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?"
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?"
Haven't you realized this very dark and cloudy organized group they're referring to is the Bitorrent User Group (BUG)?
I do have another question though - Why don't consumers buying/wearing fake branded products get arrested?
A Nike t-shirt is probably as easy and cheap to copy and produce as a DVD movie. Imagine law enforcement officers roaming the streets and ripping counterfeited t-shirts off materialistic girls.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
They're assholes.
Nuf said
Because bittorrent users won't find you and pop a cap in your ass like organized crime sydicates tend to do.
Why are they suing bitorrent users then? Because suing johnusername @ xxx.xxx.xxx.xx has been deemed legal.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
Why are they after BT users more than the crime syndicates? Because BT users are a far more high-profile target. And BT users don't have the money or clout to get themselves out of trouble. When a BT user is charged, they usually fall on their knees begging for a settlement. When (more like if) the crime syndicates are charged, money talks and suddenly the case "disappears".
It's like asking a bully why he picks on the little guys. He's afraid of messing with kids his own size.
unable to resolve function slashdot.sig(), aborting...
I don't like this article. It claims that box office releases are "unprofitable, expensive form of marketing".
The truth is that hollywood has made an art of hiding profits ever since they started signing profit sharing agreements with actors and directors. Sure, a crappy movie isn't going to make a good ROI. But the movie industry generally makes out quite well.
Because it is easier.
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.
"I do have another question though - Why don't consumers buying/wearing fake branded products get arrested?"
They don't sue downloaders, only uploaders, so why would they arrest people wearing illegal knock-offs products? Uploaders are not consumers, they are competitors to the movie industry, just like the guy selling home-made DVDs of movies on the street corner.
Vote for Pedro
2) Since BT users are not prone to violence they're easy targets. It's kind of like the TSA at airports, rather than doing something useful but hard, such as securing the borders or inspecting the millions of containers shipped through our ports every day, each one a potential WMD delivery system, Homeland Security has chosen to do something useless and easy, namely harass people at airports. I'm sure there's some division of the **AAs that has some metric where they are rewarded for the number of pirates they catch, regardless of whether or not those pirates are the Yakuza, Mafia or the Tongs who are making a million copies of Spiderman 2 at a pop or if they're BT users who downloaded a low resolution transfer Dr. Who episode. In large organizations it's often OK to do things that are completely worthless, so long as you look really busy while you're doing them.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
i think the trend in going after end users is obvious - they can't defend themselfs. why take on a well funded mafia family or crime syndicate who can actually go to court and put up a fight, potentially costing you money when you can bully some poor slob who earns $40k pa and can bearly payt he rent, let alone fight a legal battle.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Five years ago when Napster was getting sued, everyone on Slashdot--editors included--rallied behind the idea that they should lay off the companies providing the apps and going after the individual infringers, because that was fair and logical. I think nobody expected they'd actually do that. And now they are, and so the rallying cry has changed.
"Sufferin' succotash."
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Because it's a civil matter and they're dealing with people who are violating their copyright.
They may not be making money from it, but that doesn't give them a free pass to ignore copyright.
Yep. It's easier to be lazy and look slightly useful than to actually effect change. Office Space said it best.
Just like most things in life. Play the part just enough to have people think you're doing something while really only barely skating by.
[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.
distributing them globally on the Internet or on bootleg DVD's. whos is it???
really 867993
Karma schkarma
It's easier.
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
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.
..and theres me getting all excited, thinking there's an early rip of King Kong out.
Back to the monkey pr0n in the mean time...
echo $sig;
Sigh. . . trying to stop organized crime and bittorrent users are not mutually exclusive acts.
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.
I know this won't be a popular line, but why not sue Bittorrent users?
They're doing the copyright infringement, and the nature of Bittorrent means that they're also providing file data to other users.
And to make it even more tempting to go after them - Bittorrent isn't in any way anonymous. IP addresses are easily found, and these can be traced back to ISPs.
There may be other targets they could use, but the message that sharing copyrighted files over P2P can result in you being sued should be a strong deterrant.
I think they're small targets, but they are valid targets.
... I wish they mentioned that the "dvd crackers" they refer to had all their hard work completed years ago. I wish they mentioned some of the best pirated videos used to be the Academy screeners from insiders (since arrested, not sure if there's been a new leaker since). I am glad they mentioned the physical counterfeiters as that tends to be overlooked in favor of the sexier (RIAA funded? Nah) filesharing pirate stories.
Final wish: Somebody influential in the media would cover the arbitrary monopolies created by DVD region coding, how little it affects actual piracy and only serves to increase the dvd prices and limit the availablity of dvd titles to law abiding citizens.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
As with most things they like to get them as young as possib;e, like McDonalds and torrents and p2p are rpetty close to ground zero for the movie companies, albeit the real ground zero is actualy private ftp and irc servers and the like. Still it plicates them.
:).
What next well can see you next Happy Meal having big dont pirate stickers on the side
They sue BitTorrent users because those users are the competition to the organized crime to which Jackson refers. The studios have been paying off the mob every step of the way since before they all moved from NYC to Hollywood. That partnership includes going after the mob's competition, including the BT users. Of course it doesn't include going after the mob, which is a cost of doing Hollywood business.
People might say that BT users are pretty organized, with that global Internet and instant group collaboration, but without a Boss to pay off to meet the numbers, it's not organized enough for Hollywood. It's just a loose cannon.
OK, so those are the facts of (movie) life. Here's an even more interesting question: why does the FBI go after BT users, but not after the mob? After that 80-year-old "child actor" in the MPAA was found to be the source of most bootleg DVDs (courtesy of Oscar), how come we didn't hear about the mob he fed getting frogmarched off some kind of plank? Instead we get BT raids around the world, the FBI orchestrating foreign cops like the Keystone in a global arch. I bet The Shadow knows.
--
make install -not war
TFA failed to mention the strongest safeguard against piracy incorporated into the re-release of King Kong: The constant, talentless presence of Jack Black. Put him in every new movie, and nobody would want a bootleg copy.
