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.'"
Look, most people I know who have the ability to download the movie chose not to. They want to see it on a big screen, with big sound, with other fans.
from making misleading claims like this. it's already been ruled that copyright infringement is NOT theft
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
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...
that dimmed the magic of this movie was George Lucas.
Mod me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
It's a shame that this has happened, and that Star Wars Ep. III is hardly taking in any money as a result.
I could have swore it was leaked by there own employees. But it's BitTorrent's fault, you say?
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
I blame internet. Lets sue Al Gore!
"Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
I got it from Usenet, you insensitive clods!
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
and there was I thinking it was the crummy script and wooden acting that was 'destroying the magic'...damn you bittorrent!!!!
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.
Thanks to the MPAA announcing the availibility of Episode III on bittorrent, I know now which client to start and search for it. Great service.
Georges
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
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.
Episode 3 is breaking records for how much money it's already made. Boy, I can really see how BitTorrent is just screwing the movie industry. Just how it screwed Battlestar Galactica on Sci-Fi. What a bunch of whining chumps.
Yes, Bittorrent was at fault, and the economic impact was so huge, that Star Wars didn't make a single penny this weekend. And George Lucas is broke! John Williams is selling pencils on the street corner! Hayden Christensen... well let's not even talk about what he's doing to make ends meet!
Thanks a lot Bittorrent, you killed Star Wars!
Revenge of the Sith only had a record $50 million opening day. This is a travesty! I will personally donate my yearly salary of $40,000 to George Lucas to help keep him from starving.
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
We need a law that makes it a federal felony to "Dim the magic of the movies, with intention or accidentally, through the distribution of any electronic media."
No longer will Ebert be able to safely sit there sending salvo after salvo at the movie industry, safe behind ill-concieved first ammendment rights!
Please, help save the magic of the movies from dimming, think of the children!
There is no better example of how theft dims the magic of the movies for everyone
True, so true. Better to have never seen it at all. Mr. Lucus, I want my childhood dreams back.
When I heard about this BitTorrent program delivering non-released movies, new top-40 albums and great warez software I (being cheap and lazy) immediatelly downloaded, installed and opened it. Then I waited for the goods to start pouring into my disk. So far nothing has happened. Does anyone knows what I am doing wrong?
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.
From TFA:
and now, from a syndicated article in the Herald Sun (among MANY other papers): I guess the most revenue ever just isn't enough magic for Glickman.... he really does care about us after all!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.
Has anyone at the MPAA heard about recent happenings on BT HELPING the SCI-FI Channel?
and one more thing: let me preface it by saying that I plan to see the movie in the theaters and do not plan on DLing it, but if robbery is what the MPAA is so conserned about, why have ticket prices raised (in my area anyhow) by at least 150% in the last ~7 years, beating the hell out of inflation...can you say MONOPOLY?
For heaven sakes people! Lucas was only able to make $50 million on Thursday! HE HAS CHILDREN TO FEED
;-)
You misspelled "younglings"
You can't take the sky from me...
Well thank God America isn't in control of the Internet!
No matter how much control, how many laws, how many overbearing policies are slapped on the Internet, there will always be an underground.
The only people these new laws and forms of control will stop are folks like my dad. It is no different than using software protection to help stop piracy; only average joes are affected.
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.
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.
Of course, BitTorrent is responsible.
No, no, no! Not only that! I got mine via FTP, so FTP is responsible as well! And I found the FTP-link by the web, so I guess that makes HTTP responsible as well.
Oh.. and they all use IP. Which would make IP the one mainly responsible for the IP-theft! Yup. Sounds like double-A logic to me.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Quote of the hour:
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
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..
Usually that is the normal path.
This was a non-scene release.
The initial release was on Bittorrent this time around.
I dub thee... Sir Phobos, Knight of Mars, Beater of Ass.
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
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.
The thing that helps avoid this is that IP was designed to be bulletproof, i.e. you could remove half the network and the system would function.
All it takes is one uncontrolled connection and the whole thing works again. This is possible through tunneling without major headaches, there will always be an underground.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
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.
it doesn't seem too improbable that the MPAA purposely leaked the print just so they could make a big deal about it.
