Slashdot Mirror
King Kong vs. Movie Pirates
Caoz writes "The New York Times is running an interesting article about movie piracy with Peter Jackson providing some comments. There a couple of comments that I thought were surprising. Like an executive admitting that file sharers are not the biggest threat to Hollywood. From the article: 'There is a very dark, black cloud in this game. It's not in the hands of kids who live next door to you; it's organized groups and organized crime.' Why are they suing bitorrent users then?"
Why are they suing bitorrent users then?
Because they're breaking the law and the MPAA can sue them. It's a good profit revenue (without having to even make new films that might flop) and while it wouldn't be much, it's guranteed and isn't dependant on box office tickets. Some might even say it's their duty to their shareholders to look for go after any legal means that will help raise profit within an acceptable risk level.
If you're going to download and disseminate content that the copyright holder hasn't allowed you to, expect to be persecuted by the law. You're not activists, you're law breakers. If you have a problem with the law, then do something about it. Don't just hide and hope you won't get caught.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
[if the "black cloud" over movie piracy is organized crime] Why are [groups like the MPAA] suing bitorrent users then?
Because it would be hard to sue themselves. B-)
Seriously: Whether they're CURRENTLY organized crime or not, the movie industry was built on systematic for-profit violation of IP law (Edison's patents for starters) while the recorded music distribution industry was controlled by organized crime for the bulk of its formative years.
Expect their business methods to run more toward extortion than persuasion.
With the help of the number one extortion racket in town: the federal government. (The Hurtz of extortion - though the Mafia DOES try harder...)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I hate the guys as much as anybody, but the reason bittorrent users aren't as big a problem as the one they're worried about is because suing people works as a deterrent. It's not 100% successful, or even close, but if there was absolutely no risk in downloading the stuff, way more people would do it.
The odds aren't good that they'll sue you, and tons of people would gladly take that bet, but then there's people that buy lottery tickets every week because there's a chance they'll win. Those people are deterred, and the movie guys know that.
I think you would be hard pressed to come up with a reasonable answer. It is often easier to catch someone using the net to download warez because there is a trail to follow. Most organized pirates are located in some other country (often asia) and from what I understand because of their copyright laws (or for some other god forsaken reason) it is difficult to shut them down and prosecute them.
It sounds defeatest, and there has to be a good answer but look at it logically: You shut down an illegal internet distributer working through ebay or some other means, that one dissapears and two more take it's place. Same with vendors. Go through any major city. Especially if you can find a china town. There will be a table on every block with obviously copied merchandise. Shut it down. Make an arrest or deport if possible. Another will be on the next block very very soon.
Joe average downloading at his computer, leaving a trail is simply an easy target. It looks like a lot of the time these days rather than taking out the sources (a lot of work) they are trying to use law suits to scare your average individuals away from downloading or buying copied media.
Is this the answer? Obviously not. Do I have a better one? Not really. The problem is a way of really attacking the people who are making a big profit off of privacy. Is the person who downloads a cd or movie off of bittorent going to buy it? Perhaps not, but if they are like many people I know, they want to try for free before they buy (but often plan on buying anyway). Now, do you think the guy that is buying the bootleg of Rush Hour 2 (off of ebay or ny street corner, take your pick) is going to ever buy the real deal? Shit no. He just spent money on it; why would he shell out more on the real thing just to have a second copy? He's going to add it to the rack, and not think about who recieves money in the end. Computers have kept theives one step ahead of the lay, and it is going to be seriously difficult to change that. Do I think that makes it right? No, but I do think that the 15 year old in Deleware is committing a much smaller crime than the guy in china pumping out hundreds of bootlegs for sale. Just my humble opinion.
I'm tired, I hope any of that was clear.
It slays me when I see the MPAA/RIAA whip out these astronomical figures they claim to be lost sales while mentioning file sharing in the same breath. Most downloaders out there grabbing their Telesyncs and CAMS of the latest Hollywood drivel while they are still in first run are doing so for the geek factor of having something first before their friends do. I don't think the suits have grasped this. The real fans have and will continue to purchase the DVD's and albums as always. The monied gangs with their industry-grade equip are the real bottom line affectors, I visited my brother in Shanghai a while back and every last DVD in the neighborhood video stores is an unauthorized copy. The subtitles and the packaging are hilarious, however. -Note to clueless execs: Make a good product. Sell at a fair price. Pursue the gangs and quit suing (alienating) your customer base. Profit!