Of course, it would also kill the theatrical releases, but no plan is perfect.
This wouldn't even be a real contest. I'm betting 5 to 1 on kong, in three rounds.
A guy walks into a bar... well, I forgot the joke, but the punchline is that he's an alcoholic.
"I always thought that piracy connotes something glamorous," Mr. Meyer said. "Let's call it what it is: theft. I think it's just like shoplifting."
Bollocks. If I were to take something from a shop, then the shop can't sell it to someone else, and thus can be said to have lost not only revenue but also an asset.
If I were to copy a movie from the Net, then you might at a stretch argue that I've deprived the studio of revenue (although I still pay to go and watch movies which are good - if I download one and it sucks, I don't pay to go and see it), but I think it's pushing it to say that I've stolen an asset. It still exists, right where it was. The movie studio doesn't have anything less than they did when we started.
Revenues from movies are dropping because the studios are rarely coming out with anything original. Stop making dull sequels, or remakes of 60s TV shows, and perhaps we'll see movie revenue return - but likely not at the cinema, as the article says; people are now commonly watching movies on their home cinema system.
"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.
From TFA:
Hollywood reported global revenue of $84 billion in 2004, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accounting firm. With most theatrical releases amounting to little more than an unprofitable, expensive form of marketing, DVD's have become Hollywood's lifeblood: together with videos, they kick in $55.6 billion, or about two-thirds of the industry's annual haul, with box-office receipts making up most of the rest.
From that paragraph, isn't it clear that accessibility ("freedom" to an extent?) is what people want. People want to be able to get access to a movie when they want to and watch it in whatever way they feel like.
The whole system is broken, because it's old and redundant. Money is spent exorbitantly in all the wrong places and, quite simply, isn't obeying simple rules of economics. You want to push your product out as much as possible at a price that people are prepared to pay.
The only saving grace is that this antiquated system is doomed. I, for one, welcome the new era of "Pro-Ams" and the demise of DRM.
It's a messaging thing, pure and simple. From the copyright owner's perspective, if you're willing to sue even the most minor violators, the major violators have more to fear from you. So since you can find and harm the minor violators, imagine what the real pirates have to fear.
If you see it in the context of sending a signal to the major violators, it's easier to understand, IMO.
.sig: file not found
Because geeky bittorrent users aren't as likely to have your family members drawn and quartered?
Coming soon to a Sopranos episode near you.
..don't panic
It's easy. If two gun-wielding burglars bust in my door and tell me if I open my fool mouth they're gonna bust all kinds of chaos on my ass... then the next morning I see the paperboy stealing CDs out of my car, I'd be all like "Hey! Paperboy! What the heck do you think you're doing?"
Someone might ask "Why did you turn in the paperboy and not those two beefy guys?" and I'd be like "Err... I could've, you know, taken them, but umm... that was like my favorite CD Jimmy was touching. I mean, I've got renter's insurance anyway so I can replace my flatscreen, and my life savings was just cash anyway. I mean money would eventually rot away. But that kid was trying to take my original digital remastered recopy of Zeppelin and I just don't let anyone touch that!"
If it's all a game, does the chance of getting sued make it more exciting? I mean, DwnLdrD00d may have more movies than you, but he wasn't careful and got busted, so you win!
Right?
(Personally, I always figured that $20 to own a copy of a movie that cost $100m to make, and the right to see it any time I wanted, was a pretty good deal.)
I would think people renting and copying would be the biggest threat. Rent it, copy it and add it to your collection, return the rental. Then there is checking things out from the library and copying them. Wouldn't these actions be the ones that directly hinder sales more than other forms of piracy?
This sig intentionally left blank.
The usually obscure computer groups engaged in piracy have even spawned a cult film - available only online, of course - called "The Scene," with leading characters named Teflon, Trooper and Slipknot. Anyone have a bittorrent link to this film? Is it any good, or is it poorly-made crap full of inside jokes, like I suspect it is?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Over at Yahoo, they are offering a $5/month unlimited music download deal, so some people have come to a rather astute conclusion that illegal music downloaders owe RIAA no more than $5 a month.
In this fine New York Times article, it is revealed that Hollywood's real enemies are organized criminals who are able to spend up to a million dollars to buy DVD duplication machines in order to mass produce those pirated DVDs. Many Hollywood people, unlike the clueless RIAA crowd, know that college kids in their dorms downloading movies on BitTorrent are NOT their enemies, but there is an impatient bunch who are eager to put them in the same category as those career criminals.
Downloading movies is not the same as downloading music -- whereas somebody could download thousands of songs, but it is technically much more difficult to download "thousands" of movies. I know some college kids have time to kill, but come on, not that much time. Now let's do some calculation. Let's say some guy downloads movies illegally every day and gets caught by the "Download Police", what should his punishment be? I say he owes Hollywood no more than $17.99 a month for the duration of his "criminal downloading career", because that's how much Netflix charges per month for unlimited DVD movie rentals.
Sun and Fun
My favorite quote:
For values of "adept" == "know how to click the 'backup' button on DVD Shrink"
Concrete Shoes!
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
It might be worth checking to see if global warming has slowed, because all these salty-seadog pirates may be having a positive effect:
Pastafarians dress like pirates
The Flying Spaghetti Monster would appear like a mysterious black cloud to a short sighted (or week minded) movie mogul.
Someone had better check whether movie piracy is worse on Fridays (a religious holiday for Church of the FSM followers).
boakes.org
welcometothescene.com - watch but dont take it to be accurate.
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
Because the organized groups of criminals are the Hollywood moguls and they have the lawyers.
Seastead this.
Maybe this would be a good thing. Perhaps they could use the open source software model. Much open source software is free, and therefore, non profitable, yet tends to produce better, less buggy software. Maybe if the entertainment industry was the same way, hollywood would start making quality films as the only ones wanting to create movies would be those passionate about making a good film.
