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

And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, watch only stolen movies. It makes me feel cool, like if I had a big penis.

Of course, BitTorrent is responsible. The author of this un-American software should be arrested immediately and pay a fine of 400 million to the starving author of Star Wars.

Re:And this is news?

[bman08]

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.

Re:And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And this is news?

[Seraphim_72]

You forgot that BitTorrent hides alien contact in Area 51, and that it also stole WMD's from Iraq just as we were going in. Also, it made me sterile just by watching a downloaded movie.

Sera

Re:And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is this Bit Torrent person and when is he handing out free movies again?

Also I heard that the RIAA is suing FTP for the lack luster sales of Ashlee Simpson's CD.

Re:And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure its not BitTorrents fault. Its Intels fault. If there were no computers there would be no piracy...

Actually its probably the MPAAs fault, if there were no movies there'd be no piracy...

Re:And this is news?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Yes I too want to go out and spend $15,000 or more on equipment so I can save the $10 or less for a ticket to the movie theater.

You are off by about an order of magnitude.

Cheapest highly-functional system:
$ 700 - 800x600, ~800 lumen projector
$ 200 - 92" wide da-lite high-power screen
$ 60 - Cheap phillips play-everything progressive DVD player
$ 500 - Any of 10 or so decent Home theater in a box combos.
--------
$1460 Total

Reasonably priced, "sweet-spot" priced system:
$1200 - 1024x768 ~2300 lumen projector (brighter than a plasma -)
$ 200 - 92" wide da-lite high-power screen (110 ft/lamberts)
$ 300 - Avel Linkplayer2 plays-everything plus high-def DVD player
$ 400 - Pioneer 49tx receiver
$ 800 - Any of 5 or so different, good-quality 5.1 speaker/sub sets
---------
$2900 Total

Those are the kind of price-points it takes to get a really big screen experience at home. Those numbers tend to look surprisingly low to people like yourself who have never seriously thought about getting a projection system.

More people ought to be looking, front-projectors beat out "regular" tv's at just about every price-point over ~$500. Once you've watched 8-foot-wide HDTV, you'll never be able to turn on a regular tv set again.

Re:And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time you use BitTorrent, God kills a kitten.

Re:And this is news?

[shark72]

"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."

More to the point, the MPAA doesn't like piracy because they see piracy as lost sales. They exist to support their members, who are for-profit companies that rely on sales to stay in business.

"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."

On the contrary, I think the MPAA has done a pretty good job so far (compared to the RIAA, at least) of understanding the difference between the distinct concepts of "P2P" and "using P2P for piracy." Case in point, the MPAA has been going after tracker sites that specialize in pirated content, yet ignoring the (alas, far less popular) sites that distribute only permission-based content.

Ironically, when we make statements to the effect of "The MPAA is attacking P2P" (and I've seen your sentiment expressed a lot around here), it is we who are blurring the lines between the concept of P2P and the specific act of using P2P in a way that violates others' rights.

If we want the content-neutral concept of P2P as a distribution mechanism to survive, we must first drop this "an attack on piracy is an attack on P2P" nonsense and the other silly straw men like "the MPAA hates technology" in place of "the MPAA is attempting to protect its economic interests." Otherwise, we may get exactly what we deserve.

Re:And this is news?

[shutdown -p now]

No, no!

Every time you leech from BitTorrent, God kills a kitten.

Re:And this is news?

[et764]

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.

Re:And this is news?

[SilverspurG]

I would probably base part of my defense on fighting the language abuse that blows everything out of proportions and presumes factual things that are fundamentally hypothetical.

Already been tried. The standard legal response is something along the lines of condescending, completely disregards that you have any point, and then redirects the flow of the conversation. Usually similar to,"That was a very pretty speech, sir, but if you would please remain focused on the law then I'm sure we'll get to the heart of this issue much more quickly."

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I'm simply passing on to you the tip not to bother trying that one.

they need to be stopped

[timmarhy]

from making misleading claims like this. it's already been ruled that copyright infringement is NOT theft

Re:they need to be stopped

[rokzy]

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.