You were obviously not paying much attention to what was going on around the Super Bowl. Every year, the NFL goes to great lengths to ID "official" superbowl goods. Hologram-bearing tags and whatnot.
This year, as with most, they also tied up the resources of the host city and state police forces (in this case, Worcester city and Massachusetts state police), shutting down the "counterfeit" sellers and seizing goods.
Why the police are involved with a civil issue (trademark infringement)...is beyond me. If they're carrying out court orders, that's one thing- but playing no-charge goon-squad for the NFL and Russel Athletic is another thing entirely.
Please help metamoderate.
For the same reason Ontario law makers passed a ban on pit bulls. Because it's easier to ban and arrest everyone than to restrict, research and enforce.
Bittorrent users being sued to death are like the pit bull owners, in that the government finds it easier to just rid the world of them, rather than fight the problem at the source. Pit bulls aren't naturally violent, they're trained as such. Bittorrent users aren't necessarily downloading because they want to revolt, they're downloading because a $50usd Limited Edition box set of Excel Saga DVD's is outrageously expensive, and it's easier to click than manifest $50usd.
If the war were really about the pirates, then any P2P would be shut down instantly, regardless of their EULA that explains "For educational use, and any copyrighted material shared is not the problem of said program". Soulseek, eMule, Napster/Grokster/Morpheus/Kazaa, WinMX (Is that still around?), anything else, really. The problem is, is I remember at one point (Can't locate) a Slashdot article about a 62kb homebrew P2P that took only around an hour. With P2P sharing programs being that incredibly easy to write, it's impossible to completely end pirating. It's going to happen no matter what. Counterfeit money, blank cassette tapes, blank VHS, MP3 and so on... it's an endless cycle of forging a copy. It will go on forever, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
I don't even know where I was going with this.
"Umm... is it because bitorrent users don't arrange to have you killed?"
Why do you say that? Most of the people I've met who are members of warez groups tend to be more of the 90 lb. weakling type; the sort who'd be afraid to even touch a gun, let alone arrange to have someone killed.
Likewise, most of the Chinese factory owners I've met are small, quiet men whom I could easily take in a fistfight. Granted, these are folks who run legit factories, but I can't imagine that the guys running off DVD copies of screeners are that much more intimidating.
If your experience is otherwise, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
So its far more worse to violate copyright than to break the law now?
I say, go after the big fish and let the small fish go. It would be more worth it to get rid of the big ones instead of the small ones. 1 out of 3 CD's sold is a copy (IFPI's numbers. not mine). When you sell CD's for billions of dollars every year you lose billions of dollars too thanks to the all the counterfeit CD's sold but yet the record companies only sue the small fish and make absolutely no way near what they could make by getting rid of the big fishes. Sometimes the raid a factory or two but its not at the level like how they are pursuing kazaa users. Why?
My theory (like you thought you wouldn't have to listen to that huh?) is that the movie companies and the record companies are all behind this scheme because that way they get to keep all the money and don't have to pay a cent to their, IMHO already overpaid, artists. Its all about money. You can argue how much you like about other reasons but when in the end, its all about the money and don't try to make it out like RIAA is only in it for the good of the people because that is complete bull. They are in it for the money and nothing else.
Bah, who needs some fancy six station screen printing machine?
Anyone with a bit of brains, power tools, and decent ability can build a 4 color screen printing station out of nothing more than lumber and common hardware, all of which is easily obtainable from Home Depot. All you need then are screens, squeegees, masking and your consumables.
Most Nike prints I've seen are very simple, either one or two color and they're mostly just the logo at that. You could do rudimentary printing with practically nothing if it were really necessary. Of course, I'm not saying it's easy, you need all kinds of nasty chemicals and special equipment--mostly the screen and squeegee in that respect, and it really helps if you know what you're doing...
Price wise, there's no doubt in my mind that you could beat the cost of a computer+dvd burner to do a couple colors on shirts, and have a few bucks left to spend on shirts and ink. You need special equipment and knowledge to rip and burn a DVD, too, you know. The great thing about DVD burning is you don't typically need badass solvents.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
I'm not a US citizen, so I have a couple of questions about this stuff.