Just my two cents though.
My sig beat up your sig.
It's funny the summaries title mentions King Kong. I've had a copy (VHS) on order with Amazon for a couple months now. I want to get it for my father, the problem is it doesn't seem to be in stock. I can get bilked by the "used" sellers or eBay. But I want a new copy from Amazon (so I can add a few dollars and get free shipping). They even lowered the price of the item while it's been out of stock, but I have yet to find out when more will be in.
Does the MPAA have anyone to blame but themselves when people pirate movies they can't, in fact, buy in stores?
Disney is always doing the "this is the last time it will be available for awhile" marketting stunt to create a buying frenzy with their classic films, then try to figure out how to create sales the rest of the year, when they could just let things be steady year long.
I want to get Sin City on DVD, but the one they released has way too small a list of extras. I fully expect a "deluxe" edition to appear (like with Pulp Fiction). Result? I'm not buying anything.
Because China has nuclear weapons and laughs in their faces.
"No studio is going to finance a film if the point is reached where their possible profit margin goes straight into criminals' pockets."
Given the fraudulent bookkeeping practices used in Hollywood, it seems like studios are simply concerned about which criminal gets to pocket the profits.
Or in the immortal words from "The Princess Bride"
"You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen..."
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Who knows what evil lurks in the friends of Hank Marvin? I sure don't.
--
make install -not war
"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? "
"most of the Chinese factory owners I've met are small, quiet men whom I could easily take in a fistfight"
You mean the Jackie Chan & Bruce Lee types?
If Microsoft was mass, stupidity would be gravity.
Look, it was a joke. I was just whoring for the +5 to feel good about myself.
As for the organized crime type of pirated being small guys, I imagine they'd use a a gun.
Stupid like a fox!
They are being sued, because they are involved in distributing material the companies have copyright for, this infringing the copyright. Am I right or am I right? Why is this so difficult to understand? Or are you still just trying to justify it's ok to distribute copyrighted material because it's fairly easy?
I'm guessing you're American, so it's an understandable mistake, but Asia is *not* a country. When your president calls Africa a country, I can understand why you're confused. Get an atlas.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will! - Antonio Gramsci.
.....modded FUNNY!
"Imagine law enforcement officers roaming the streets and ripping counterfeited t-shirts off materialistic girls."
Yeah i can imagine that, whats your point?
pr0n: now ive got your attention click here
Movie pirates could always wait until the commercial DVD is released, and make rips / copies / etc from that. In fact, a while back they announced that Hollywood studios were considering releasing the movie and the DVD at the same time. if that happens, there will be no studio leak neccessary to get a "release-day rip".
Even if that doesn't happen, though, people can always wait until the DVD is out commercially or even at the local Blockbuster and make rips there. Why the rush? Personally I would rather buy the DVD, but I know that a lot of people prefer rips and downloads and copies - and there is absolutely nothing that the studios can do to stop them from doing these things, except try and widen the quality gap between the fakes and rips and their commercial DVD products.(Which will be difficult, but I don't think there is any other way, other than becoming a loss-leader, which in the MPAA's case won't be very helpful).
Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
It's to put the fear of God into the end-user that downloads something. Yes yes...they're trying to go after the uploaders, even though by using Bittorrent you do become an uploader while you're downloading (at least you should...you fricken leeches you).
They want this gone. Many tactics in making it "gone". 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".
This hopefully (to the MPAA/RIAA) puts fear into people to not even go there. Try to cut off demand. Much like the idiotic attempt with the "war on drugs" with throwing some kid that smokes a joint into jail.
That's why they're going after bittorrent and everything else that's popular out there in terms of file sharing.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
If you do business in China, you have to make friends with the law, and the local triads. As part of the service of allowing you to do business, they will take care of any problems from outsiders, which often includes protecting local factory owners from interfering Beijing bureaucrats. (For enforcing labour and health laws, for instance.) Foreigners picking fistfights would end up beaten up and deported, or perhaps just in an unmarked grave. Don't try to take any of these quiet factory owners to court for breaking a contract, often foreigners (or Hongkongers) who do this find themselves jailed on trumped up charges instead.
>And if a cop is writing you a ticket and some lady dials 911 because her ex-husband is busting down her door, who's gonna be there to respond for her?
>
>http://smith-wesson.com/
[snip, lots of gun sites]
>
>What makes you think a woman can't respond for herself?
Did you know that a gun purchased to protect the household is THIRTY-SEVEN (37) times more likely to be used against someone in the household than against an intruder.
Is Peter Jackson having a laugh?
Lets get one thing straight - the crappy handicamed, pre-screen divx that gets sent over the internet, is just that crappy. The sound is bad. The visuals are bad, and the audience noise doesn't add to the experience.
If someone wants to see the movie so badly as to download that version of the movie you know one thing - your marketing team are doing they're jobs and the hype is working. That person will also be first in line at the cinema, and you get to complain about all the free publicity you are getting and get more free publicity in the process. If anyone downloads that version and decides not to give you any money thats because your movie , in their opinion, is bad.
Secondly... since when did movies in Hollywood start making money? I thought the whole point was that, at best, they broke even and therefore nobody has to pay any tax? The reason so many of these blockbusters are getting bigger and bigger budgets is because its much easier to claim that you didn't make $150m dollars from a film than £20 dollars. Thats why they always declare the weekend gross, not net. Hell, we should all be celebrating the ammount of money these guys should be paying in corportation tax.
We all know that the real criminals and pirates are the studios, thats why they're so rich. Let he who has no sin, cast the first stone. Ie don't sue your customers - asshat.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
"The latter even implies piracy gives terrorists more money than drug sales!"
Which doesn't make sense.
They're claiming that by releasing these movies to BT for "free", that terrorist groups are making money.
How does that work?