Actually, it's very improbable. The slight benefit they'd gain from having the ROTS leak as lobbying ammo would be minute, and far outweighed by the damage that would occur if they were caught doing it.
These guys are basically corporate types. They tend not to care about the issue as much as all you reading this do. They do their job, then they go home. It just wouldn't be worth the hassle for them to come up with convoluted plans like that.
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.
The official movie distribution involves a sytem trucks driving the celluloid rolls to chosen addresses. It involves people driving their cars or use public transport to reach same addresses. It involves big and expensive buildings and a lot of expensive employees, reservation of tickets and standing in line (sometimes twice)
/picz
It is a part of your experience. So are 200-300 other people sweating, eating smelly foods, taking their smelly shoes of, eating candy out of noisy plastic bags, having their mobile phones ringing, etc.. All that for $10 pr. seat.
The distribution is both expensive and the movie theatre experience does not please the modern consumer, who would like to enjoy the magic of movies without getting p*ssed off.
Bittorrent delivers right to the computer in your living room through an established network. It's fast and cheap and gives you home cinema system something to do. You can even pause the movie and go get a snack or a cop of coffee. Now, that's magic.
All people believing in capitalism should hail the BT for it's efficiency and low costs. The old and rusty movie distribution system can not compete with the smooth functionality of the modern computer networks and comfort of home cinema (even if it's just a 28'' TV).
MPAA should start to think about improving their product. If I could download a legal copy of Star Wars today, I would do it.
At this moment the only competition to the distribution monopoly of movie theatres are the P2P networks.
------- Look mum! I have posted another Slashdot comment! --------
...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
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?
Fortunetly, the magic was restored eleven fold by granting R2D2 the ability to fly, emit oil slicks, light said oil slicks on fire, catch communicators thrown at him, jump 3 feet out of space ships, and leave audiances baffled as to why these superpowers aren't used in the next movies.
And he makes fries in seconds!
SAILING MISHAP
They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Back in 1985 a man named Dowling was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property for selling infringing copies of Elvis records. U.S. Supreme Court in DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html struck this down because copyright infringement is not theft.
You have to deprive your victim of the item in order to steal it from them. Making copies doesn't deprive anyone of what it being copied, therefore its not theft.
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.
"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.'"
That's a slanderous lie! I downloaded it from an FTP site.
"Magic of movies"? You mean watching half an hour of commercials beforehand, missing parts of the movie because of people who won't shut the fuck up, and dealing with ear-splitting volumes that distort on the movie theater's speakers? Or maybe he means paying upwards of $4 for 5 cents worth (according to an insider) of popcorn? Perhaps it's the sticky floors that makes the experience magical. Whatever it is, I'm glad I missed it.
Hey, MPAA: your movies are released to the internet whether you like it or not. Instead of lobbying for stricter laws (which, in case you missed it, DON'T WORK), maybe you should re-evaluate your business model and release lower-quality first runs (say, Realmedia format) with subtitles, charging more for the convenience. Sure, people will copy and share them, but they're doing that anyway. At least you'd make some money off of it...likely as much as you would have made if anyone who actually wanted to pay for it had gone to the theater in the first place. And people who have trouble hearing will thank you.
But I know that's just a pipe dream. You'd rather lobby and try to scare people than admit that your own people are the worst offenders when it comes to media piracy.
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.)
I want to view this at home in my home theater without all the trouble that is involved in going to the movie theater. I would pay a price comparable to the movie theater for this.
You're forcing me to take your goods in a way that is inconvenient to me, and then complaining "my poor lost revenue" because I don't want your goods in the single way you're distributing them.
You've married yourself to the movie theater with your exclusive distribution deals. Well, here is the result. You customers don't like your exclusive deals and they work around it. Don't complain to us about it.
Want to fix it? I don't care what your method of delivery is. Video over IP to my cable company's DVR. Pay Per View. Firewire from PC to TV. PC download and viewing. A high def Akimbo type box. Picking up a DVD rental.
Give us a freaking choice that works for us, and we'll give you the money.