So, organizations like MPAA enforce the "nocopy" rules on digital content, but what about quality assurance? If you've bought a movie and it turned out to be crappy, can you go back to store and get a 100% money back? Or if I downloaded a movie from the internet and it was crap, why should I pay for it? Will they give you a 100% money back in the movie theatre, if you didn't like what you see?
If not, don't you think this is unfair?
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Having done both screen printing and DVD burning, I heartily disagree. A six-station screen printing machine will set you back about USD $8,000, before buying ink and screens and blank shirts and a dryer and a ventilated place to do it all. DVD-R's are a much easier product to make.
I'm sure if I went out of my way I could pirate movies on DVD+/-R. I've done quite a few home movies on DVD in batches of 100. I'm sure I could use a consumer grade printer like Canon's or Epson's sub $200 solution (r200/r300/ip3000/4000/5000/6000). I could spend $40ish to $60ish on OEM ink with an estimated yield of 12 covers and 12 discs or so.
I could spend 50c a disc, 3 to 4 bucks in ink, another 50c for the photopaper, and another 50cents for a long box. I "could" do this for about 5 bucks a disc in terms of materials.
or
I can go to the local flea market, and get a nice bootleg video with excelent cover quality that is reasonably water proof, silk screened discs, and something that actually looks like the genuine artical for $5.00. And as a bonus... something that's printed on a real dvd-rom and not one of those funky DVD-Rs that while are useful don't always play well in all players.
Not to dismiss your theory but I think I can safely assume that anything out of hollywood isn't going to be on KVCD, and chances are if they are selling KVCD that are bloody likely to be bootlegs, then the DVDs are equaly likely to be bootlegs as well. I can tell you the quality of the goods is superior to anything you can produce using consumer grade goods.
I'm sure costs would go down on ink by going with bulk inks, but even then we're still talking a couple of bucks/disc for an inferior product to that of hollywood or commercial bootlegers. I can make something pretty good, worth paying for, but using consumer inkjet printers i'd be priced out of the market by commercial enterprises legit or bootleg. Consumer inkjets and dvd burners are best for material you can't buy in stores like home movies.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I can go to the local flea market, and get a nice bootleg video with excelent cover quality that is reasonably water proof, silk screened discs, and something that actually looks like the genuine artical for $5.00. And as a bonus... something that's printed on a real dvd-rom and not one of those funky DVD-Rs that while are useful don't always play well in all players.
Not only that, if I buy my kids a fleamarket DVD it won't have any unskippable bits, like the copyright warning or 8 minutes of trailers or adverts for Disneyworld. From my point of view the fleamarket DVDs area a superior product at a cheaper price.
Maybe this is what Hollywood should be addressing instead of chasing BitTorrent users.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
"Piracy has the very real potential of tipping movies into becoming an unprofitable industry, especially big-event films. If that happens, they will stop being made," said Mr. Jackson
"No studio is going to finance a film if the point is reached where their possible profit margin goes straight into criminals' pockets."
This isn't a studio executive, this is obviously someone who cares a great deal about movies. He dares to speak out against piracy. He knows that movies take corporate money to make.
The point is that a lot of you on here with your anarchistic view of media and all your moaning about DRM is motivated not buy a love of art, but a love of getting something for nothing. I am not an musician myself, but I consider myself a huge fan music. I have yet to read any artist's opinion on slashdot (and I don't count all you wankers who think that your guitar wankery hobby puts you in the ranks of an actual musician) - Diversity of thought is not a strong suite of slashdot - But I think you'll find quite a few real full time artists that don't want their work stolen - and they want to be compensated for their work
For example, read this interview question from gawker.com interviewing the great Ted Leo about his take on your anarchistic viwe.
"5. Got any quick opinions on big media, the RIAA, file-sharing or anything else that's affecting the landscape of the indie musician?
I'm really torn on file sharing. I have done it, I have benefited from finding some things that have been unavailable to me and that have opened up other doors for me to explore as a fan, and so I'm sure I'll probably do it again, but not to the extent that I feel it's my "right" to "own" a personal copy of something that someone else put sweat, thought, feeling, and money into -- the output of someone's true work -- without offering them something in return.
