Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Scores First P2P Jury Conviction
An anonymous reader writes "The MPAA must be celebrating. According to the BitTorrent news site Slyck.com, the Department of Justice is proclaiming their first P2P criminal copyright conviction, against an Elite Torrents administrator. The press release notes, 'The jury was presented with evidence that Dove was an administrator of a small group of Elite Torrents members known as "Uploaders," who were responsible for supplying pirated content to the group. At sentencing, which is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2008, Dove faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.'"
Bunch of fucking crooks.
This was a release group, and altho they were releasing onto p2p, this is NOT the same thing as all those other cases where the **AA is demanding 3000$ tributes to ignore wrongdoings.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
10 years in prison? I realize that's a maximum, but the reality is he's done nothing that should be even closely considered to being a danger to society.
This hangup about defending our bullshit economy which truly only services the "haves" in the first place is being taken to extremes and I'm getting tired of it.
I say pirate everything, convince your friends, family, etc. Let's see what they do when EVERYONE is downloading their shit. Are they going to throw us all in jail? Then where will they be?
Fuckers.
No sig for you!!
Despite how bad it may sound, this is more or less not a big deal for the average person. It is like video game companies going after people who host ROMs of copyrighted games... Not that bad. Now if they won for a downloader or innocent uploader... That would be different.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
...to NOT name your group on a torrent site something that allows information about structure to be gleaned.
Sure, uploaders may be only uploading only legal content blah blah blah, but there's no reason to publicize your role in the organization unless you can sure as hell sheild yourself while these lawsuits are bounding about.
Even the mob knows to call people "freinds of ours", not money launderers, assasins, gun runners etc. Please don't flame me because this is "security through obscurity".... because sometimes it works i.e, I still don't know where angelina jolie lives. Well played angelina, you hot little baby collector.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Sadly, when you are pushing prerelease stuff, you cross a very firm line into illegal territory. There is no grey area. They *are* costing the studios money, and they *are* violating both the spirit and word of copyright law. The maximum possible sentence is definately overkill, but I can't really argue with the conviction itself.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Ten years? That could be fair if they show movies to the inmates sans FBI warnings. That way I don't think he would be losing any more of his life than the rest of us.
The Uploaders have doubtlessly noted that this never would have happened if they were using an encrypted darknet for initial distribution.
Quite possibly things may evolve to the point where you aren't allowed to join without proving your identity and uploading something illegally. Compare Russian Business Network, who do this for the same purpose: you won't betray the group if they have the dirt on you also.
Mix that with segmentation among darknets to prevent inevitable compromises from taking everything down and you're golden once you set up trusted peers between different subdarknets to diffuse data between them.
to death in goddamn desert.
HOW ?
corporate america. thats how, and why.
Read radical news here
You gotta love these people. They are trying to make it sound like P2P itself is criminal, or certainly criminal by association.
This piracy group merely chose P2P as a medium to transfer it's files.
That would be like government catching a bunch of whatchamacallit smugglers on bicycles and then announcing "the first bicycle whatchamacallit criminal conviction". Ummm, yeah right. What the hell does bicycles have to do it?
It's not surprising that piracy groups have chose P2P to transfer their files. It is most efficient transfer medium with the highest market share. It used to IRC DCC transfer, and then before that it was FTP. A long time before that, it was file transfers through BBS. Bootleg copies used to be made on cassette tapes as well. Did that mean cassette tapes were also inherently "evil" and predisposed towards piracy? I think not.
Sorry, I guess I just can't get over how completely full of shit some people are. We can argue about piracy and intellectual copyrights all day long. That's fine. Let's just not be intellectually dishonest doing it.
I've seen cases of murderers getting less than this.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
How do you prove that the people who downloaded whatever they downloaded would have paid for it if that was the only way they could get it?
Just because someone downloads something for "free" does not mean that they would have purchased that product if the only way to obtain it was from a store.
That is absolutely irrelevant. They have still violated the copyright owner's wishes for the movie/software/whatever.
to death in goddamn desert.