It seems they "allege" a lot of things, but never actually explain them. Which makes me think most of what they're saying is BS.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"It is not because no one sees the truth that it becomes a mistake" (Mahatma Gandhi)
Since you're not referencing, should we assume that your source is so unreliable and based on redefining terms like 'household' and 'intruder' that you're embarrased to post it, or just that you're full of shit?
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Trouble is, the RIAA can't get the IP address of the downloaders so the whole thing is working out wrong.
No sig today...
Intelligence shows that Osama Bin Laden is behind a lot of movie pirating. He ships them to China hidden in crates of opium. As a result the U.S. will soon invade Australia.
On the other hand, crime syndicates targeting the movie indutrie is good for the nation because criminals end up paying some tax when the launder the money through frontend businesses and from the movie industrie ZILCH.
In Portugal the state actually pays loads of money in the name of culture and all our producers do is waste the tax money, these were the ones that should go to jail.
Jorge
From the article:
>>"If we can't build businesses around ideas, and feel comfortable that we have the right to those ideas, then our entire business is threatened."
I have an idea. Build a business around a real product, not some ethereal thing. I do not practice nor condone piracy in any way, but I do not feel any pity for those fat cats trying to make billions of dollars out of intangible, non-quantifiable concepts such as the (so called) Intellectual Property.
From the article:
>>"Piracy has the very real potential of tipping movies into becoming an unprofitable industry [...] If that happens, they will stop being made,"
So, if the Studios (tm) will not make an insane amount of profit from their lackluster, unoriginal products, they will stop financing them? Hum, I wonder if that will be really all that bad.
Sure, apart from the collapse of an entire industry dependant on the strictly controlled production and distribution of movies (which is not A Good Thing to begin with), will it even matter all that much? Even that industry, like many others before it, will just need to adapt to survive, as I am sure it will. If "Hollywood" stops making movies, the world will *not* end. Perhaps films will go back to offer a bit more culture in them; maybe "entertainment" will be produced by others more capable; maybe movie theaters will turn into something else, just as they once changed from opera houses, vaudeville theaters, etc.
The point is that the world will move on, and people will find something else to do.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
For the same reason that dogs lick their bollocks...because they can.
No but, yeah but, no but...
From the article: Overall film industry revenue was $84 BILLION. DVD sales accounted for approximately 66% of this; the 'barely profitable' box office take was the other 34% (i.e. around $30 BILLION).
Damn, I wish I could run a business that was so barely profitable.
The revenue 'lost' due to piracy is estimated to be $3 billion. Admittedly, a large number, but honestly this is 3.5% of the overall market by the figures in the article.
Do they really need to get so wound up over it all? I feel really sorry for them....
Only in North America and Europe are people prosecuted for file copying.
Here we are mostly honest, and most of us pay full price. I view file-sharing as an eccentric hobby.
Outside of this realm, the rest of the world would find the concept of paying full price INCONCEiVABLE.
Buying an American movie DVD, music CDROM, or software program, at full price would be UNTHINKABLE.
It is just not done. Cheap copies are available at every convience store.
It is the counterfeits which are sold in NorthAm and Europe that are upsetting the various industries so much.
Also, the factories that produce these counterfeits are not acting illegaly in their own country. At least not very illegaly.
In the old days, counterfeits were difficult to make. Now the technology to manufacture exact duplicates, including the box art, is readily accessable.
The solution to the problem is to produce an object that can not be copied.
How about a grown peice of diamond whose molecular structure contains giga-bytes of encrypted data, which contains one movie.
"Why are they suing bitorrent users then?"
Because they are distributing material that they have no right to distribute?
I will stop downloading movies for nothing when you give me the opportunity to purchase for home use a legitimate copy of them the moment that they are ready for release.
In case I am not making myself clear, when you release Shazbang Kerblooey IV on cinema in the USA, I will not wait six to twelve months for a DVD release in my region. Once that film is ready to watch, I will watch it. If you don't make money supplying to that demand, you have no one to blame but yourselves.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
hollywood's not making much worth watching, and they certainly aren't making anything worth forty bucks.
if they can't make better movies, perhaps they need to drop the prices so people go more often.
The article talks about piracy as a business -- this tells me that people are willing to pay _something_ to see the movie ... just not what hollywood wants to charge.
imho they're way past the hump of the profit curve and way into diminished sales...
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
I didn't read the article, nor the poster's blurb, just the story title, but my money is on King-Kong any day.
"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
Given that most of what happens to be out there over the past few years is crap would it be such a loss?
Until Hollywood gives us movies that we're willing to pay for I say let them starve.
Funny stuff, considering various DeCSS utilities have been available for what now, over half a decade?
I always sort of cringe when I see a writer for a major publication parade his or her unsavvyness around. It really puts into question just how much they understand the issue--and indeed, the only counter-perspective to Hollywood's given is one that says that copy protection standards 'don't address new ways users watch content,' which, though true and relevant, is by far not the strongest argument against copy protection that users can legitimately come up with.
The solution is very simple. Just make movies cheaper. If an original copy can be bought for about the same price as a bootleg version, nobody will buy the bootleg. Especially when the original version also contains a nice booklet etc.
:-) And I don't get paid millions...
Why do movies and music have to be that expensive? I think the main reason for this is, that the industry is used to paying very big salaries to the people involved. Why do actors and musicians get paid millions for a single movie/record? It's just a job, just like mine. I think I even work harder than most actors
If they cut down on salaries they produce movies a lot cheaper and then also sell it cheaper.
My aunt used to fly all over the place. She'd pick up Reebok, Nike, etc. for less than 1/3rd the price. Same exact shoe, but were sold by people who worked in the factories. Supposedly they were rejects that the factory workers took, but everything she bought me was 100%
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
It's too bad the entertainment industries are so paranoid about file sharing when they could be using it to make money, and become more well-known. http://www.925m.com/archives/2005/08/sponsoring_p2 p.html
If they'd just be creative and innovate a little, they could generate and control a brand new industry.
Aren't all warez groups technically "organized crime" organizations? They're groups whose main objectives are illegal (copyright-infringing, whatever).
rooooar
That's exactly my point.