Re:they need to be stopped

[croddy]

you seem to have confused ethics and legality. "unethical" is something like "using lobbying dollars to gain legal protection for a false economy". "illegal" is something like "violating laws purchased by the MPAA".

an industry whose purpose is the distribution of media recordings has been obsolete since the late 1990's. it is now cheaper and easier for people to do it themselves. by sticking blindly to their business model, the MPAA is simply refusing to accept changes that they have no control over.

Re:they need to be stopped

[Scrameustache]

clearly ethically wrong, that is pirating movies

The MPAA is in no position to give me, or anyone else, ethics lessons.

Re:they need to be stopped

[Henry V .009]

Ethically wrong? Illegal, certainly. In many places. For the distributor usually, not the distributee.

But we're well beyond a universal system of ethics aren't we? I can imagine a number of arguments that could be used to by people who have no ethical problem with copyright infringement.

For one, copyright is a contract between the government and authors on their people's behalf. Since it's made without the individual's say-so, he might not consider himself bound by it.

For another, copyright has only existed for a few centuries. The great ethical minds of the past never had a problem with appropriating the intellectual property of others.

Another argument that could be used is that modern copyright terms have been manipulated by big business into lengths of time that violate their intended purpose. Therefore the law is unjust and should be disobeyed.

Another argument could be that copyright itself is a bad idea that stifles creation. In music, for example, the case could be made the copyright has killed live performance. Therefore the law is wrong and just be disobeyed.

So on and so forth.

I can imagine arguments in the other direction as well. But the point is that there is no universal morality on the subject.

Re:they need to be stopped

[rpdillon]

Granted, but that is not really the point of the article. The release specifically says that Bit Torrent has provided the pirated movies.

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.

Re:they need to be stopped

[skasingularity]

Clearly unethical? Like stem cell research is clearly unethical? Or more like homosexuality is clearly unethical?

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.

Re:they need to be stopped

[tomhudson]

Just wait. Soon the Book Printers Association of America will come after you for theft!

Don't laugh. I got a notice for an overdue book one time (they had screwed up - there was no such book in existence), and it included the notice that if I didn't return the book, I could be liable to a fine of $300 or up to 30 days in the clink on conviction.

Less than a year later, a woman made it onto the evening news by refusing to pay the fine, and her lawyer contesting the law. Turns out minicipal ities don't have the authority to criminalize overdue books.

Re:they need to be stopped

[Waffle Iron]

For years, we had an economy that was quite happy supporting both purchase and rental of videos.

Did you forget that the MPAA fought the very idea of videos tooth and nail when VCRs were introduced?

If they hadn't been smacked down by the US supreme court, they would never have been able to benefit from the fruits of the purchase and rental of videos.

Since they didn't seem to want this revenue stream in the first place, why should anyone care about how the Internet impacts it now?

Re:they need to be stopped

[SacredNaCl]

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.

Region coding had nothing to do with >cough copyright infringement. Where you get off on this tanget I don't know. The truth is, they would have done region coding anyway. They concieved of region coding as a way to put up a technological barrier to being able to see movies earlier in your own market than they were released, if they happened to be released already in another market segment. It was nothing to do with not paying for the movie. They simply thought that they could maximize profits by staggering theater and DVD releases in different markets.

The other truth is, DRM would have come anyway. Macrovision was setup before VHS copyright infringement was ever a big deal, and it (just like every method before it) was quickly circumvented and tools were available *before* its introduction to do so. (Your pre-198X VCR didn't have the feature and wouldn't recognize it. ;-)

Ethics indeed. Companies have long sought ways to make you pay for things again & again. I don't see the movie industry as that much different from G.E. making lightbulbs that were designed to last less than half the length advertised. You would have to go buy it again. Or appliance makers designing a product to fail after a certain period (common house fans are a good case in point).

In the same way, DVDs are made on a material with a shorter than advertised life, they wont replace the media if it goes bad, and they have made it illegal for you to make a backup of your media that you paid for. They are advertised as "OWN IT ON DVD", but you don't own it. Maybe your version of ethics is different from mine, but I consider (and so do many state attorney generals) the tactics of G.E. to be unethical and illegal. It's no stretch to say that the movie industry is just as unethical and had performed the exact same kind of fraud as G.E., but they went 10 steps further with their fraud an unethical behavior. They tried to circumvent your rights to the material even while the media is working.