Wah? I don't.... Are you trolling or are you really that fucked up in the head?
corporate america
Uh.
thats how, and why.
you have a computer? Yeah, we know. Damn you, Dell! See what happens when you let anyone buy your products?! DAMN YOU!
I'm not even going to use my karma bonus. The parent just isn't worth it.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Obviously this brings out the deep conflicts within the geekoid community. On one hand we have a group of people doing something illegal (stupidly) and getting caught (obvious). On the other, this does not fit well with the everything-digital-should-be-free-now mindset.
My experience says that the folks that believe digital==free are going to win in about 30 years. At that point there will be few left in mainstream life that have not been downloading whatever they could get their grubby little hands on since childhood. It is also a fairly common view that a "creative work" is the same as clicking a few times with a mouse and nobody needs to get paid for clicking.
This view of "creative works" comes as part-and-parcel of a view that pretty much everything that could be culturally expressed has been done sometime in the recent past and therefore everything is a derivative of a previous expression. When most of your music consists of "samples", "mix tapes" and "mashups" this is an easy view to adopt and is pretty seductive. Hollywood and the major record companies outputting recycled pablum and new P.C. versions of older successes just encourages this view.
This probably means that in 30 years all media will be exactly that - recycled versions of past successful works. Creativity, true creativity, will be gone. Originality will be drowned at birth because it might be either offensive or unsuccessful and either is a sin in the new world.
The concept is that those who downloaded owe more than the purchase price because not only did they get the benefit of whatever they would have needed to buy, they did it illegally and we don't want them doing that again. It's called punitive damages.
Let the capitalist mind police snag the occasional foolhardy/stupid individual. It will make them think their tactics are actually effective. hahahahahahaha
Despite how bad it may sound, this is more or less not a big deal for the average person. It is like video game companies going after people who host ROMs of copyrighted games... Not that bad. Now if they won for a downloader or innocent uploader... That would be different.
No this is horribly bad. First, it is a basic travesty of justice. Prison time for P2P? Unless he was putting nuclear weapon designs on P2P, there is no reason for this. lets put people in jail for twenty years if they steal a loaf of bread. That's progressive thinking!
Second, the legal system loves basing later decisions on prior landmark cases. this has just told every judge for the next fifty years that criminal punishment id ok for civil infractions.
Third, the economy is in the dumps, and every peerson we imprision for piddly ass crap like this is costing taxpayers $$$. Ten years is not cheap. The people responsable should be dragged into the street and tarred and feathered for such frivilious use of taxpayer money.
Finally, bad laws erode respect for good laws. The more people become acoustom to breaking laws that are poorly written, the more acoustom they become to breaking laws in general.
Very bad ruling.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Sadly, when you are pushing prerelease stuff, you cross a very firm line into illegal territory. There is no grey area. They *are* costing the studios money,
I don't agree that distribution of pre-release content costs the studios any more than distribution of post-release content. The MAFIAA do not have a business plan that is significantly based on release of content. I.e. they do not use something like the "ransom" model where they charge money for the release of content rather than the distribution of content. Thus illegal distribution of pre-release content is not significantly any more costly to the MAFIAA than illegal distribution of post-release content.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Ah yes, the classic counter arguement. I was waiting for this.
Your arguement is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Prerelease stuff is entirely different to already released material. You are, in effect, committing a form of industrial espionage by releasing a product before its release date. The fact that they used p2p as the medium to distribute it does not suddenly make it a p2p arguement.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Could you come with me to the Ferrari dealer? Please? I'd like to convince them that since in no way am I ever going to actually purchase a Ferrari they shouldn't mind if I take one of their extras. It wouldn't be a lost sale, because with the gas mileage they get nobody in their right mind is going to buy one today anyway. I don't have the money, so they should just give me one.
Right?
I have seen the obscene scene on mah screen. First it was green, then tangerine, or I might have been foreseen a mean, lean pirating teen.
