basic human rights, than similar protests in the US. There's none of this bullshit about "Free Speech Zones". Rarely are protesters deliberately put into situations where they cannot avoid being arrested no matter what they lawfully do. The only protest I can think of in Britain in "recent memory" (I'm actually going back to the 1980s for this one) that degenerated into serious violence was the Poll Tax riot, and that's generally been blamed on incompetence by the police and the usual handful of troublemakers than on any deliberate attempt to encourage violence.

      This isn't about having a moral high ground. This is about the fact that, at the moment, US governments are currently doing the wrong thing and opposing basic freedoms and distorting politics through it in a way other similar countries simply are not. You can carry on whining at me about something entirely irrelevent (in which case I'll just talk about Kent State in any case), or you can actually stop shooting the messenger.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:How Long Must I Sing This Song... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "This is about the fact that, at the moment, US governments are currently doing the wrong thing and opposing basic freedoms and "

      In general, this was not "the wrong thing". The protesters were specifically trying to shut down the convention(s) and deny the rights of speech and assembly to those who were attending. I oppose the idea of these "free speech zone" containment camps, but support the idea of keeping a large buffer zone around someone's event especially when "opponents" announce plans to violently crash it.

      "Rarely are protesters deliberately put into situations where they cannot avoid being arrested no matter what they lawfully do."

      They weren't. If they had chosen to hold their events well away from others events (instead of right on top of them in order to harass those at the other events) there would have been no problems, no arrests. The protesters put themselves into the situation. They have no idea of the concept of respecting others' rights to have differing opinions and to express them.

      "For ordinary mass protests, with a few honourable exceptions (million man march, et al), the treatment in normal Western Democracies is far more reasonable"

      The Million Man March was not out to "shut down" and "silence" and harass anyone. They were actually respectful of others' rights. That is the big difference. If your intent is to harass, assault, and block people (the protesters' intent), it is no surprise if they get in trouble for it.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  150. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screw tipping I'm eating my meal and leaving, and they'll never know who I am because I'm never coming back again!!!!! Mwahahaa.

  151. Mod up parent. It's not theft. by DugzDC · · Score: 1

    I don't agree with it, I don't do it, but it is not theft.
    Theft - "appropriation of property belonging to another, with the intention to permanently deprive". Thanks to the lassie for that (handy having a live-in lawyer).
    In techincal terms, you're duplicating. In legal terms, you're not depriving - you've not 'stolen' and money from them - they never had it to begin with.
    It is copyright infringment, but that's all. Over in the US I believe you get more time for this than you do for manslaughter. You craaazy americans. Gotta love you all.

  152. Re: you missed the "why" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You forgot "and forcing me to watch them." Oh wait...

    STFU

  153. Police just don't care about piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As someone who works closely with several police departments on occassion, I can assure all of you that the vast majority of police departments just don't care about piracy.

    I know of several cases where machines were searched using forensic investigation tools for email records, child pornography, or other clues in "real life" crime, but that the vast number of illegal MP3s were quickly sifted and disregarded.

    Its simple: Most departments barely have enough money to prevent/address the real problems, and padding the pockets for the MPAA really doesn't fit into it.

  154. Accounting Practices by pblaker99 · · Score: 1

    Hmmm...Let's see..according to our generally accepted accounting practices, the loss of 3.5 billion dollars is really the result of losing $25.38 from the potential sales of Gigli DVDs.

  155. :D by ocularDeathRay · · Score: 1

    I wish you all could see the smile this story brought to my weathered old face, and the way my sunken eyes sprang back to life. now excuse me, I have better "uses" for this bandwidth.

    --
    Obama is a twitter sock puppet
  156. How are they any different from the mob? by shaitand · · Score: 1

    The MPAA (and I would venture most corps) operates entirely for profit and sees the law only in terms of an obstacle or vehicle toward that end.

    If a law stands in the way of profit you lobby or outright bribe congressmen to change it. In some cases you might even be able live with the consequences and ignore the law. Sometimes it's easier to just bribe the cops, and you can't tell me that in a corporation like the MPAA funds large enough to bribe cops get released without a corporate policy.