Two quick points: 1.) the notion that "music should be for everyone, and not owned" is tripped up by file sharing itself. If you're talking about having it out there in the ether, like just being broadcast on the radio or something, then that's one thing, but the very act of taking, keeping, and burning -- creating more hard copies of a hard copy -- means that you take into your ownership a version of this piece of work. So you're saying the artist and record label can't "own" it, but then you turn around and own it yourself? That shit ain't right. You're really just saying that you think you shouldn't have to pay for it. And to that, I say, if you ask nicely, you might get a copy, but if you think you have some entitlement to something, your request is falling on unsympathetic ears. 2.) As a promotional thing, it's great to have people passing your stuff around, and as an artist, it's awesome to know that people care. But when you exist in a world that sees you on tour 8 - 9 months out of the year, thus making it hard to hold down a different job, but you COULD, theoretically, be at least paying your bills with the work you do in your chosen field (that being, of course, making music), then it's easy to break down just what a dent excessive file sharing can put in your ability to keep doing what you're doing.
Check it -- Metallica are multi-millionaires. Who cares if they lose $100,000 to file sharing? I don't. But speaking for myself and my band, a few hundred downloads that aren't later backed up by purchases can be the difference between us paying rent or not. Ain't nobody in my band got health insurance, you know what I'm sayin'? I'm just talking about RENT. So yeah -- it hurts a bit, but I'm not going to tell people to not do it, it would just be nice if we could put all our cards on the table and forego some of the unproductive rhetoric that surrounds the issue. The RIAA can go fuck itself for all I care -- my interaction with that world is almost nil, and I really don't care if so-and-so has to put that last piece of bling they bought into hock. I'm just saying that there are people out there trying to do it righteously who could use a bit more support, and a good way to show it would be to give them something in return for what they give you. A musician can't download a guitar, you know? "
Ah you think this doesn't exist? Try coming to Switzerland with a fake Rolex. If the border police catch you with it they'll make you pay 3 times the price of the real thing. Same goes with fake designer bags and clothing but obviously the pressure is more on fake watches. Besides a fake Rolex is much easier to spot then a fake Nike t-shirt. The problem with the "fake" t-shirt is that they are often done by the same factory that does the real ones. They just skip paying royalities to the brand and sell it to the local grey market.
"You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
One is to go after the uploaders. Make big press with saying that "even though this 14 year old girl makes straight A's..we still took her down because what she was doing was illegal".
Next thing... some journalist will find out that a son or daughter of a high-profile politician (mayor, congressman, senator) has been downloading all the latest Britney Spears or 50 Cent hits. This will result in court-case with lotsa lawyers and media. Let's see who's going win... the ??AA and their lawyers or the senator and his political power.
Would be interesting, wouldn't it?
"It is not because no one sees the truth that it becomes a mistake" (Mahatma Gandhi)
"The real irony is that a fake Nike T-shirt almost certainly was made out of better quality materials, and by better-treated workers, than a "real" one. "
Nope. The vast majority of fake clothes are made in teh same factory as the "genuine" ones, on the same line by the same people.
What happens is the factory churns out more than they are contracted to buy, claiming any excess material used (if it is even noticed) were rejects and destroyed. The surplus is boxed and shipped out the back door and sold on - and yes, this means that Nike pay for the "fakes" to be made as well, albeit without knowing they have so done (or without being able to prove it).
Same for a great many other fake clothes and many fake branded electrical goods.
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
Apparently King Kong's pedigree didn't strike you as intriguing. This is Peter Jackson we're talking about here. Any of his productions isn't going to have the same hackneyed, hamfisted problems that most Hollywood remakes suffer.
Besides, it's King fucking Kong. What do you have against a good monster movie? The themes of the silent original are captivating. A good director (and here we have an excellent one) can take even crap themes and explore them in new ways.
I realize and appreciate what you're trying to say, but it doesn't apply here.
Ok, now I know you're taking the piss.
From TFA: "Court papers say that although the employee was tracked down because another one of the films he pirated bore a watermark linking it to the theater where he worked, he also had the ability to delete watermarks from other films."
..Wouldn't sufficient recompression algorithms render most watermarks void??
That seems to make things sound much more devious.