Let's face it - if the feds are having a hard time with organized crime, the RIAA has to find other just as effective means of trying to stop online piracy.
In essence, its easier.
True but then people would actually have to take responsibility for themselvs. I buy dvds because they are cheap and fun to watch. I am way too busy to go through the bullshit it takes to pirate movies and am too busy online to waste time downloading pirate copys. Its just better and faster to actually buy the things anyway. I think the real problem is that MOST(not all) people who pirate get a sense of self worth from "getting the movie before anyone else" or their superior "hacking ability". Its about bragging rights. I personally would rather recieve praise and acceptance though the thing i do in the real world to help others, how I treat my family and my cooking. than being the coolest hack nug brother on the net. I just ppicture the IM's now DarkCyPHeR=-: Dude, I just got the new king kimg before it even came out in the theatre. Dude, I ROCK! (subtext) I want others to envy me so i can feel superior. (subconcious) I havnt been laid in a year and I have never seen what a woman looks llike achiveing climax, Do something quick to satisfy starving ego.
of course, there's also the fact that BitTorrent users are simply easier targets. the real threat - the real pirates - know what they're doing is both wrong and illegal, and - more importantly - know people are after them; they're much more adept at hiding their operations.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
Hollywood reported global revenue of $84 billion in 2004, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accounting firm. With most theatrical releases amounting to little more than an unprofitable, expensive form of marketing, DVD's have become Hollywood's lifeblood: together with videos, they kick in $55.6 billion, or about two-thirds of the industry's annual haul, with box-office receipts making up most of the rest.
I'm really surprised (after reading that) that Hollywood doesn't have a problem with Video Rental, I mean anyone who plunks a 5 dollar bill on the counter can walk away with any movie and watch it. Sure the industry gets the initial $$$ from the sale of the DVD but if 50 people rent that DVD, now Hollywood has taken a huge loss. (49 potential DVD sales).
Asked and answered amny times.
Because it's easy money. They don't have the resources to challenge a lawsuit. Since movie and music sales are down anyway, they need to keep the revenue stream flowing. Who says they haven't learned to adopt new "business" models?
What?
In the US copyright infringing is NOT stealing. The US Supreme Court in DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) held that infringing copyright and theft are NOT analogous.
The court reasoned that when you steal from someone you're depriving them of the object and their rights associated with the object. E.g., if I steal your car, you're unable to use your car, sell your car, lease out your car, etc.
However, if I download a song, the band and the label can still use, sell, and lease the song. In other words, the only right my infringement impacts is the right of a limited monopoly as guaranteed by the US Constitution and copyright law.
That does NOT mean that infringing is legal. Of course it's illegal to infringe copyrights, but merely because it's illegal does not make it theft. Rape illegal, but it's not considered theft. Murder is illegal, but it's not considered theft. Arson is illegal but it's not considered theft.
But of course the content industries LOVE to call it theft, stealing, and piracy. Those terms are simply more ominous and frightening than infringing. They are trying to turn this into an emotion issue sheep like you can understand. And you can continue being a sheep and believe the RIAA and the MPAA's lies and corruption of our language and call infringement theft, but you'll still be wrong.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I had a friend that used to work at Universal Pictures, and he told me that to get The Grinch made, they basically gave Jim Carrey all of the profit from the film, but the studio kept all of the merchandising profits. So the studio can claim that they made no money on the Box Office of Grinch, but they made tens of millions on toys, clothes, etc... and even more on the DVD sales.
Art ends the moment something is replicated and sold. It becomes business then.
But we disagree on a much larger thing. That is, you somehow feel because you are "arty" you have some kind of right to make your own rules or control whether others turn their art into a business.
I understand, you would never, ever charge for your art. I appreciate that. I think that is great. However, why do you feel this has any bearing on whether others do?
And most of all, why do you say in the final paragraph that you hold the only valid opinion on the matter?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Why do we keep maintaining and extending copyright law, then?
Imagine if we eliminated it. We'd lose less than 1% of our economy.
Imagine for a moment if we reduced it to five years. Five years would be enough for Hollywood to keep putting out movies, in both theaters and DVDs. It would be enough that $POPARTIST of the day (and the record company that owns him) could keep selling CDs. Magazines and books would still be made. We would lose less than that 0.7%. And think what we would gain! The ability to freely and openly copy, exchange, and build upon anything produced in the 20th century.
I would bet that the losses in the entertainment industry would more than be made up by the gains in the telecommunications industry, as people demanded more and faster broadband, and the storage industry, as people bought TB arrays to store things.
I forget which stand-up comic said this first: "The reason that more people protest fur than leather is because it's safer to harass rich old ladies than motorcycle gangs."
Likewise, it's a whole lot easier to sure Bittorrent users, than to take on the mob.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's a pity they've got their heads up their collective asses. I'd be happy to pay for on-line content if they'd provide a reasonable service. You'd think iTunes would have taught them a lesson.
I'd think they'd learned from Betamax. Movie studios were so afraid video cassettes would rob studios because people would be able to record movies yet tape sales became hugh profit makers. Seems what they are afraid of is new technology that gives movie watchers choices of what to watch when. There are some though who get it, like Mark Cuban the owner of the Dallas Mavericks. He first made a fortune from the internet so he gets it. Now he's pushing HDTV and is part owner of HDNet. He's also owner of Landmark Theatres and is working on delivering movies to theatres through broadband which eliminates shipping of film, reducing costs.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Many if not all yellow pages include a section for "escorts". And outside of Holland, Germany, and Nevada I don't know any places where that's legal. So why not sue them for enabling people to solicit?
Excorts are legal. What's illegal is sex for pay so as long as there isn't sex involved it's legal.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"Why are they suing bitorrent users then?"
Well, because they're still downloading\stealing a product for which they aren't paying for.
