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.'"

Comments

a bad example

[j1mmy]

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.

Has Mr. Glickman actually seen the movie? Revenge of the Sith did a good enough job of dimming the magic of the movies on its own. I urge everyone to pirate this movie so Mr. Lucas is unable to make any more films.

Re:Copyright

[n0nsensical]

You didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Of course there are exceptions. I'm sorry I didn't find every single exception in existence and post them. It was just a generalization, deal with it.

Re:Let's please get our heads on straight...

[null etc.]

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.

How is the term "theft" a metaphor?

"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.

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.

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.

From dictionary.com:

Theft: The act or an instance of stealing.

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.

I would posit that you are the one that is confused.

Re:True

[silverkniveshotmail.]

Magnum isn't a brand, it simply refers to a cartridge wich holds more powder, or a gun designed to hold a magnum cartridge. a magnum round is typically (always?) longer than a standard round. I have no idea what a min-magnum round is though.

Re:By all means...

[null etc.]

So you know what the really funny thing is? I'm really not big on downloading things. I do, however, like to release the software I have made to the world for free. In other words, I've put my creative works where my mouth is. You know, for the *public* good--that odd thing these IP laws were supposed to benefit.

That's not funny. I'm in the same situation. I purchase all of my software, even expensive packages like Photoshop. I don't download music or movies illegally. I write software that I personally would want to use, and then release it for free.

Clearly, you were not able to form whatever notion you had into something coherent and you appear to be compensating for your muddled notions of where the divisions exist in law with bluster, but that's immaterial now.

Now, that's funny.

You skipped over the definition of "take" -- as used in "theft" it clearly implies that one no longer has it. I mean, would you say that X stole Y's book if X had actually photocopied it and left them with the original?

I think you're overlooking a few things here.

First, let's say a guy name J.R.R. Tolkien writes a story called "The Hobbit". Let's also assume that, as was common during the time period in which he lived, he wrote the the story in non-electronic format.

Now, I agree that you can physically sneak into his house and "steal" his book, "taking" it so that he no longer has access to it, and I'm sure he would be dismayed and bemoan the state of the world to all he encountered. That would be "theft" of not only his conceptual work, but also the physical form in which it was manifested.

When J.R.R. Tolkien decides to sell his story, do you think he sells the actual "book" to the publisher? And in turn, does the publisher sell the actual "book" to one lucky consumer? NO.

Instead, J.R.R. Tolkien sells an exclusive or non-exclusive right to distribute that conceptual work, which the publisher then sells in a form of the publisher's choosing (which may be book, magazine, imprinted toilet paper, etc.) Of course, some publishers may not have the right to publish such material on imprinted toilet paper, depending upon the publisher's contract with the author.

When you buy a book, you're not buying the author's conceptual work. Rather, you're buying the medium made available by the publisher, as well as a publisher's license to use that medium to enjoy the author's conceptual work. You are not purchasing the ability to redistribute or rebroadcast the author's conceptual work.

When you download a movie illegally, you are:

1. Bypassing the publisher's license to enjoy the author's conceptual work, effectively "stealing" the use of the license.

2. Depriving the author the privilege of gaining compensation for your enjoyment of his conceptual work, effectively "stealing" his compensation payment.

When you upload a movie illegally, you are:

1. Infringing upon the publisher's license, which prohibits the unauthorized duplication and distribution of the author's conceptual work.

2. Providing a new distribution outlet that allows others the ability to gain access to the author's conceptual work, without the author's permission. An author should be permitted to make decisions regarding the distributors who distribute his conceptual work.

3. Circumventing or "stealing" a revenue stream from the current distributor. I agree that if there are multiple current distributors, it can be impossible to tell whose revenue stream was affected.

4. Circumventing or "stealing" a revenue stream from future distributors, which may distribute the movie in a different medium than current distributors. For example, a work may be distributed in movie theaters and then later by DVD distributors. Each of these circumvented revenue streams affects the author and distributors.

But in the end, here's the part where we really disagree: I don't think that people should be able to have legal

Re:P2P and guns

[Stalyn]

A couple posts down someone attributed the almost same quote to Churchill, maybe they both said it. Anyway the truth which is obvious to anyone who studied a bit of history is the complete opposite.

According to your logic, Nazi Germany would have beat Soviet Russia, the US would have beat North Vietnam, Great Britian would have defeated those rebellious 13 colonies, the South would have won the Civil War, the list goes on....