Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Blames BitTorrent for Star Wars Distribution
AI Playground writes "Slyck News reports on
the MPAA's press release (.doc) blaming the BitTorrent protocol for the leak of Episode III. MPAA President and CEO Dan Glickman: 'There is no better example of how theft dims the magic of the movies for everyone than this report today regarding BitTorrent providing users with illegal copies of Revenge of the Sith. The unfortunate fact is this type of theft happens on a regular basis on peer to peer networks all over the world.'"
I'd start taking him seriously if they used proper terminology. It is copyright infringment, not theft.
A case of blaming the highway for the high speed chase. Nothing new here...move alone.
The MPAA may take the glancing blow approach and blame the whole entire P2P community for spreading just-released movies. But aren't you also blaming those who share legal, non-copyrighted stuff? I mean, BitTorrent is an awsome technology for sharing file in general! You can't blame the technology/community for a single groups actions...
So Bittorent is the source of all evil for MPAA now?
Because it was used to distribute Episode 3?
Why not blame the internet? Without it there would be MUCH less piracy.
[cynism]Or even better blame the George Lucas - if he hadn't made Episode 3 it could not have been pirated [/cynism]
Reality to MPAA - get a grip!
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
It's interesting to note that the copy making rounds on the p2p networks is a workprint and not a cam-copy, suggesting an inside job. Given that everyone knew how high-profile ROTS was going to be, it doesn't seem too improbable that the MPAA purposely leaked the print just so they could make a big deal about it. I mean, ROTS is pretty much review-proof and p2p-proof; anyone who was interested in the film was going to the theater to see it anyhow. So there really wouldn't be a big loss by leaking this copy and it gives them a perfect opportunity to bang on the drum again. If ever they were going to leak a blockbuster, ROTS would be the one to do it for.
GMD
watch this
Why is it whenever anyone talks about wanting to ban guns because of the "dangers" they pose, they get laughed out of the spotlight and everyone says "guns don't kill people, people kill people". However, when it comes to piracy these idiots seem to be making progress with their message of trying to ban technology.
Repeat after me.
Technology doesn't pirate IP, people pirate IP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
If Bittorrent is so damaging, then why did the third star wars movie break all box office records for opening day, midnight showings, earnings, etc so far? I say we need more bittorrent leaks.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
So, Bittorrent walked into a theater and recorded it? Or did Bittorrent walk in and steal a master and capture it?
I know that people usually give objects personalities and human qualities, but saying that the protocol is responsible for the piracy is silly.
That could just be me though.
I think the $10 price of a ticket is starting to dim the "Magic" of movies more than bootlegs...
The gates in my computer are AND, OR and NOT; they are not Bill.
If the movie came out pre-release, shouldn't the MPAA kick themselves in the balls for distributing their own content?
Oh right...I forgot. That would make sense. And they can't have that.
Who's downloaded Episode 3 has gone - or is planning to go - to the theatre to see this movie.
If it was some drama or romantic comedy, then no, they wouldn't go to the theatre, but this is a special efx movie and is best seen either at the theatre, OR on a crazy home system if you have the DVD or DVD-like quality.
There is no better example of how theft dims the magic of the movies for everyone than this report today regarding BitTorrent providing users with illegal copies of Revenge of the Sith.
That's the best example for "dimming the magic"? You've got to be kidding me. I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. How does providing users with illegal copies dim their magic, much less anyone else's? When I'm watching the movie tomorrow night, I certainly won't care if somebody downloaded it off the net.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Isn't electricity, or at an even deeper level, electrons to blame for this catastrophe?
I believe it was BitTorrent on the Grassy Knoll. BitTorrent also touched those boys at Michael Jackson's pad. This is like blaming Boeing for destroying the World Trade Center.
As I stood in line at midnight, surrounded by fellow geeks, the only thing I could think of was: "Wow, BitTorrent has dimmed the magic right out of this."
No, wait, it didn't. The simple fact is, those who were going to see it in theatre did, and those who never were (or who were just going to borrow the DVD from a friend when it came out) didn't. Nothing new here.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
You're splitting hairs to justify doing something that is clearly ethically wrong, that is pirating movies, music, and software.