A young shoplifter who steals the odd DVD from a store isn't a major threat to the business but that doesn't mean they're not going to call the police and prosecute. I worked for a store once that prosecuted any shoplifter whether they stole goods worth 99p or £99.
If anyone steals from a company they have every right to sue, both legally and morally. Music and films are available for cheap legal download these days. There's no excuse for stealing them now, except to get "something for nothing". It's not about free speech or any of that crap. Nor has it anything to do with the fact that "if hollywood made better movies we wouldn't steal them". More nonsense. Sue the lot of them
And rightly so.
Especially if it's the son of Senator Roark! Or maybe they'd just let Kevin deal with it...
Hoards of unemployed Hollywood dealmakers, actors and actresses wandering the streets aimlessly in their Gucci outfits. Oh, the masses.
1. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
This merits repeating. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
Admittedly, they are "industry" organizations, but this also implies that they represent industry interests, which are not always the same as artists' interests. In both cases, you've got lawyers and legal staffers, who serve the interests of distribution companies, financiers, studios, you get the idea.
2. The MPAA and RIAA exist in large measure to perpetuate and protect obsolete business models. It's partially driven (obscured?) by goals of being able to exact revenue from each viewing, each session, each "show". In their minds, this was the way it's supposed to work. I'd like to think they're bright enough to realize they can't keep doing business in quite the same way, but they can't even see which way they are going. It isn't only the technology they don't understand, but those "suits" don't understand the nature of offering the sort of entertainment that makes audiences want to see more, but not necessarily more of the same.
3. ...lest we forget, the entertainment industry moved to California first to dodge their creditors in the east, secondly to avoid paying tax debts, but also to avoid paying royalties to Thomas Edison. Edison and company invented the production and post-production equipment on which the American film and sound recording industries modified to their own specifications.
Of course the less polite version alleges that they ripped off Edison outright. ...can't be as morally reprehensible as copyright infringement, right?
State side the movie industry is losing money because of overpaid actors/actresses and releasing bad movies. Worldwide they are losing money because counterfit DVD's are rampant outside the USA. They lose far more money each year from fake DVD sales than they do from downloaders. Do they realize how long it takes the average joe to download a movie over BT or god forbid P2P. And how many times do you think average joe will keep trying to do that when he starts to watch said movie and discovers how craptastic the copy is. The MPAA, RIAA & respective studios are all clueless.
Don't ya hate it when the correct spelling of your favorite screen name is taken?
Pirating making movies unprofitable?
Crap. I guess we'll never get to see the next remake of "Brewster's Millions" or the movie versions of "underdog" or Go Go Gophers"...
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
It's still a diabolical liberty they're taking though. I can live with telly adverts and flashing banners on web sites but to be forced to watch this trailer over and over again each time seems a bit of a pain.
Especially when it's a movie you already bought and paid for. Then again theatres do the same thing. When I pay to see a movie I don't expect nor do I want to sit through 15 to 20 minutes of ads before the movie starts.
FalconShould there be a Law?
they use those awful DVD cases with the two clips that hold it closed.
Myself, I like the those clips but I don't see them much. I've got hundreds of dvds with all of them in their cases but I only have two cases that have them.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The only reason the movie industry doesn't go after organized crime is they are already in bed with them. They got an offer they couldn't refuse.
...but does anyone else find it interesting that businessmen are talking about vigorously protecting THEIR intellectual property in reference to a remake of a B&W film classic and a screenplay based on J.K. Rowling's blockbuster novel?
Seems like the most valuable "intellectual property" in Hollywood is usually licensed from other people.
To the guy who says i stole his movie. I'd say F$ck him! I wouldn't buy your shittie movie anyway. I downloaded your shittie movie to see if it was shittie. And guess what, it was shittie, and not worth my money. So go F*&k yourself, and try being a little more creative in the future and make a movie I would buy. Movies I've bought lately, after downloading and finding they were worth my money: Anchorman, DodgeBall, Day After Tomorrow, Donnie Darko, Royal Tenenbaums, Old School, War of The Worlds (it's ok), Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind, Big fish, and a few others for the ladies.
w00t
These people get huge salaries and bonuses to be creative. Endless nonsense remakes of stupid television shows and moldy old classic movies is not being creative.
You haven't been paying much attention to movies over the last several decades, have you?
Gone With the Wind was based on an existing novel. The Ten Commandments was almost literally derived from another well-known best-seller. Walt Disney's animated movies are almost completly unoriginal in their original premises. And the vast majority of the now-classic musicals from the old days -- Singin' in the Rain, West Side Story, The Sound of Music -- are all just big-stage adaptations of existing small-stage musicals from Broadway. This is just a guess, but Shakespeare has probably earned as much money on screen in just the last century as he ever did over the centuries on stage.
Hollywood has made a big career ever since Day 1 of taking existing stories and telling them on screen -- but bigger, more elaborately, more lavishly and colorfully and musically than they could ever be done in a book or on a stage.
Now, whether or not these adaptations are better than the originals is a matter of opinion. But don't delude yourself into thinking that the current rage in making movies from older TV shows and films is anything new.
Besides, plenty of the biggest successes over recent years have been original stories -- Star Wars, Titanic, E.T., and Jaws are all in the top ten moneymakers when adjusted for inflation, and each one was 100% original writing.
All the fruits of all human endeavour belong to all humanity. The songs you write, the films you make, the programs you write, the inventions you invent, the clever little logos you create -- they are all ours and you can't take any of them off us. And if you don't like that, I suggest you stop having ideas.