My understanding about the copy of ROTS available via BT, FTP and US Mail for those with friends nice enough is that its a studio work copy, not a shaky cam or a midnight theatre transfer but a copy from luc@Sarts, obviously the people who did this knew it was wrong but the MPAA is really trying to control distribution chains, PTP isn't Pay per Play friendly, I read earlier in this post that TCP/IP is to blame, really by this logic it is, really if given the choice the media folks would put a DRM chip on each hard drive, network interface, CPU, Burner, ETC. Welcome to the new world.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
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.
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?
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
Your TV has Firewire?
Sony KD34XBR960. Yes. It has three firewire ports.
It can receive video directly from my Motorola DCT6412 HD DVR via firewire. People with Apples have been able to record a Transport Steram and play it back on the Sony HDTV and some Mitsubishi HDTVs. People in Windows have been able to just do that with the Mitsu HDTVs so far, but I am somewhat close to geting the Sony TVs to be recognized under Windows, but I need just a bit more help from someone who is good with Windows. It just looks like the proper driver is in the AVC class, but it sees the hardware as a 1391 device, so it never picks up a driver that'll work.
SHHHHH!!!!
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
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.
You, "sir", are a "fucking" "commie" "hypocrate", "who" should be "taken" "out" and "shot". It's "people" like "you" who are "causing" this "problem" in the "first" "place". Of "course", it doesn't "help" that the "people" who "run" the "MPAA" are one "step" lower than "pond" "scum" on the "evolutionary" "scale".
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.
Sue the internet!
Warning: Could be fatal if taken seriously
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
There's no license required to use/enjoy/read/view/etc. anyone's work that's publically available. Have you borrowed a CD from a friend? Bought a book from a used book store? Did you have to obtain a separate "license" from the associated publishers to use or enjoy the content? No, because there is no license required to use copyrighted works as long as you don't violate the copyright law.
There's no such privilege associated with copyright law. Copyright law applies to copying and redistribution, not to "enjoyment" as you are using the term. In other words, you don't need an "enjoyment license" from the publisher to read their books.
Sure, you could define the word "stealing" as "copyright infringement" and then turn around and offer your definition as a proof that copyright infringement is indeed stealing. But that's not what the law says because the underlying concepts for those 2 terms are significantly different, and you haven't even considered differences between the associated laws, cases of violations both criminal and civil, consequences and punishments, etc..
There is allready one good reply to this, just want to add a few things.
>When you buy a book, you're not buying the
>author's conceptual work.
You are buying a copy of it.
>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.
Why are people tossing out this rubish all the time? There is no need for licenses at all. Here is a link to the US copyright law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Go read it. Find the "rights" of the copyright holder, reading and other normal uses is NOT among them. There are basically just a few rights, listed in chapter 1, 106. That is all, there is nothing else. None of the things you liste in your first numbered list is among that. There is no right to enjoy and no right for compensation,
From your second list, the first point is true. The seoncd is not covered. The copyright holder can only control the first distribution, not any redistribution after that. This typically goes under various names in different countries. In US I believe it is the first sale doctrine. Finally, the last two about revenue streams, is not in the copyright law at all, try to find them if you want.
Also read chapter 1, 101 and go to "copies"
> You are
>not purchasing the ability to redistribute or rebroadcast the author's conceptual work.
Who has ever claimed that. This IS one of the cases of copyright infringement. Nothing is "stealing" anything when distibuting new copies though.
It's good for pretty much everyone.
Game demos, movie trailers, home movies, shareware applications... pretty much everything these days is either distributed over bittorrent or will be shortly. It's like FTP in that it is destined to become a completely integrated standard into the web's existence. It allows for the transfer of large files at one hundredth the bandwidth cost of a standard file server. It won't be long until system updates, etc are all using the technology.
I'll reiterate this again. Bittorrent isn't a file sharing application like Napster. Bittorrent is a file transfer protocol, dozens of times better and cheaper than existing file transfer protocols. If you want to transfer a hollywood blockbuster, Bittorrent is your best protocol. If you want to download a video from CBS News, Bittorrent is still the best protocol. If you want to download the latest terrestrial maps the terramapping project of the US government, bittorrent is still the best protocol. It's just the best protocol for any kinds of large file downloading that you may do.