It's more than splitting hairs. Piracy is not a synonym for copyright infringement. Piracy and theft are charged words designed to generate a strong emotional response. Unconsciously, the word 'piracy' conjures up images of barbarians who murder and rape without remorse. 'Theft' is used to dig at the fear that everyone has of having their material items stolen from their house. Yes, consciously, we know that a 13-year old 'pirate' is not a raping, murdering, theiving monster but the MPAA wants to generate fear, anger, and other emotions in the public. Using 'copyright infringement' -- the correct term -- just won't do that for them. So they continue to use incorrect terminology. We're not being grammar nazis by insisting that they use less-neutral terms. Yes, copyright infringement is wrong. But it's a different class of wrong from the actions of pirates and thieves.
GMD
watch this
How much mileage do you think they'll really get out of this, though? The general public knows that some people download movies, just as they know some percentage of people driving their cars to see the movie at theaters were speeding. It doesn't make it OK, but it's just not interesting to hear about anymore.
why do you assume wanting people to be truthful about something ammounts to justifying it?
for example, no matter whether I'm for or against the right to have an abortion I don't want people describing the doctors as "baby murderers". it is incorrect.
and anyone who needs to make incorrect statements to make their argument sound strong should always be regarded as suspicious.
clearly ethically wrong, that is pirating movies
The MPAA is in no position to give me, or anyone else, ethics lessons.
You can't take the sky from me...
BitTorrent doesn't commit "IP" theft. It is a tool. If we ban all tools that can be used for something illegal, then everything must be banned.
So it's not "theft" you agree, so you just substitute another emotionally loaded (and legally incorrect) term in place of it?
I don't know where you went to law school, but on my planet, piracy involves the high seas, ships, and usually a lot of pillaging and murder. Sometimes rape.
Making a copy of a work created for entertainment, no matter how "unauthorized" it is by the corrupt people who control the distribution information, is nothing like theft.
And calling it "piracy" isn't any more truthful.
This is obviously wrong and misleading. It is akin to saying the axe murdered the person, or it was the car that hit the guy in the crosswalk. That is simply not the case: it is the PEOPLE behind the tools that make the decision about how to use them.
This rampant demonization of peer to peer software is absurd. The fact that we have to have a case go to the supreme court to decide whether or not peer to peer software should be legal is absurd. They have to decide in the HIGHEST COURT of the land whether or not people who own computers can share data between the computers?
Again, we (as a society) love to blame the tools, rather than take personal responsibility for our actions. I, for one, grow tired of it.
The unfortunate fact is this type of theft happens on a regular basis on peer to peer networks all over the world.
It's even more unfortunate that the industry can't seem to face the fact that its business model is evaporating in the face of modern distribution technology. Their grip on the channels that distribute entertainment is slipping. What they should do is accept the fact that their business model is becoming obsolete.
There are people who would tell you eating pork is clearly unethical. You say the grandparent poster is splitting hairs, I say you're being too general.
English has ambiguity.
Sure it does. English also has a lot of speakers who care if you call a limerick a haiku or if you call a dolphin a fish or if you call copyright infringement theft or if you call a nationality a race. These people will correct you if you get it wrong.
Get over it!
You might want to consider taking your own advice.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
Pirate movies are bad, but I would not call them ethically wrong. International Talking Like a Pirate Day, however is pretty much immoral.
Oh wait, you are telling me that copyright law is ethical. I dissagree. Copyright "protection" exists to enrich the public domain and encourage the arts and science. "Protection" that lasts longer than the life of the media fails most of it's public obligation. Firms that take your talent and call it their own then keep all of their films in a vault until they rot are robbing all of us of our cultural heritage. A great example of this is the Disney film, "Song of the South". It's owners are embarrassed of it and refuse to release it. Every bit of talent that went into that film is doomed to oblivion and you won't ever see it outside of a "pirated" version.
Note that no ships were stolen and no sailors were killed to bring you these bits or those of those of the leaked copy of ROTS. The only pirates are those idiots trying to shut down the internet because it threatens their 100 year old business model.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
From the Doc: "Less than one in ten movies re-coup their original investment from the domestic box office and six in ten never recoup their investment . "
This was in addition to the statement that the average movie takes $98 MILLION dollars to make. Wow, so what they are saying is "We intentionally give people more money knowing full well that there is a better than half chance we won't EVER get enough back to recoup costs"
I'd be much more concerned that they need to hire a good economist to show them that 'if you spend more than you make, you are in trouble in business'...
And yet they continue to drive this witch-hunt in the hope that someone will take pity on them and eliminate the pesky "Internet" once and for all..