BS! My ideas are my own, though someone else may of had similar ideas. Giving someone the right copyright or patent something for (key phrase, which I'll come back to later) a limited tyme benefits the person and society. Not everyone will work on something unless they benefit from it and with many people that means making money. Many things won't exist if the creator doesn't benefit in some way, and because most people have to eat, and many have to provide a roof over their family's heads, if they can't make money or at least try to then they won't bother with creation. Now back to the key phrase, "limited tyme". I'd like to see copyright and patent terms go back to the 14 years with a one 14 year term extension Thomas Jefferson came up with. If you can't profit on something within 28 years then you're doing something wrong or it's not much of a benefit. By having longer terms it means those who make it, ie make a lot of money or some such, doesn't need to create as much to keep the money coming in, therefore long term limits discourage the creative process which is exactly what copryrights and patents are supposed to encourage.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The problem is that the law allows them, and they threaten to, sue for millions and millions of dollars for copyrighted works. I belive the statutory limit is $250,000 per incident, with a single song counting as an incident.
Now, we have to weigh that punishment against what is actually happening. Normally, we determine the severity of a punishment based off of the harm caused by a crime. Shoplifting has a pretty minor punishment given that it is pretty minor harm, a store loses the valuse of whatever good you stole. Assault with a deadly weapon carries quite a severe punishment since the harm can include perminant physical disability.
So where does copyright infringement fall? Well somewhere inbetween speeding and shoplifting probably. Unlike shoplifting, there's no real loss. When you copy data, the owner does not lose their copy, they still have it and it is in every way as good as it was. With shoplifting, they actually lose the item you took, and thus the money they used to purchase that item.
In copyright infringement there is a potential of future loss, in the form of a lost sale. A person that chooses to copy something may choose to use that copy, rather than go buy one. However that is by no means certian. Some people actually download music and movies to find things they like, then go buy them (yes, really). Some are just collectors, they get any and everything they can, regardless of if they actually intend to use it. Others download more than they can ro would afford, so a person may download 10 movies, but would only purchase 1 of those 10 were they not able to copy them.
So clearly we cannot put harm on the same level as shoplifting. That being the case it seems totally stupid to allow for such high levels of damages. The only reason seems to be the exact one used, so they can force your hand. They force a settlement on you, guilty or not, since the prospect of going to court is simply too scary. You stand to lose too much to possibly defend yourself, you simply have to accept their terms.
Now given the totally hap-hazard methods they use, I'd be willing to bet they've gone after more than one innocent person. Remember: They pay a company, who has an economic incentive to turn over people, to look for file sharers, it's not law enforcement. These people get a list of files, which may or may not be from the right host (many P2P clients, Kazaa in particular isn't very good at that) that may or may not actually be the files they claim to be (they don't check), that may or may not be from the person who owns the line (lots of people have open WAPs) and then use that information to go after people. Talk about shaky.
What's more, it seems to be illegal. In the US we not only have a concept of the punishment must fit the crime, we wrote it in to the highest law in the land. The constution states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." I'm sorry, but if $250,000 per song that you may or may not have even bought had you not been able to download it isn't excessive I don't know what is.
THAT is the reason so many of us are outraged. Copyright infringement is a very minor crime, very minor. Indeed Harvard and UNC did a study that found that P2P file sharing had no effect on CD sales. More to the point, it's an indication that media companies need to update their business models, a large part of the downlaoding alure isn't htat it's free, it's that it's fast and convenient. You get things delivered right to your computer, you don't have to go to the store and there's virtually no limits to what you can get. iTunes is proof that a pay version of that can work, and it's extremely limited at this point compared to what people want.
Given the extremely minor nature of the crime, the fact that a large part of the reason it is so widespread is the refusal of the media companies to update an outdated business model, and the seemingly illegal levels of the fines, I find it perfectly reasonable to be outraged by the lawsuits.
When someone else takes a banana I harvested, I no longer have that banana. When I tell someone else an idea I had, I still have a perfect copy of that idea in my head. That is an important difference: knowledge can be shared without being diminished by the act of sharing. Similarly, if you light a candle from the flame of mine, my room does not get darker.
But if you're forced to share tha tidea with all then your ability to benefit by said idea is deminished. I guess unlike you I want to be able to profit from my ideas. Guess countries like China and cuba would take you in, personally I love freedom which includes the freedom to reap benefits from my ideas.
If you want to have ideas and keep them to yourself, that's just fine and dandy. But I do believe that the instant you share an idea with even one other person, you should share it with everyone.
Again communism. Didn't you know it failed? As far as coprrights, patents, and sharing in order to copyright or patent something you have to share it as well. Something can't be copyrighted or patented without it being disclosed.
I believe that every person has the right to know every true fact.
Nobody but me has the right to my own personal information! If you don't feel like this then are you giving away your info to any and all including id theives? Every penny I spend to clean up myself when someone has messed up what's mine means I have less to spend on other things.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What's all this, then? Using restricted words without a licence, are we? Right! Come along, there's a good chap. We'll let you out sometime after 2012, don't you worry.
Yeap, /. did a story on this,
Businesses To Be Censored on Use of Olympics
FalconShould there be a Law?
Then the Zionists got in the game by association.
Then somewhere way down the line, George Lucas started making enough money to produce his films independently of the messed up system. Star Wars could have been so, so, so cool if they hadn't been made so poorly.
Though, I did like the last one quite a lot. It wasn't fantastic, but it did pull the weiner out of the fire. In any case, it's hard to make a film which shines a light on corrupt government these days. The three most recent films from 'Phantom' to 'Revenge' deserve a tip of the hat for that alone.
I look forward to the 'Firefly' film. (Another universe with an oppressive empirical authority at the top of the food chain.)
-FL
You are violating copyright not because somebody else "owns" it, otherwise we would be in trouble for legally (?) downloading copyrighted stuff all the time. The reason it is copyright infringement is because no permission was given by the holder to distribute whatever work (in this case, MPAA movies) is being distributed.
This is bullshit pure and simple. Stealing is not constituted simply by "not paying for it" not only because the law says there is more to constitute theft, but also because it it was, who knows how many things you would automatically outlaw. As for it being similar to shoplifting - I say nay. There are fundimental differences that both common sense and law show as different that for propoganda purposes the industries choose to ignore. (BTW, what exactly are you claiming to be "stoeln" anyways?)
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
I am having a field day with this topic!