    The mob operates for a profit, it will do what it feels will gain a profit despite the law. The mob bribes senators and cops where it makes sense. The mob will operate legally if there is a profit to be made as well. What is the difference?

  157. Re:Umm. by fyoder · · Score: 1
    So where do you draw the line between tipping an officer for doing you a "favor" and bribing him to do you a "favor"?

    I think the MPAA would prefer you to word it as "tipping an officer as a gesture of gratitude".

    They would also probably prefer we not consider behavioural theories featuring concepts like 'positive reinforcement'.

    Police Dispatcher: "MPAA reports pirated DVDs being sold at Oak and Main."

    Two dozen cars call in saying they're on it.

    --
    Loose lips lose spit.
  158. Re: you missed the "why" by nacturation · · Score: 1

    There is another way : increase the perceived value and therefore retail price of the products you are trying to sell.

    And the result of that is increased sales. Thanks for playing. :)

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  159. Re:Umm. by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1
    I guess nobody saw the sarcasm in my post... Oh well.

    What's really kind of funny, in a way, is that a -1 post can inspire a whole lot of +5 posts. In all honesty, wouldn't the point of a moderation system be to reward posts that are a) interesting/funny/etc, and b) inspire responses that are?

    I'm really tempted to try incorporating the score of child posts into the parent's overall standing. That way, some of the more interesting comments wouldn't be blackholed down near -1.

    Wonder if a system like that would work.

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
  160. Re:Umm. by mister_slim · · Score: 1

    Obviously police compensation should be dependent on them doing what we want. We certainly have an excess of lawyers doing pro bono patent defense.

  161. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consider someone waiting tables at an expensive restaurant. We are talking about several hundred dollars in a shift, which is pretty far from 'working poor'.

    It is not unheard of for restaurants to auction off shifts to servers, essentially creating a *negative* base pay situation, but tips are certain to be large enough to make it still worthwhile for the server.

    People who are poor are not in practice taxed much. Add up the child credit, earned income credit, and the basic deduction, and tax drops fast.

  162. Re:Umm. by iKaz · · Score: 1

    You're kidding us right? You don't see the difference between being a waiter for a private company & being an employee of the local or federal governments? Taxpayers have already paid (too much, for not enough) for all of their services. WTF should we have to pay them MORE, as individual citizens per-event in order for them to do their job?

  163. Potential??? by Eradicator2k3 · · Score: 1

    "The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that it loses $3.5 billion in potential worldwide revenue because of movie piracy. Emphasis added.

    WTF does that mean? I know that in wrongful death lawsuits, it is common to claim the deceased's earning potential when figuring out damages, but how do the **AA's justify the same thing. Maybe I will just disregard the fact that I was lazy in school and proceed to sue all of my previous teachers claiming that the stuff they taught was "just too hard," and as a result of my not being able to comprehend that stuff, I have lost potentially billions and billions of dollars in earning potential. (There's that word again)

    Put into that context, it sounds a little silly doesn't it? Now read the first line of my post again and see if it doesn't seem silly as well.

    --
    Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
  164. Re:Mod up parent. It's not theft. by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

    Copyright violation is more like trespassing than theft, anyway.

  165. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have clearly never worked in the service sector. When I worked in the state of Virginia as a waiter I earned roughly half of minimum wage. The rest was expected to be made up with tips.

    Maybe if you brought me my breadsticks when they were still warm, and didn't go on break just when I wanted the check, you would have gotten that tip. It's not my fault that you chose to work for scraps and the charity of others. Get a real job.

  166. Re: you missed the "why" by vsprintf · · Score: 1

    The MPAA considers piracy to be a "cost" that they wish to control, to assist their bottom line.