If these same extended tactics were applied to lightbulbs, no one in the right mind would buy them if they were advertised as such. This would be a lightbulb that doesn't turn on when you tell it to, it only comes on when G.E. allows it to, it doesn't turn off when you tell it to so you can't save the bulbs life - it only turns off when G.E. tells it to, it wont work when you try to do things that G.E. doesn't like you having light for, or if you travel with it it wont work in certain locations, and even though it fails in less than half of the time advertised they wont replace it. You have to buy another one. It would also code your socket so you couldn't use a different light bulb, and if you modified your light socket to work with other bulbs or to make the lightbulb behave like all light bulbs should knowingly behave (despite it still having a reduced life), they would sue you and have you thrown in jail.

People who copy movies may be copyright infringers, but the MPAA are pirates.

Copyright

[kdark1701]

I'd start taking him seriously if they used proper terminology. It is copyright infringment, not theft.

Re:Copyright

[masklinn]

Yes it is, because commercial or not it's still unauthorized distribution of copyrighted work

Re:Copyright

[pete6677]

Copyright infringement carries heavier penalties than theft in the traditional sense. If you are ever unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of a copyright infringement lawsuit, you'll be wishing you had just been caught stealing a movie from Best Buy and got off with probation and a small fine, rather than a civil suit which will bankrupt you even if you ultimately prevail.

Re:Copyright

[tomhudson]

The copyright owner has the exclusive rights to copy and distribute the work among others.

No, they don't have EXCLUSIVE rights. Fair use, use in educational situations, quoting when reporting, etc., are all recognized by law as exceptions to the so-called "exclusiveness" of copyright.

Its mentioned in the very first 2 lines of the law you quoted:

Sec. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 121

so, what do they say there?

Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies
or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
of the copyrighted work.

Section 108:

Sec. 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by
libraries and archives

Section 109:

Sec. 109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of
particular copy or phonorecord

Remember how the music industry got all upset about people selling their used CDs? Fuck 'em, its legal.

Section 110:

Sec. 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain
performances and displays

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not
infringements of copyright:

Section 111 - rebroadcasting:

Sec. 111. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary
transmissions

(a) Certain Secondary Transmissions Exempted.

There's more, but I think I've made my point. There is no such thing as "exclusive".

Once again...

[Geekenstein]

A case of blaming the highway for the high speed chase. Nothing new here...move alone.

Re:Once again...

[Dysfnctnl85]

EXACTLY!

BitTorrent maybe the catalyst but it's certainly not the reason the movie got leaked...how about the person who actually ACQUIRED the film in the first place?

Good lord!

Re:Once again...

[nacturation]

Plus, it's not BitTorrent's fault that the movie was released. The fault of the release is due to TCP/IP itself! I think we should lobby the government to ban the TCP/IP protocol, which makes all copyright infringement possible.

Re:Once again...

[ne0n]

Let's ban George Lucas, since he has done more than anybody else to dim the magic of the movies. Maybe Paulie Shore comes close, but he's not around anymore.

The only thing

[William-Ely]

that dimmed the magic of this movie was George Lucas.

Tragic

[MattW]

It's a shame that this has happened, and that Star Wars Ep. III is hardly taking in any money as a result.

BitTorrent's fault?

[sik0fewl]

I could have swore it was leaked by there own employees. But it's BitTorrent's fault, you say?

Re:BitTorrent's fault?

[WormholeFiend]

well, no sith sherlock! from the screencaps i've seen, the timecode was still in there.

I blame..

[SocialEngineer]

I blame internet. Lets sue Al Gore!

Tinfoil hat time! Did the MPAA leak it purposely?

[GuyMannDude]

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

P2P and guns

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:P2P and guns

[tedrlord]

That simile is flawed. Handguns have many uses, such as easing server bandwidth requirements and doing a lot to spread open source software, while bittorrent was designed mainly for use in non-military situations to kill human beings. It's fairly obvious that for practical purposes, bittorrent should be carefully controlled.

Wait, I think I mixed things up a little there, didn't I.