BitTorrent is (one of many) file transfer mechanisms that spareds distribution cost evenly over content consumers, instead of dumping it all on the content producer.
And that's all it is. Nothing magic, evil, or anything.
The only reason the MPAA doesn't like it is because it happens to be prohibitively expensive for someone who isn't making money off of it to distribute lots of content in the old days. The MPAA makes lots of money from licensing their content, so they don't care if it's expensive for a content producer to distribute data. P2P simply happens to reduce cost to content producers (good for individuals who can produce worthwhile content, like open source authors or Red vs Blue artists) below the point where individuals without scads of money can infringe on copyrights held on very large files like movies.
The attacks the MPAA is making against P2P are attacks against inexpensive content distribution, and all those that rely on it and those that benefit from it.
Yes, english has a certain ambiguity to it. However, if you're going to hide behind that excuse when you make a lame argument, don't be surprised when people make fun of what you say. And no, the whole people-into-machine thing won't happen.
It's more than splitting hairs. Piracy is not a synonym for copyright infringement. Piracy and theft are charged words designed to generate a strong emotional response. Unconsciously, the word 'piracy' conjures up images of barbarians who murder and rape without remorse.
...when that term was first coined (centuries ago), people actually feared pirates. Nowadays pirates are characters in cartoons and adventure films for the family with very little resemblance to actual pirates. Quite a few are anti-heroes (ie. on the bad side, but still "cool") or in some way redeem themselves, and not least of which act a lot less brutal and more honorable than the real thing. When children get old enough that they want to be scared, they don't go see a pirate vid about how it really was, they see "Alien" or the like. I think the effect is overrated at best.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You got it exactly right. The reason I got myself a great home with many consumer devices is my desire to save the odd $10. You should be modded +6 insightful.
Or you're worried that because people are breaking the law that the internet will become unusable for other purposes?
Yes.
Life is not for the lazy.
I find nothing wrong with the terms "piracy" and "theft" to describe such actions.
But what about "rape" and "murder"? When you copy a movie, you are metaphorically raping the director by taking something he considers precious, without consent, for your own pleasure. And you are metaphorically murdering his chance of making a profit out of you.
In fact, I think people who rape kids' movies should be charged with sex crimes. Those pedos are some sick people. I heard about this guy who even copied an old "Bambi" VHS tape! Pedophilic rape and bestiality in one. The sicko tried to say it was okay because the copy was for his granddaughter. That's just twisted.
Or maybe we could, you know, use words which are actually descriptive of the real crimes being committed?
"Copyright infringement" should be reserved for cases such as when I make a video game that stars Mario or Pokemon, infringing upon Nintendo's copyright.
No, it shouldn't - because that would be a case of trademark infringement, not copyright infringement, unless you used Nintendo's actual artwork or level layouts.
Of course, it's not your fault you don't know the difference. You've been confused by everyone using words wrongly. If everyone used "theft" to mean theft and "copyright infringement" to mean copyright infringement and "trademark infringement" to mean trademark infringement, then there would be no confusion. When you start using "theft" to mean copyright infringement, it's hardly surprising that you then get confused and use "copyright infringement" to mean trademark infringement.
And yes, the difference is important. Copyright infringement can be a criminal offense in some circumstances; I don't think trademark infringement can. That's a pretty big difference.
Blaming bittorrent instead of the people who actually made it into a format the average shmo's computer could read should be blamed.
1. Film + audio
2. Some guy copies and compresses <-AT FAULT
3. AVI/mkv/etc.
4. Bittorrent <- innocent
5. Shmos.
Its like blaming BMW and Cadilac instead of drugdealers. which is a pointless war. let me try again..
Its like blameing Magnum and Colt for all the murders each year. Which is another war which will never be won..
It's like blaming Sony for flipping through the channels, and the batteries dieing just as Barney comes on.
I didn't know that you could download the new Star Wars until the MPAA told me. So they're really to blame for me downloading it right now.
...I didn't get to buy ABC (Atomic, Biological, Chemical) weapons, jet fighters, tanks, artillery, rocket launchers, assault rifles, sniper rifles or any other kind of heavy weaponry on the free market. The content industry is worried because we have a WMI (Weapon of mass infringement) in every home. Or well, slashdotters have an arsenal. If everyone had WMDs, I'd be heading for the nearest bunker real quick.