    The MPAA, like the RIAA, knows that "piracy" costs are fictional numbers based on wishes, hopeful short-term trends, bad logic, ignoring the economy, and whatever else they can dump before paid-for congresscritters to justify new legislation to further their stranglehold on the market. The *AA have now bypassed normal market forces and are using the U.S. legislature to guarantee their profit and success. It is a total bastardization of the process. People rightly feared the military-industrial complex, but it appears the legislative-entertainment complex is far more dangerous to our individual rights and freedom. Mickey Mouse is no longer the cute character I saw as a child - now he has a hand in my pocket and a bodyguard of lawyers to make sure I don't complain.

  167. Re:Umm. by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1
    Consider someone waiting tables at an expensive restaurant. We are talking about several hundred dollars in a shift, which is pretty far from 'working poor'.

    And they comprise what section of the industry? Sure as heck, since income tax is based on income, those servers that are making that kind of a "killing", still have to pay taxes. And even then, the only thing positive you can say is that 1% may make more than a taxi driver.

    People who are poor are not in practice taxed much. Add up the child credit, earned income credit, and the basic deduction, and tax drops fast.

    More rationalization. What if I don't have a dependent? Even worse, what if I did? The basic deduction is meaningless. Its just a scam built into the system to distract the payer into thinking they are paying less taxes, like whether to cover your bet on a craps table. The trick is not to be gambling in the first place.

    There is no rational argument to be jacking down a server's income to below minimum wage. What makes food servers less worthy of salary than someone manning a register? Its counting on a tradition of tipping to subsidize a restaurant owner's operational costs. If one can't make enough money to ensure a roof over their head, food on the table, and living expenses (clothing, phone, and electricity), why should they even be taxed?

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  168. Dawn Crescent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Dawn Crescent" looks interesting. However, there are flaws in the "blurb" on the page. The Gulf War was not designed by George Bush (the First) to ensure his re-election. It was not designed by him at all, in fact. It was started by Saddam Hussein. Bush the elder actually gave Saddam plenty of time and ample warning to pull back out of Kuwait and back to the Iraqi border.

  169. Gargamel by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "Those damned surfs."

    I think the accurate Gargamel quote should be "Those damned smurfs".

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  170. You are way off topic, you know... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "While I'm certainly not defending the MPAA's actions or saying that things are hunky dory, their shitty actions are not a reasonable justification to steal."

    Who ever mentioned stealing? The subject concerned illegal copies. I defy you go find a story about the MPAA cracking down on DVD theft. You might find some, but they are kind of rare.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  171. They don't want to buy their DVD's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "They just don't want you ripping their shit off."

    How about; they don't even want you to buy DVD's? This is what the "region code system" does. I have to actually crack my purchased Region 2 disc to watch a copy on my Region 1 player.

  172. Tsk tsk by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "Never mind that he's as much a thug as the bastard he replaced."

    The difference is, that while he robs and brutalizes and takes away rights and consolidates dictatorial powers, he says "he is doing it to help the poor". That is enough for some who only look at words not deeds.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  173. Re:Umm. by Nrlll9 · · Score: 1

    mod the parent up, its true. No one tips other than the USA. Also, USA things are so expensive and sucky, US dollar is still overvalued. sell your $$$ folks

  174. Re:Umm. by Nrlll9 · · Score: 1

    then why are they waiters? usually they know how to groom themslves well to become hookers or gigolos. Let the homeless people work below minimum wage.

  175. In Taiwan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ' for about $5 you can get equivalent of a $100 meal in USA and the service is better too.'

    So that is why the Beijing bandits want to invade Taiwan and destroy it!

  176. Re:Umm. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
    You have clearly never worked in the service sector. When I worked in the state of Virginia as a waiter I earned roughly half of minimum wage. The rest was expected to be made up with tips. The federal guvment assumes you will get 8-9% of each check in tips and the IRS taxes you for it. So if you don't tip your server still has to pay the IRS taxes on that tip they didn't receive. Please tip. If you can't afford to tip then go eat at McDonalds.

    I think the original poster's comment was a more general question, as in "Why have we allowed the codifying into law of this system wherein a gratuity payment is expected to be a source of regular income?" We know that tips have been turned into a way for employers to shift employment expenses directly onto the customer, but what government dirtbags have legitimized this disgusting practice?