Just looking over my bittorrent logs, I've recently downloaded the new FF7 advent children trailer, a copy of the Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 Demo, 3 Gigs worth of open-licensed video game music, the interviews from "OutFoxed" (legally), and the Natural Selection mod to Half Life. All of these are legal, appropriate uses of Bittorrent, and are far more common than searching a P2P network for legal content. Even the centralized structure of the bittorrent network requires the kind of source-signatures that would discourage illegal uses. It's just a great protocol for transfering large files. It's a pity it's also a pretty good protocol for transfering large illegal files, as there are clear legal uses.
The ______ Agenda
Seeing as it's genereally regarded as being on the leading edge of internet profiting...
I saw episode 3 in the cinema last friday, just like I saw all Starwars movies within short time after release.
That said, I saw episode 1 and 2 also as a 'pirated' copy on my big tv screen at home, why? because I am one of the milions of people on this planet who is visually impaired. Not bad enough to not be able to watch TV from a relative short (1 1/2 yards) distance, but bad enough still to not be able to catch most of the details when seeing something on a big screen in a cinema. Siye makes NO difference, the ONLY thing that makes a difference is distance.
Basicly, this leaves me with a simple choice: waiting for the official DVD release before I can watch something, with the simple consequence that I cannot share the experience with my friends who go see it when it appears in the cinema, or watch a pirated copy shortly after release.
As said, I go see them in the cinema as well simply for the experience, and indeed to reward the people who made the movie.
If I cannot also watch it from nearby on my own big screen then there is NO use whatsoever for me to go see it in the cinema either.
Now, if the MPAA would offer me a chance to watch it in a way that I can actually catch the details also, there would be no need whatsoever for me to go look for a pirated version, but they don't.
Is my situation special? well, it does not apply to most people, yet it still applies to milions of people, milions of potential customers for them that they simply exclude, and who thanks to 'piracy' still do have a way to enjoy what the MPAA members make and release.
But well, it is a lot easier to just go whine about the unproven theory that such piracy reduces their income and blame technology for it. I have yet to see any sign of such piracy really reducing their income and I know for a fact that for me personally, it makes me spend more money on MPAA stuff then I would without it.
In short, being able to watch it on my own setup (which is adapted for my visual impairment) allows me to actually catch the visual detail and that in turn makes it an option for me to also go see it in a cinema (where I will lack the visual detail). The comination will still give me the complete experience. Without this possibility, there is simply no point whatsoever for me to go see things in a cinema.
Let the MPAA come up with a solution for that.
Ok, you are certainly welcome to your opinion but the simple fact is that it's not your decision to make. None of these "arguments" that I see on slashdot mean much to me. They imply that "information is free". Well it's not. It's only free if the creator wills it so. If the creator wishes their creations to be free, as many thousands of the readers of /. do with their open-source projects, then great! I think that FOSS is an excellent movement and a source of inspiration for others.
But what about those that happen to want to make money from their creations? They want to control the marketing, quality, distribution, public relations, etc of their product (or idea!). And why shouldn't they? Let's take an example. I make a piece of software. It's commercial, and I'm selling to large enterprises. It's a niche market so the market will pay...$3000 for this software. It is in my own best interest to protect the integrity and quality of my product so that my company will do well. If some guy takes my software and then sells it for $49, what happens?
Something like that could ruin me. And guess what happens if this is repeated en masse? You have created a situation where I am actually DISCOURAGED to take the time to create something. Hell, I might as well give up and wash cars for a living. Where are all the good ideas then?Now, I realize most of you are socialists and communists (look up the definition sometime) so my arguments above will just either go over your head or you'll ignore them out of hand. I understand that. I won't convert someone to capitalism with a slashdot post. But what makes your world view more important than mine? Or to put it another way, why should your rights overrule mine? Because you think so? Now THAT makes a lot of sense. (That was sarcasm.)
Ok, let's bring this back on topic. Lucas made the movie, he can do whatever the hell he wants to do with it. (Like spit out flat dialog and complement it with poor acting.) If piracy of movies becomes commonplace, which has certainly happened in certain areas, people who would have gone to see the movie will instead download it for free or buy a cheap knock off DVD on a street corner. That is taking money from his pocket, and is taking your socialist views and pushing them on his capitalistic ones.
Disclaimers: