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."
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.
Telemarketer called you; you're on the do not call list?
click here
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.
2 cops and the MPAA I would imagine. ;-)
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.
Perhaps the reason the MPAA and RIAA is loosing 3.5 billion is because spending the money on bent officials?
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.
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 . .
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.
Next thing you know they start paying politicians to change laws.
Oh shit, nevermind...
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"?
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.
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 . .
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?
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?
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?
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.
" 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
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.
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:
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.
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
"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?
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
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.
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?
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.