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  177. Anyone one really surprised? by hotspotbloc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There are basically no "checks and balances" for Police departments in the US, unlike almost every other government function. They steal, lie, sell illegal drugs and kill for personal gain and pleasure while making +$70K per year in salary and "duty play" to sleep in their cruisers. Orwell said it best:
    For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:
    ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
    BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
    [...]
    Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    Police are the pigs of our society. They rule unjustly, refuse to allow anyone outside of the law enforcement community to review their actions and most people are too afraid to speak up against their injustices for fear of reprisals.

    Esteban Carpio and Abner Louima got to see police revenge in action. No trial, just beaten within an inch of their lives. With Abner Louima the NYC Police department repeatedly raped his by jambing a toilet plunger in his anus while yelling "Take this, nigger". And these are the ones that lived.

    I'm sorry, but the police are a cancer on society. And before anyone says I don't understand I was once a LEO assigned to the US Marshall's Office for three years (among other duties). Most cops are nothing more than stupid animals that couldn't think for themselves if they're life depended on it. While there are many exceptions including some excellent police officers, it is clearly not the norm.

    Remember this: next time you get pulled over remember who has their hand on a service issued firearm and who is unarmed. Does it make you feel a little scared? If there's a disagreement are they going to believe you or the cop?

    Check out the moive "The Thin Blue Line" (1988). It's about how the police framed Randall Dale Adams for the murder of a police officer. He's was weeks from execution before the truth can out and freed.

    Many cops carry "throwaway pieces", handguns and knifes that can't be traced back to them so if they kill someone they have an excuse. Back in the '80s I spent some time riding with the Washington DC PD and reported to an officer shooting a suspect. The officer claimed the suspect (now quite dead) had a knife. An Inspector came out, didn't see a knife and said he'd back in five minutes. When he returned there were now four knifes under the body. It seems a few "people" grabbed their throwaway knifes and kicked it under the body without checking to see if someone else had already done it. The Inspecter saw the knifes and closed the case as a justifed shooting. Maybe it would've been different if the kid (16 years old) wasn't black and didn't live in public housing.

    Welcome to Amerika.

    Abner Louima: NYC officer arrested in alleged sexual attack on suspect
    Esteban Carpio: No bail for suspect in detective's shooting

    --
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
  178. Re:I agree w/u by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
    An immoral act doesn't justify another immoral act.

    Sure, if copyright infringement were actually immoral. It is _illegal_, but that is not the same thing as immoral.

    But what the MPAA is alleged to have done (bribing law enforcement agents) is definitely immoral, and damaging to society (as is any type of corruption in law enforcement). And if they're willing to act in such an immoral fashion, then why should anyone listen to them seriously when _they_ complain that other peoples' behavior is immoral?

  179. The ACLU? Really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ' I'm a member of the ACLU for crying out loud!"'

    Really? Do you still support the ACLU even when it fights against civil liberties? Examples are the numerous cases where it fights to censor religious expression by individuals. They also have an entire division devoted to promotion of "affirmative action" policies designed to punish individuals for having the wrong skin color. I'd join the ACLU in a heartbeat if not for the fact that it fights for censorship and wants the government to discriminate on the basis of skin color.

  180. It's a tax. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "Seriously though, it goes to a private organization, not the government. It's more like a royalty really"

    It's a tax, and a form of corporate welfare. Consider that the government forces you to pay it! The only difference between this, and a tax that goes to subsidize corporations is that the forced/stolen/etc money goes directly to the corporate fatcats, and does not pass through the government along the way.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  181. What a stupid response by the NYPD by michaelmalak · · Score: 1
    Investigate the officers? My free-market libertarian mind says this is an opportunity for the New York Police Department to formalize a way for victims of less serious crimes to pay the department (as opposed to individual officers) for prioritization.