I will not accept it because it is not true. The truth is downloading copyrighted material is legal if you have permission from the copyright holder, dmusic.com is a good example of this. It is copyright infringement if you download/copy it in cerain ways without permission from the copyright holder. STRIKE 1!
Unless of course the person has a computer that for some reason is incompatable with the "legal" downloading services, which might be uncommon to some, but does happen
Nice troll.
WhUnlike taking money out of somebody's bank account, you are doing nothing by copying a copyrighted file. What you do is potentially reduce the ammount they make, you do not take away from the money they have. Even that does not constitute theft, although some methods of reducing potential income are illegal(copyright infrignement), and some (competition) are not. That plus the law considers copying copyrighted workas without permission as *gasp!* copyright infringement, and that the crimes of copyright infringement and theft ae not the same.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
I think it is funny the MPAA is only concerned about the large family-type films being distributed. Not too often do you here them sticking up for our poor hard working porn-stars work being stolen. I may be wrong but I haven't read once about the MPAA busting someone on BT for stealing the latest copy of "insert new porn movie here" "Even a broken clock is right twice a day"
Infact i cannot think of a single good remake off the top of my head.
I can, the remake of "Mighty Joe Young". And though I didn't see the original "The Italian Job" I liked the remake. Those are just two off the top of my head. I'd also like to see "The Mechanic" in a remake, oh I see one's scheduled for 2007.
FalconShould there be a Law?
. To that end, Hollywood thinks that the time has come to bring down the curtain on film piracy. "I always thought that piracy connotes something glamorous," Mr. Meyer said. "Let's call it what it is: theft. I think it's just like shoplifting."
Except if I leave the store with a banana the store is without 1 banana.
If I lift a DVD from blockbuster I could see your point, you could call that theft.
Digital Duplication in and of itself is not theft. It can be Copyright Infringement, but it can also be Fair Use.
I love Peter Jackson for his work on LOTR. I might even like this King Kong (despite Jack Black). But, More importantly, I love him for having the balls to say this.
"I don't believe piracy can be easily beaten; fighting fire with fire by releasing movies on DVD at the same time as cinemas is probably where the industry is heading in the next few years," said Mr. Jackson, the director. "Electronic delivery directly into both cinemas and people's homes will not necessarily beat pirates, but it will mean studios are at least on a similar playing field."
Here,Here. I've said it before. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160059&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&tid=97&mode=thread&cid=13398179
And I say it again. That makes two movers & shakers movin & shaking in our direction. We always complained during the napster days the reason was there was no other legal way. Some people in hollywood heard us. Now there are a hundred ways to get your music electronically.
Films should be the same, If you offer me the choice of a DVD, Theatre and Streaming, (fsck PPV/MOD) I might buy 2. If you only offer Theatre, I probably won't buy until the DVD hits the bargain bin, if I remember and I wanted to see it.
Personally I'd love to see it on my home theatre first & if I liked it, take the gang (Friends/Family) to the theatre. Simultaneous Distribution will save the industry. DVD is the product. Charge more for DVD (has to contain more than just the film.) Next in cost is tickets and then streaming as lowest, no frills, no extras.
Most Piracy I have encountered, stems from the backlash at having to waste gobs of money on terribly unfunny/unoriginal/boring cinema. If it has been downloaded, and it sucks, it can be easily deleted without the expense one incurs by walking out of Batman and Robin 10 minutes in. But if it is a good movie, say like Batman Begins, it might warrant a trip to the local cinema. Some movies require the bigscreen. King Kong probably will.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
And on the other side, the astonishing thing to me about a post like this is that you've bought the *AA's underlying premise that culture is property. It's so wildly absurd in the context of human evolution. Culture is how a society communicates. Saying that a society should have to pay royalties for instances of its culture is as absurd on the macro level as it would be on the micro level to insist that you pay royalties to some corporation everytime you speak a word, because they've bought the rights to the English language. Think about it.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
" (although I still pay to go and watch movies which are good - if I download one and it sucks, I don't pay to go and see it)"
Just because a movie 'sucks' doesn't give you the right to make a copy of it. 'Sucks' is subjective.
"but I think it's pushing it to say that I've stolen an asset."
OTOH, if you went and paid to see a movie and you didn't like it, that is revenue the studio and theater didn't get. Hence it is lost.
"
Revenues from movies are dropping because the studios are rarely coming out with anything original."
Contrary to what the Slashdot elite make think there is a demand for those movies.
really, it's the experience that most people complaign about. Since the majority of people go to a movie they want to see.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The wildest thing about this statement is that it buys the *AAs' underlying premise completely, namely that culture is a commodity. It's an absurd notion when seen within the context of human development.
Culture is how a society communicates. Demanding that we as a society should pay royalties for the right to have a culture is as weird and unnatural on the macro level as it is on the micro-level to insist that you pay royalties for speaking English because some corporation owns the rights.
When an individual is deprived of language it is called aphasia and is considered a disease. If a society is deprived of its language, culture, might that also not be a variety of disease?
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Unfortunately there are plenty of corporations that will take your suggestion to stop having ideas at heart. Why bother thinking up something new if you can't get paid for it?
Lord knows, the studios need to reduce costs.
AFAIK, the studio takes 90% of the ticket. The theatre gets the rest.
Ever wonder why popcorn is $4?
Not me, I know why the concession stand prices are high, that's where theatres make their money. They break even on ticket sales.
FalconShould there be a Law?
much ado about nothing. Reminds me of the article I saw after SW:Sith movie came out about the MILLIONS LOST because bootleg DVD's were found all over mexico! I got news for 'em - most of Mexico doesn't have theaters that would get the movie when the consumer wants to see it HELLO! Which means they didn't lose anything because they would have never made the money there in the first place. I know I've seen movies in mexico most of the country with theatres get them long long after everybody else. So supply-demand nothing more, nothing less. So whenever these suits start throwing $$ figures around its all smoke and mirror speculation or flat out lies as in the star wars case.