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?"
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.
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.
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
I am a musician. I play an instrument, and I take great enjoyment in my creations; I love to share them with others. I take pride in my hobby, and it's very disrespectful for you to call it "wankery." Yes, I'm an actual musician. Nobody pays me, but that doesn't mean I'm not a real musician. Look up the word in a dictionary, you insensitive clod.
I am deeply and personally motivated to make music. Furthermore, I don't believe in demanding money. Sure, I will accept money sometimes or even try to get it if I feel like I can, but that's not the point. I'd rather share with everyone and not take away anyone's freedom. Their freedom to play and enjoy my music if they like it--their freedom to share it with their friends and family--their freedom to change it if they think they can make it better.
Music is not proprietary; you don't own it. You do it because it makes you feel good and it makes others feel good. When you give something to them, they'll surely give back, but that doesn't necessarily have to come down to a bottom line. You can't measure humanity in dollars.
I'm sick and tired of money-sucking suits weaseling their way through our legal system and culture, making art into something I wish it weren't--profitable. I'm tired of capitalist entities invading our privacy and stamping on our freedom to manage our data and systems in a way that seems right to us. I'm tired of yuppies like you trying to say that you know what's best for me and my vocation.
I don't own your computer, the electricity you paid to run it, the data you have stored on it, or any of the equipment or services you use to modify or transmit that data. I DON'T own the CD I sold you or the data that's on it. I DON'T own any of the ideas, concepts, or expressions that may arise from the data.
I love the art more than you do. You didn't spend hours on an instrument every day for years just because you loved the beautiful sounds you could make. You don't have the dream of making music, or the fulfillment of making that dream a reality. You don't like music enough to do that. You haven't put in the time and effort that I have, and until you do, you're going to have a difficult time of convincing me that you're entitled to that little opinion of yours.
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?
"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.