    I've been the victim of financial crimes twice in the past two years. Both times, law enforcement wouldn't give me the time of day. Both times, I had a desire to know who was behind the crime and how it was done so that I could avoid being a victim in the future. I would have paid for that information. One time, I did -- I hired a private investigator. But the private investigator couldn't get to all the information a law enforcement officer could. And, of course, there was no justice served.

    (Side note on copyrights: I support the notion of copyrights for a "limited time" (as proscribed by the U.S. Constitution) -- such as the 14+14 years of the Copyright Act of 1790. Presumably, pirated DVDs would have fallen under the Copyright Act of 1790, and so I support the prosecution of the DVD pirates. I even support the MPAA paying for the law enforcement. I don't support the individual officers pocketing the MPAA money -- it should have gone into the treasury to reduce taxes.)

    1. Re:What a stupid response by the NYPD by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      There's something very dangerous about what you're talking about. If we were to allow victims of crimes to set a police department's priority based on how much they could afford to pay them, then we would eventually turn into a society where only the wealthy would be protected by the police.

      I could steal a poor person's life savings, knowing full well that the police wouldn't give her the time of day because with all of her limited money gone she couldn't pay them anything.

      It would be nice if law enforcement would spend more time investigating all crimes, and personally I think currently their priorities are a little skewed (let's spend thousands of man hours busting teenagers smoking pot in the park, but do nothing to prevent car stereo theft). However, a per-per-investigation plan simply moves the focus of the police force from addressing political pressures to addressing the needs of the privileged.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
  182. Costs more than that.. by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    That's why we won't see "WKRP in Cincinnatti" on DVD anytime soon.. too much red tape and prohibitive costs in licensing the music.

    The show aired *years* ago, but royalties and licensing fees still have to be paid just to put the show on DVD.

    There was an article about this on Salon (I think) recently. So, that's one good reason why DVDs are still kinda costly.. they're paying the goddamn RIAA their extortion fees. Ugh.

    1. Re:Costs more than that.. by Arctic+Dragon · · Score: 1

      I remember reading about that recently. I found the article:
      http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,66696,00 .html

    2. Re:Costs more than that.. by unitron · · Score: 1

      There's another article floating around the 'net somewhere from a few years ago about how WKRP episodes shown in syndication had a lot of songs replaced with generic crap for finanacial reasons as well.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  183. It's a death tax by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "The reason this difference should be pointed out is the same reason people should call the estate tax the estate tax, and not a death tax"

    Why not call it what it is: the death tax? "but by calling it the death tax republicans managed to convince people who will never have to pay it to fight against it"

    I sure as hell will never have to pay it, but I think it is ridiculous: unnecessary government greed punishing you for having the temerity to die.

    "Maybe some people do have a philisophical opposition to a tax that only effects the richest people in America"

    That is misleading. The vast majority of those affected by it are small farmers and small business owners. The small farmers especially are not rich, but their farmland is counted as a vast $$$ estate: and the death tax punishes them. So yes, people do have a philosophical opposition to a tax that punishes family farmers.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  184. Oh yes. CBS News by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "officers who are paid to break the law [cbsnews.com]."

    Oh. This is CBS News. The network that bases major scoop Presidential campaign stories on Microsoft Word documents from the early 1970s. This CBS story on cops the mafia you linked to.... I wonder if part of their evidence includes DVD-R's which were burned in 1981 and contain incriminating video files.

    How long before Dan Rather resurfaces with the final word on the JFK assassination: the damning list of CIA e-mail contacts found in Jack Ruby's Blackberry.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  185. Re:Umm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a Brit and we generally don't tip.

    As an American, I found that I didn't really have to change my tipping habits when I visited England. In America, I always tip unless the service is exremely poor. Luckily, applying that standard in England naturally resulted in me conforming to the local custom of not tipping.

  186. Why google when you can "Post Anonymously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Videos Challenge Accounts of Convention Unrest
    By Jim Dwyer
    The New York Times

    Tuesday 12 April 2005

    Dennis Kyne put up such a fight at a political protest last summer, the arresting officer recalled, it took four police officers to haul him down the steps of the New York Public Library and across Fifth Avenue.

