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.
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
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.