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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am a musician. I play an instrument, and I take great enjoyment in my creations; I love to share them with others. I take pride in my hobby, and it's very disrespectful for you to call it "wankery." Yes, I'm an actual musician. Nobody pays me, but that doesn't mean I'm not a real musician. Look up the word in a dictionary, you insensitive clod.
I am deeply and personally motivated to make music. Furthermore, I don't believe in demanding money. Sure, I will accept money sometimes or even try to get it if I feel like I can, but that's not the point. I'd rather share with everyone and not take away anyone's freedom. Their freedom to play and enjoy my music if they like it--their freedom to share it with their friends and family--their freedom to change it if they think they can make it better.
Music is not proprietary; you don't own it. You do it because it makes you feel good and it makes others feel good. When you give something to them, they'll surely give back, but that doesn't necessarily have to come down to a bottom line. You can't measure humanity in dollars.
I'm sick and tired of money-sucking suits weaseling their way through our legal system and culture, making art into something I wish it weren't--profitable. I'm tired of capitalist entities invading our privacy and stamping on our freedom to manage our data and systems in a way that seems right to us. I'm tired of yuppies like you trying to say that you know what's best for me and my vocation.
I don't own your computer, the electricity you paid to run it, the data you have stored on it, or any of the equipment or services you use to modify or transmit that data. I DON'T own the CD I sold you or the data that's on it. I DON'T own any of the ideas, concepts, or expressions that may arise from the data.
I love the art more than you do. You didn't spend hours on an instrument every day for years just because you loved the beautiful sounds you could make. You don't have the dream of making music, or the fulfillment of making that dream a reality. You don't like music enough to do that. You haven't put in the time and effort that I have, and until you do, you're going to have a difficult time of convincing me that you're entitled to that little opinion of yours.
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?
"Why are they suing bitorrent users then?"
Because they are distributing material that they have no right to distribute?