    "We picked him up and we carried him while he squirmed and screamed," the officer, Matthew Wohl, testified in December. "I had one of his legs because he was kicking and refusing to walk on his own."

    Accused of inciting a riot and resisting arrest, Mr. Kyne was the first of the 1,806 people arrested in New York last summer during the Republican National Convention to take his case to a jury. But one day after Officer Wohl testified, and before the defense called a single witness, the prosecutor abruptly dropped all charges.

    During a recess, the defense had brought new information to the prosecutor. A videotape shot by a documentary filmmaker showed Mr. Kyne agitated but plainly walking under his own power down the library steps, contradicting the vivid account of Officer Wohl, who was nowhere to be seen in the pictures. Nor was the officer seen taking part in the arrests of four other people at the library against whom he signed complaints.

    A sprawling body of visual evidence, made possible by inexpensive, lightweight cameras in the hands of private citizens, volunteer observers and the police themselves, has shifted the debate over precisely what happened on the streets during the week of the convention.

    For Mr. Kyne and 400 others arrested that week, video recordings provided evidence that they had not committed a crime or that the charges against them could not be proved, according to defense lawyers and prosecutors.

    Among them was Alexander Dunlop, who said he was arrested while going to pick up sushi.

    Last week, he discovered that there were two versions of the same police tape: the one that was to be used as evidence in his trial had been edited at two spots, removing images that showed Mr. Dunlop behaving peacefully. When a volunteer film archivist found a more complete version of the tape and gave it to Mr. Dunlop's lawyer, prosecutors immediately dropped the charges and said that a technician had cut the material by mistake.

    Seven months after the convention at Madison Square Garden, criminal charges have fallen against all but a handful of people arrested that week. Of the 1,670 cases that have run their full course, 91 percent ended with the charges dismissed or with a verdict of not guilty after trial. Many were dropped without any finding of wrongdoing, but also without any serious inquiry into the circumstances of the arrests, with the Manhattan district attorney's office agreeing that the cases should be "adjourned in contemplation of dismissal."

    So far, 162 defendants have either pleaded guilty or were convicted after trial, and videotapes that bolstered the prosecution's case played a role in at least some of those cases, although prosecutors could not provide details.

    Besides offering little support or actually undercutting the prosecution of most of the people arrested, the videotapes also highlight another substantial piece of the historical record: the Police Department's tactics in controlling the demonstrations, parades and rallies of hundreds of thousands of people were largely free of explicit violence.

    Throughout the convention week and afterward, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said that the police issued clear warnings about blocking streets or sidewalks, and that officers moved to arrest only those who defied them. In the view of many activists - and of many people who maintain that they were passers-by and were swept into dragnets indiscriminately thrown over large groups - the police strategy appeared to be designed to sweep them off the streets on technical grounds as a show of force.

    "The

  187. an incorrect opinion is still incorrect by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    "course you're entitled to your opinion on whether it's theft or infringement - but so is everyone else." If you have an opinion that duplication of DVD's is theft, you are not entitled to it, because this opinion is incorrect.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:an incorrect opinion is still incorrect by Lillesvin · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm not saying that it's one or the other - I'm saying stop the stupid bickering! You can bitch all you want about the semantics but you can't do a damn thing about it! What about stealing an idea or idioms such as to steal the show? That's pretty much the same problem, isn't it? I bet that none of you who's claiming that it's wrong to use the word theft have used that exact word in a situation where it doesn't mean that someone is actually missing an object. (See my former post about identity theft and stolen data - once you answer to those I'll be happy to discuss this with you.)

      Please, don't reply until you've actually got an answer for me - instead of the usual "I am right and you're wrong".

      Oh yeah, btw... An opinion can't be incorrect... It may not suit you - but that doesn't make it any less valid. I feel terribly sorry for you and the people around you if you can't accept that.

      --
      "Live free or don't."
  188. Re:Umm. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "I'm a Brit and we generally don't tip"

    I know. Once they see your teeth, they give you very bad service.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  189. Re: you missed the "why" by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    er, no. Inelastic demand is when sales remain static as the price changes.