Re:P2P and guns

[Stalyn]

It is because in America we believe that guns == freedom. That somehow if the big bad government goes out of control and takes away our freedom we can get it back with our guns. The reality is the government is taking away our freedoms slowly and those guns are not going to stop it. It is some sort of fantasy embedded into the American unconscious that we can earn our freedom through shooting people.

Freedom isn't earned through how many deaths you can inflict on the enemy but how many deaths you are willing to risk.

sorry for going offtopic...

Magic of Movies

[futurekill]

I think the $10 price of a ticket is starting to dim the "Magic" of movies more than bootlegs...

many thanks for telling me where to get it

[Gunstick]

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

Everyone I know

[mindaktiviti]

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.

In other news...

[Pedrito]

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.

You, sir, are most correct!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You, sir, are most correct!

[muszek]

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.

Re:You, sir, are most correct!

[JWSmythe]

> 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.

This argument has been played out, but can't ever been proven. It's been used by software "pirates" for years. The regular argument is, "I'll use it if it's free, but if I have to pay, I'm not interested."

I'm sure there are more than a fair share of Linux users out there, who used the older versions of Windows, and now that it's more difficult (but not impossible) to acquire a free copy, they find it easier to use the free solution.

That's not to say Linux users are theives. I'm a Linux user and administrator, with over 150 boxes. I use it because it's better (IMHO).

Back to the question at hand.. Do the people downloading this movie intend to watch it at the theater? Maybe, maybe not. I didn't pre-buy my ticket. I didn't wait in long lines. I didn't see it, and have no intention to kill myself doing it. Now, if someone handed me a DVD with a pirated copy burned on it, and I watched that, did it make a financial difference to MPAA, or the Star Wars enterprise? Nope, not in the freakin' least. **BUT** they'll scream piracy if they found out.

I'd be more than willing to say, a good number of the people (Errr, immoral bastards, in MPAA terms) who are downloading it, not only already spent the money on a ticket and watched it in the theater, but they're the big fans. They have VHS, DVD, and Laser Disc copies of every Star Wars movie ever released. They have an action figure collection dating back to when they were 5 years old. They can say "Luke, I'm your father", with a straight face. :) They'd want it for their personal (and now more complete) collection. To them, this is one of those "you can't buy it in stores" items.

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.

Lets twist this for you. Think sexuality.

People like having sex. Most people love having sex.

Some people charge for having sex.

If a woman charges $200/hr to have sex with her. This is her commercial product.

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.

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?

So, the movie wants to be watched, right? No. You want to watch it, and if you're going to watch it, you're going to pay for the product, just like you would with the whore, or you would in buying the Fererri.

Myself, I'm happy without having a whore, without having a Fererri, and without seeing this particular episode of Star Wars. I may have one of each someday, I won't make any decisions quite yet. :)

Re:You, sir, are most correct!

[Atryn]

Ahhh, it's all relative then. So you wouldn't care if some homeless guy ripped you off for a hundred bucks or so. Got it.

No, you are completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with relativity. It has to do with a complete misunderstanding of the impact of this technology on the market. Did Ep III land on BitTorrent? Yes. Did that impact it's first day sales? No.

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.

Re:You, sir, are most correct!

[Guppy06]

"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.

Re:You, sir, are most correct!

[crizh]

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.

Re:Yeah.

[GuyMannDude]

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!

I'd rather talk about what Nathalie Portman is doing to make ends meet! :)

GMD

He's absolutely right

[Shky]

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.

That's it!

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

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!

Re:That's it!

[eddy]

>[...] federal felony to "Dim the magic of the movies, with intention or accidentally, through the distribution of any electronic media."

But wouldn't that put George Lucas in jail?

Oh. Oh, I see.

Funny, it doesn't work for me

[Pac]

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?

Terminology is chosen to generate emotions

[GuyMannDude]

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

Re:Terminology is chosen to generate emotions

[vsprintf]

I'm not that old. The word 'piracy' does not conjure up images in my brain of barbarians raping and murdering without remorse.