Their real problem is that there's no specific purpose. If you were building a large enough arsenal to start WWIII, well chances are pretty good that's what you're planning. If I build a means to quickly distribute large amounts of information, it doesn't imply anything at all. Sending streams of 0s and 1s is as general-purpose as you can get.
To pull a real geeky analogy, it is as if we invented the Star Trek replicator, and it was banned because it could replicate anything, even weapons and controlled substances. Or the holodeck was banned because it can simulate anything, and then someone could simulate their pedo fantasy in there.
Trying to turn the attention towards people is pointless, because anyone who isn't completely blind can see that people don't care about IP. It's like saying the same about guns when everyone is going around slaughtering eachother. If you want a better analogy, copyright is the "modern prohibition" and piracy the massive moonshine production. Banning P2P is like banning grain and potatoes to stop moonshine liqour.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ummmm...how is this news and why is Slashdot giving a voice to this organisation's constant bullshit (that we've all heard before) by quoting the MPAA all the time. I must admit that the nonsense being spouted by the MPAA today does make a lot more sense than some of their previous crazy claims. Maybe they are running out of cash to buy their spokespeople the the normal stuff that they are under the influence of.
FTR, I think that unlawful copying--which the MPAA and members of its protection racket have also been involved in on numerous occasions--is wrong and don't do it myself, but I don't think this is the MPAA's core problem with their `bussiness'.
I'm bored, so let's analyse this shit:
Oh, the irony of the MPAA using a file format on their WWW site which it is unlawful for users of its site to read or interpret in many jurisdictions (due to the MPAA's own `copyright circumvention device' legislation, as well as, arguably, various patents).
Since when did protocols have moral responsibility. Can one put them in jail?
Another oft used (also P2P) networking protocol known as TCP/IP could be in even bigger problem. As the core protocol of the Internet it has been responsible for not only the distribution of all unauthorised copies of anything on the Internet, but, no doubt, exabytes of pornographic images, communications between criminals including what Bush calls `terrorists', &c. Why has this protocol not been brought before a caught of law?
In fact, an even older real-life protocol called trade (i.e.: buying and selling) has been responsible for the exchange of trillions of dollars worth of pornography, drugs, laundered money and many other illicit or unlawful materials. Another one, the spoken word, dates back even further...
Where shall I begin on this quote. Let's take it word by word:
The MPAA would probably argue that theft, in their vocabulary, means "doing something that results in someone [e.g.: the MPAA] having less money". Of course, as well as being untrue, this is an invalid argumentu
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Why? Because I'm glad to know it was bittorrent that ruined the magic of Star Wars for me.
You see, for a few nasty moments there I thought it was the shitty dialogue, the obscene toy commercialism, and the crude racial sterotyping that was doing it, but now I know it is BitTorrent, so I can uninstall Azereus and get my childhood back...
I still remember my Dad deciding I should go and see Star Wars despite the pain in
my bad leg, and I still love him so much for it, and it's good to know that a easy to uninstall protocol is what tried (and failed!) to piss on that memory.
What makes it a really noble announcement by the MPAA is the fact that, since I have bought DVDs of every single non-shite film I ever downloaded via Bittorrent, removing Azereus will decrease MPAA member revenue.
You have to salute people who are willing to make a stand for what they belive in!
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
I'd be willing to blame things like, say, episodes I and II before blaming anything else.
This is not to say the movie wasn't pirated, I'm sure it was, but rather that for once the filmmaker may be entirely to blame for an unexpectedly-low box office return.
I bet it does well on video, I'm planning to at least rent it at that point. I am otherwise unwilling to even spend the time-and-bandwidth to download it, much less pay a theatre for the privilege to suffer through another one of these; despite the people who are saying "this one doesn't suck, honest."
::jafomatic
At the risk of sounding like the schoolyard bully pleading with the teacher... who started it?
For years, we had an economy that was quite happy supporting both purchase and rental of videos. They didn't come with huge amounts of crap you couldn't skip at the start, they weren't copy protected, and no-one complained if you taped a programme off TV and kept it in your collection for another day.
Along comes Generation I-Want-It-So-I'll-Take-It, blatantly and offensively flouting the law and ripping people off, and now those of us who cough up the going rate when we want to buy something have to put up with all of the above rubbish, as the media industries defend their business the only way they know how.
People like you don't like DRM, or region-locked DVDs, and all that crap.
And if it weren't for people like you being so blatantly selfish, the rest of us wouldn't now have to put up with it.
Ethics class dismissed.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Let's blame trucks for bringing illegal immigrants across borders, hyperdermic needles for heroin use, beer cans for alcohol abuse, cameras for pornography, voice boxes for the rise in bad language and linear time for people getting older and dying.
I expect ads on free TV, or if the movie was free.
But I paid premium price to see the movie.
I expect a premium presentation!
This means they are not supposed to waste my time with all sorts of preshow JUNK!
If I were making a presentation, and I asked my audience to sit through unwanted presentations from my kids, wife, mother-in-law, and every uncle in the family, do you think my recipient would stand ( err.. sit ) for it???
I see this whole anti-copying crap they are putting through Congress as means of getting legal teeth so when they start putting ads and promotions you can't skip through ( such as presently being tested via the FBI warning ), they think they will be able to thwart unofficial independent re-releases of the movie after it has been cleaned of crap.
So, go convince some congressmen to pass law for you protecting your rights to control how your customer can consume your product. Dream on.
You see, I hate beans! If you are gonna serve me a meal with beans in it, I *will* push them aside and eat the rest. Go ahead and pass all the law you want saying I *must* eat the beans. You better not let that meal out of your sight in order to enforce your control, cause the first thing I'm gonna do is run away and hide somewhere and flick the beans out. Not only that, if I can find the same meal anywhere else without the beans in it, I'll be their customer, not yours.
As long as the video stream has to be presented in a form the human eye can perceive, it can be sensed by other electronic devices that duplicate our human ones, saved in public editable file formats, and cleaned up. I'd much rather see a clean, albeit somewhat lower quality, re-release than be forced to sit through ad after ad and have no control of my player.
I guess what I am trying to say is that all this effort to make the presentation absolutely unavailable to anyone who doesn't jump through all the prescribed hoops is alienating your paying customers!
So the movie leaked, is it really worth $20 to me to try to even get it for "free"??? Consider economics and the economics of mass production, and there is a helluva lot of "economic gain" if MPAA runs the show - and MPAA can have nearly all of it.
But if you deliver a product that is completely unusable in the state you insist on delivering it in, just be prepared for endless workarounds people will come up with to make it usable.
Policing your theatrical productions will be harder to enforce than illegal immigration...
Is it worth it to alienate your paying customers to go after those few that probably wouldn't pay for it anyway at a theatre?
My advice: forget it. Invest your resources in improving the theater experience. There is a difference between eating at home and eating out. If your customers don't like beans in their food, forcing beans on them at the restaurant will only encourage them to eat at home, where they have more control on the preparation of the meal.
I'll probably be modded "redundant" for even posting this. Every time this topic comes up, me and just about everyone else shouts out this is the problem. And no one listens to us.
Unlike your expensive marketing research, we don't even charge for analyzing the problem.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
My friend once thought the same thing. After explaining why Bit Torrent wasn't at fault for any of this, I decided to provide a visual demonstration. I asked him for a pencil, I took a pair of pliers, and I broke it in half. He then asked why I broke his pencil, and I told him that the pliers did it, and he should be accusing them. He said that he still didn't understand, so I produced a pair of scissors and asked for a $100 note. He got the message.
You are still blaming the TOOL for what the PEOPLE do.
Your claim that 99.9% of P2P traffic is totally, irrefutably, undeniably illegal is ignorant, foolish, and asinine. Much like guns can be used for hunting and to commit murder, Bit Torrent is used for taking the load off of people who wish to distribute free content, but have no way to finance it. (After all, distributing free content isn't a huge moneymaker)
Sure, there are a lot of people who use it to commit copyright infringement, much like there are a lot of people who use a gun to commit murder. That doesn't mean that they are in the majority, especially not the huge percentage that you listed.
By banning P2P software, all you are doing is hurting those who use it LEGITIMATELY. You are not doing anything to stop those who use it illegally.
Why? Because the people who are actually behind the crime are going to commit the crime using another tool. If guns were banned, people would just use knives to commit murder, but those who hunt with guns will no longer be able to do that. Ban knifes, and people will turn to something else, but chefs will definitely be hurt by it.
Similarly, if Bit Torrent is banned, people will turn to FTP and HTTP. It's not going to stop. It's not even going to be HINDERED.