    Thanks for playing =)

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  190. Wrong is wrong is wrong. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "An opinion can't be incorrect... It may not suit you"

    Yes it can, if it is factually wrong. It has nothing to do with whether or not it suits me. It just has to do with the facts at hand.

    Example: "Jupiter has much less mass than Mars"

    It cannot be any less valid. It is a wrong opinion.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Wrong is wrong is wrong. by Lillesvin · · Score: 1

      And how do you compare your little example (of a statement that relies on scientific facts (i.e. can be measured) rather than relying on human definitions) to the fact that some people consider "copying DVDs" to be a theft and other consider it a copyright infringement? And before you consider giving me some dictionary lookup for "theft" - look at my first and second post in this thread... It's already answered there.

      And you still didn't explain to me how "copying DVDs" and "stealing ideas" differs in terms of "copyright infringement" vs. "theft"... Actually, now that I think of it - you've pretty much avoided answering to any of my critical points and decided to just give me some ridiculous example sentence that can't even be compared to the whole "theft" vs. "copyright infringement" debate...

      And btw., some dictionaries actually has more than one definition of "steal", e.g. "copying sb's work/ideas without permission or consent" - so even if you want to go dictionary-nazi on me your argument won't hold. (Read my first posts in this thread again-again.)

      So tell me again... How can it be wrong to use a perfectly acceptable definition of the word "theft" (as in e.g. "identity theft") here?

      --
      "Live free or don't."
  191. Future is now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    head over to the pirate bay and see for your self.

    Check their funny pages too http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/

  192. Re: you missed the "why" by nacturation · · Score: 1

    Since we're talking about profit, I consider increased sales in terms of dollar figures. You're referring to unit volume. Good game. :)

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  193. That is my personal blog by Cryofan · · Score: 1

    I approve Chavez obtaining weapons. Yes. What, you don't believe in the right to carry arms? What happened to the 2nd Amendment?

    I like chavez cuz he gives land and money to help the people. Sow the Oil, etc.

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  194. Re:Umm. by brainburger · · Score: 1

    That's why you get crappy service.

  195. Re:Umm. by unitron · · Score: 1
    So where do you draw the line between tipping an officer for doing you a "favor" and bribing him to do you a "favor"?

    Probably depends on the legality of the "favor".

    "Arrest my neighbor, officer. They stole that lawn ornament in their front yard from my front yard" isn't quite the same as "I don't like my neighbor, how about "accidentally" emptying your clip into them?".

    What I want to know, though, is, isn't selling unauthorized copies of movies a federal crime? Why isn't the MPAA bribing, I mean tipping, the FBI or some other federal enforcement agents?

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  196. 1000%? Amazing... by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    The exercise here was to remind people that the RIAA/MPAA only report inflated absolute worst case (for them) scenarios where something like 1000% of illegal downloads are lost sales.
    Impressive... for every download, they claim to lose 10 sales? I'd almost say there was a typo, except that from what I understand, that's not too far from the truth. ^_^ I guess in a manner of speaking it might be too. Download one track from a crappy artist and you're not plunking down the cash for a whole CD. Hmmm...

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:1000%? Amazing... by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      I did mean 1000%.

      Some people who analyzed the RIAA/MPAA's numbers a few years ago concluded that there must be at least five downloads for every sale.

      One of them mentionned something along the lines of "to make their numbers come true, americans would have to buy 100 CDs per year."

      How many sane people buy (anywhere near) this many audio titles each year?

  197. Re: you missed the "why" by andynz · · Score: 1
    Mickey Mouse is no longer the cute character I saw as a child - now he has a hand in my pocket and a bodyguard of lawyers to make sure I don't complain.

    So, a bit like Michael Jackson then?

  198. Re: you missed the "why" by vsprintf · · Score: 1

    So, a bit like Michael Jackson then?

    Well put -- especially since he owns a Beatles porfolio which should be public domain by now, in addition to his other problem.