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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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!"
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.
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
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.
"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? "
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.
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)
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. ~
"Why are they suing bitorrent users then?"
Because they are distributing material that they have no right to distribute?
I agree, and I believe releasing to DVD and cinema simultaneously would completely destroy cinema, the question is, does anyone care if cinema is destroyed, really?
The flip side: I'm sure everyone knows someone who has a movie rental account and are doing the 'Rent, Rip and Return'. We have a huge choice of online rental sites in the UK and many people have production lines of movies which they'll probably never watch, with all the trailer crap taken out. The publishers will never allow that level of piracy to take place until they have a watertight copy protection mechanism (which will never happen).
No jury in their right mind would convict someone who downloads Britney Spears and 50 Cents.
- These characters were randomly selected.
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.
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
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.
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?
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?