I guess I'm older because it does carry connotations of rape, pillage, and murder for me, and I'm the same generation as most of the legislators in the Congress. Guess which generation has many members with little computer knowledge but are making these misguided laws. It's not just age or familiarity either. The politicians are in the pocket of big business, and a bit of hyperbole from the privateers (MPAA, RIAA) makes for a good, self-righteous speech on Capitol Hill while pocketing the campaign contributions and sponsoring the legislation.

I keep trying to vote these glad-handing, carpetbaggers out. Where is the younger generation?

Re:Terminology is chosen to generate emotions

[ozmanjusri]

Piracy and theft are charged words designed to generate a strong emotional response.

True enough, but the emotional tug only works in the short term, then people rapidly become jaded.

Besides, it works the other way too. I wanted to get a copy of Buster Keaton's The Navigator a few weeks ago, spent an hour on the phone tracking down a video store that had a VHS copy (I'd have preferred DVD), only to find they wanted $39.95 for a video containing the film I wanted, plus two additional shorts. I called them gougers, which made them strongly emotional.

The end result though, was that I hung up, found a bittorrent, downloaded the movie, watched it, then deleted it. In other words, while I broke the law to avoid being ripped off, I still knowingly chose to break the law.

The *AA have made it impossible for me to purchase a 20 minute film made by artists now long dead at a reasonable price. Films like those have long since amortised their costs, but we are still being charged prices which equate to more dollars per minute than a current-run movie. The law supports the *AA, but that says more about the current law makers than about justice.

Re:Tinfoil hat time! Did the MPAA leak it purposel

[timeOday]

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.

not enough magic?

[yagu]

From TFA:

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.

and now, from a syndicated article in the Herald Sun (among MANY other papers):

THE final chapter in the Star Wars movie saga grossed a record $US50 million ($66 million) from its first 24 hours in North American theatres, the highest box office tally ever for a single day, 20th Century Fox said.

I guess the most revenue ever just isn't enough magic for Glickman.... he really does care about us after all!

Re:It's clear the damage that this has caused!

[Scrameustache]

For heaven sakes people! Lucas was only able to make $50 million on Thursday! HE HAS CHILDREN TO FEED

You misspelled "younglings" ;-)

Re:FCC will control the Internet....

[golgotha007]

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.

Not only BitTorrent

[trezor]

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.

Re:Not only BitTorrent

[pocketfullofshells]

I thought it was funny the MPAA still continues to only blame the end distribution for these problems, i.e. the p2p systems where it can take days to get these files. Forget the fact that someone on the inside ripped it 2 days prior to release, forget the fact that the only reason its on bit torrent or any P2P network is that it was on the newsgroups first.

Its funny... the fact that the newsgroups never make it on the news.

Re:Not only BitTorrent

[TheAvatar666]

And they are all protocols in the internet! Al Gore invented the internet! Arrest Al Gore!

OT: Penguins vs The Sith.

[Stephen Samuel]

I was listening to CBC's "Definitely Not The Opera" where they mentioned that almost nobody is opening a film this weekend opposite Revenge of the Sith. One exception is the French documentary March of the Penguins, a French documentary all about - what else - penguins.
Quote of the hour:

Only penguins would stand up against Darth Vader.

Of course

[Kjella]

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

Re:Of course

[Sendy]

Pirates are real!

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

MPAA's at fault

[Propaganda13]

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.

Well, last I checked...

[Kjella]

...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

Well, I'm 100% in favour of the MPAA

[biglig2]

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!

The Supreme Court agrees

[GoddessEvilena]

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.

the blame game

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:the blame game

[mattspammail]

Exactly! Finally, someone who gets it!

Re:the blame game

[matts-reign]

Bittorrent is used to allow large files to be shared without having to have a heavy-duty server. This is good for free software developers and GNU and the GPL and open source and to prevent the slashdot effect.

Re:Shh!

[Greyfox]

It's not just a matter of it being their product. They're lobbying for legislation against technology that is not their product. They're attempting to make it impossible for anyone else to use that distribution model either. They're attempting to hold programmers responsible for how their programs are used.

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.

"on the newsgroups first."

[Unknown Poltroon]

SHHHHH!!!!

Rape = download? Who modded this guy insightful?

[MunchMunch]

"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."

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.

Re:By all means...

[zurab]

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

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.

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

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..