Tools are crafted with a specific purpose in mind, but people find many ways to abuse them or use them in a way that their creator did not intend. I'm sure that whoever invented bricks did not give a thought to people who might clobber someone over the head with them. I'm sure he only thought of how many buildings could be made with them. Similarly, the author of Bit Torrent likely didn't think that his tool would be headline news after being used by people commiting copyright infringment, and it is not Bit Torrent's fault that such a thing happened. It is, ultimately, the people who use it wrongly that are to blame, and MPAA is only going after Bit Torrent because, however futile it is, it's far more easier to place the blame on Bit Torrent.
----
(Before you reply: Yes. I know this is a troll. No, I am not new here.)
The difference here, of course, is that this is intellectual property and that $100 may not have ever existed.
It's not much more clever to blame "the saudis" for destroying the WTC either. In this case too, is the blame to put on a relatively narrow group of people.
You mean like the civilian populations of Afghanistan and Iraq?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
It's so bad, that they've beaten Shrek 2 at the box office setting a new world record in sales (something like 50M$? someone can correct me), c'mon.. instead of bashing on the technology because you're an elephant that can't move fast enough to adapt and rely on unenforcable practices, how about embracing it and actually make people pay 10$ to download an HTDV version to view at home...
you could have added an extra 50M$ to that record, plus, it wouldn't have costed you so much in bandwidth since everyone would have chipped in.
I just don't get it. they've should have learned from RIAA's mistake, they had YEARS to prepare, yet, nothing has been done on a large scale basis to profit from this.
People downloading it and watching it NOW are people who wouldn't go to the theatre to watch it in the first place (c'mon this is something to see on a big screen full resolution to enjoy), ok maybe SOME idiots that would do this instead of going and then find out they ruined their experience, which can be translated in loss of revenues, but then again those idiots stay home and don't go up to piss every 30 minutes or talk out loud during the film making the experience to everyone else a better one.
Seriously though... someone out there that has a voice to make them listen to reason, tell them to invest in geeks/programmers/good distribution ideas instead of investing in lawyers, both sides will profit from this. Because right now, their tactics will end up pissing everyone off and teens (and others actually) will "fight the powah" to look cool (or take a stand) and go exactly the opposite way, just like with the MP3s. In this case, almost everyone loses.
Use brains, not lawyers.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
>Any what if I do use Nintendo's actual artwork?
>That would be copyright infringement, which is
>drastically different than using the term
>"copyright infringement" to denote the act of the
>unauthorized copying and distribution of an
>entire piece of work.
No, it is both copyright infringement. Go read the laws and you will see it.
>From dictionary.com:
What are you doing reading a dictionary? You nead to read the laws and see what they call theft and what they call copyright infringement.
Lets see what you have to say though:
>Steal: To take (the property of another) without
>right or permission.
>
>Property: Something tangible or intangible to
>which its owner has legal title: properties such
>as copyrights and trademarks.
Wow, are you saying someone is actually TAKING the copyright from someone else when they copy? So if I copy the new star wars movie, I now hold the copyright to it? Does it work with Windows too? Does that mean Microsoft no longer have the copyright to it? Cool.
More seriously, you do realise that copying is actually a creating something new, right? Creating a copy. That new copy, happens to be yours. You did not "take" it from anyone. You did commit copyright infringement for doing the act of copying though, but you never took anything at all from anyone.
1. With 40k salary, $100 is still important. On the dark side: Lukas shits money (not sure if it's correct English), $xM is less for him then $50 for me.
2. I don't recall anybody but my friends/family worrying after I got robbed/stolen from (it happened few times... even after I got kicked multiple times in the head they told me to wait patiently at the hospital for several hours before any doctor spoke to me). Why in the world would we give a shit about people that aren't even "neutral strangers", but people we honestly dislike (MPAA)? I didn't go outdoors to find that guy and smash his head. And that's exactly what MPAA and other fatties are doing. Here's one recent example. They do a lot of nasty things, which are immoral to people that are far less strict than I am. 3. Stealing $100 from me means I'm losing $100. Downloading illegal movies means they are not getting extra $xx. Little difference, but still, a difference.
4. I personally believe that it's morally worse (yes, I'm a relativist) to be a fat guy that chases little ones than to be a little guy and steal intellectual property from fat guys.
Apple's already clearly demonstrated that the market's there and has a price point higher than zero for music. It's only a matter of time before someone (Tivo maybe?) figures out how to do that for movies. The more the *AA people stand in the way, the longer that's going to take. That's what I'm on about.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If anything, the excitement around the movie was probably heightened by early reviews that came out from folks who had seen it illegally. I know I was in a theater auditorium live on a MUD (on my Blackberry, yes I'm a geek) and someone said they had already seen it 12 hours ago but were going again that day. They had also already encouraged others to go see it.
Hollywood seems to believe that everyone is out to rob them. The truth is that when a movie is good, folks WANT to see it on the big screen and folks WANT to reward Hollywood for a job well done.
Where BitTorrent might have an impact would be on a BAD movie -- and that is what I think Hollywood is really worried about. Did you see the backlash against cell phones and SMS after The Hulk came out? It's dissapointing start was largely blamed on early messages floating around telling folks how bad it was, causing them to cancel plans to see it.
I, for one, think Hollywood should embrace technology more. I have a 1-year old child, and seeing the midnight debut of Ep III was a MAJOR hassle. Had they provided me with a legal way to see it in high quality, I would gladly have paid more than a theater price for the convenience.
Come play Moral Decay!
Being a experienced video game player I am an expert on the art of fragging. In my past exploits I have found video games that allow fragging of practically everything, and most always there are non-human targets as well as human ones.
Emphisize People instead of Kill, and you understand the NRA's logic. Be wary of those who say power is bad. Why should they take it from you if it is bad?
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
That's not to say Linux users are theives.
But that's exactly what you're implying. Good job.
But yes, it's still stealing. Even if it doesn't apply to you, the fact that this commercial product (yes, Star Wars is a commercial product), because they are only offering it as a *PAY* product, it is only a pay product, and it is not up to the general public to make the decisions for them.
No, it's not. It's copyright infringement. Nice try.
If you see this same woman, is not working at a particular moment, due to not having a paying client, should you be allowed to take a free romp? Sure, why not, that's what she does, and she's just sitting there.
Not the same thing, dude. That is possibly the worst analogy I've ever seen in a discussion like this.
I think the same of Ferarri's. I go down to a dealership twice a week, and when I see a Ferarri just sitting there, all lonely, with no owner, I steal the car, and drive it around. It wants to be driven, right?
That would actually be theft. Theft in the real sense, not in the (RI|MP)AA sense. Again, bad analogy.
Are you with the MPAA by chance? Your logic seems to imply that you are.
First the media went after guns and an attack on the second ammendment. Now we see the same thing happening now. If Sony and all of the billion dollar companies are honestly concerned that bit-torrent is costing them money then they need to do another analysis and see that the root of the problem is Sony ( and the others ) that produce digital cameras. I can't take hearing this crap any more, stop making digital cameras with such a high quality capacity. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Bit torrent does steal movies, people steel movies and Sony gives them the capacity.
"Every time you use BitTorrent, God kills a kitten."
GOOD, I hate cats!
Who cares about the ozone layer?...thanks to CFC's I can write my name......IN CHEESE!!!
As one other poster noted this was an inside job! The copy that I have seen for download via BitTorrent was called a "work print". This means that it is a copy from the studio itself. Timecodes (little running numbers) exist on the bottom and not all the sounds/music have been put in yet. Given this FACT one can only assume two things.
1) An evil IP pirate (with a parrot and eye patch) broke into Skywalker Ranch with the swift silent moves of a SEAL Team member. Stole the workprint from under their noses and uploaded this from a Internet cafe in Eastern Russia after the extraction team showed up in a diesel powered submarine.
2) Someone involved with the production of this movie uploaded a copy themselves.
Now I love a good story but Occam's Razor makes me think the first one is a little out there. So I'm going to fathom a guess that SOMEONE ON THE INSIDE actually took the movie and distributed it online.
But really blame BitTorrent because I'm sure that is so much easier to digest. And as others have noted this movie didn't suffer in the least. Not in the box office and certainly not by "ruined" expierence of the fans. Maybe the MPAA shouldn't have gotten rid of Valente, even he wasn't THIS stupid.
What's the issue? Grandparent uses bogus examples, parent pointed it out. Just because parent is using colloquiallisms doesn't make the logic any less valid.
ashlee simpson? who the bloody hell is that?
oh, right. point taken.
anyway, why do tney (riaa) not lay the blame where it actually lies? with the individual that leaked the film in the first place?
seems rather obsurd to me to blame technology for this err, 'problem' with star wars being in widespread distribution.
a technology that is completely incapable of 'borrowing' a rough-edit of a film and then turning that rough-edit into the necessary binary format for more 'efficient' distribution, all on its own. when someone actually does develop that particular technology, then we'll have something....
until then, it is only a person, with access to that rough-edit, that can be at fault here... and ol' george should hoist that individual upon his shoulders and parade down hollywood boulevard, in thanks for all the absolutely fabulous free publicity that the film got.
i have no idea why they're spending millions upon millions marketing this movie. certainly wasn't needed, that's for sure. between the media blitz, news reports, and slashdot postings, that's all covered... for free.
Except in this case the press release is directed specifically at BitTorrent for facilitating the distribution of Episode III. They are not attacking piracy, but blaming BitTorrent for it.
Wow...Just, wow.
I know multiple women who have been raped (and, if you check out the anonymous survey statistics, chances are you do as well) and I'd like to see you try to tell them that their being raped is comparable in any way to downloading a movie without permission.
I know what you were trying to say (trying to paint copyright as an absolute moral right--an idea so historically rejected and antithetical to the original conceptions of copyright in the US that that in and of itself deserves to get you kicked out of the room), but if you can't see how watching a movie without permission and raping a woman might -- just might -- be too incongruous subjects for analogy, then there isn't much more to say.
Me too... to hell with the lawsuits, i'm much more interested in who manufactured (not to mention fired) that little guided missile that went through the window 18" off the ground at the Pentagon. Pretty good logistics for a guy living in a cave on the Afghani-Pakistan border, no?
it is the MPAA's fault, the movie people just can't seem to keep they're employees from copying and distributing movies over the internet. instead of tracking down and suing the people who donwload the movies, the MPAA should find the employee who released the movie and sue him/her
They typically will refund your money if the movie really blows. I've done it twice. You walk out of the movie (not at the end, you can usually tell if the movie is awful 20-30 minutes into it).
When you walk out, ask to speak to the theatre manager, and tell them "This movie is awful. I want my money back".
It would be great if more people started doing this. If theatres starting realizing that screening truly awful peices of junk would cost them lots and lots of money, maybe they would just avoid screening a film altogether if it stinks despite how much money was spent on its promotion.
Now, if I could only figure out a way to get my money back for the $7 tub of popcorn a truly awful movie caused me to vomit up, I'd be even happier.
The Internet is generally stupid
Dum dum da-dum, I think the first post on this subject was on the ball - but perhaps that kind gent neglected to say that those who opt for watching a fuzzy copy on their little monitor instead of paying to see the movie probably couldn't afford to anyways.
Quality quality quality and quality, how those whining of piracy forget. Nothing beats the real mcCoy, and those who can afford it most often have it. Enough of the Multimedia giants calling "all the money we could have made "... losses.
C'mon guys, come clean with your shareholders and tell them that you're sorry for oversaturating the market with your prefab productions (cough) tailored for what you thought the market was. Then make something nice, not too expensive, and if it's actally good we'll be good little laddies and go to buy "the good copy" if we can.
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
Tell: would you prefer to live in a society where such copying (of material or "intellectual" property, it doesn't really matter in the end) is not only permitted, but regularly used to the benefit of all (cheap software or cheap cars - again, what's the difference?), or the one which introduces artificial restrictions on copying to preserve the existing business model which started to fall apart?
Make no mistake, copyright is doomed. It was doomed when the first means of copying audio tapes cheaply and easily appeared, and it's being going downhill ever since then - VCR, and now computer, the ultimate copying tool. One of the inherent properties of information is that it can be easily copied. Music is information, pictures are information, software is information. Information doesn't "want to be free" - it's always free, by definition. You can't fight the laws of nature with the laws of men.
"Hollywood seems to believe that everyone is out to rob them."
When it's what you do all day it's difficult not to expect it from others.
If I were the Dealership or even Ferrari itself I would immediately acquire the wand.
I would have recognised it as a method of slashing my manufacture and distribution overheads and therefore a way of increasing profits.
Just as the RI/MPAA have manifestly failed to.
Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
"The real test"
There will be no real test. If it does well piracy will be blamed for it not doing even better. If it tanks, p2p again.
They will totally disregard the fact that the last few installments have sucked so bad that a lot of ex-fans wouldn't watch it if they got paid for it, nevermind wasting time downloading or going to the cinema.
Personally I'll watch it when it comes with a time back guarantee if I dont like it.