The concept is that those who downloaded owe more than the purchase price because not only did they get the benefit of whatever they would have needed to buy, they did it illegally and we don't want them doing that again. It's called punitive damages.
Say I write and record a song, and then it later turns out to contain a hook that was written by someone else years ago. Are punitive damages warranted in this case?
How does one distinguish between an uploader and a downloader? If someone seeds a torrent, they're an uploader. Yet, if someone downloads a torrent, and lets it seed for a while, are they an uploader? Can we distinguish uploader versus downloader with P2P? I don't think the distinction is clear enough, except in cases like this, where the person's purpose was explicitly to distribute pirated content. Overall though, i think the server, not the p2p is what brought him down. The seeding might be an issue as well as the group classification, but still, the server would be a hub for piracy.
One of my buddies, who was in Fastlight, got a year in the slammer for running one of the central ftps. 10 years is sorta overkill.
Are you kidding me? Your analogy is broken. What if I had some sort of duplication machine and went to the Ferrari dealer, pointed my machine at a Ferrari, made a copy and drove off? They lose nothing. There is no way I can afford one but if I can make a copy that costs them nothing where is the crime?
If you'd like to come over with your car-duplicating equipment and make an exact copy of my Ferrari without damaging it, you're welcome to do so.
:-)
My truck is like a series of tubes.
Comparing digital data to real life objects? Seriously? Hasn't this been pounded into the ground by now? Until mass replicators become feasible and cheap, this isn't the same thing. You aren't copying the content then deleting the original copy (essentially what stealing in real life is).
It's perfectly relevant when the industry makes its claims and bases its arguments on how much money they're losing. "The record industry has lost a billion dollars this year because of illegal downloading." Bullshit. I always ask myself, if it wasn't available on the Net, would I have bought it? Nine times out of ten, no. Absolutely not. You want to argue the validity and importance of copyrights, then fine, but don't try to frame your argument with dollars lost. The latest success of Radiohead pretty much blows that idea out of the atmosphere.
MPAA Scores First P2P Jury Conviction
I thought all juries were supposed to be composed of peers.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The power the MPAA greasers have over government is amazing. Here an Australian who never made a cent from and had never stepped foot in the US was arrested by the Australian Police and extradited to the US where he now sits in prison. Australia is famous for not looking after their citizens, but extraditing someone for something like this is insane. His name is Hew Griffiths.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/australia-hands-over-man-to-us-courts/2007/05/06/1178390140855.html
Is it possible that they paid the jury and/or judge? Yeah it's illegal, but of course, in the good ol' US of A, the law only applies if you are not a corporation.
> Thus illegal distribution of pre-release content is not significantly any more
> costly to the MAFIAA than illegal distribution of post-release content.
It seems to me that it would be more costly if it generates a lot of bad third-party reviews before the movie hits the theaters. Maybe the **AA are worried that the content is getting to people over whom they have no control? And no, I don't believe they actually control the professional movie reviewers; however, they have much more of a chance of swaying their opinions via lobbying and other tools, if only because they know who they are.
Not exactly. People want to purchase a Ferrari. They generally don't steal one through P2P. Should you take one of their vehicles, someone else who was willing to purchase that vehicle will be prohibited from claiming that it was worth the price. Furthermore, the price of a Ferrari is negotiable. The price of media is not. Distributors say buy this product at this price, or dont use it. With a Ferrari, you at least get a test drive, and information about what the car is, and quite frankly, it is a purchase that will affect other purchases in your life. Not buying a movie or a song isnt necessarily a lost sale. Maybe a consumer hasnt heard of the movie, or hasnt heard the song. Maybe its played so much on the radio that buying it seems stupid at the time. Maybe they can download a higher quality version than is for sale, or maybe they can't transfer the purchased version to a purchased media player. In these cases, downloading the media isnt a lost sale. I would not buy something I can't use. If I cant transfer it to another media player, Im not buying it. I will do my research to make sure that something I want to purchase is something I want to purchase. If I download something and then decide it isnt worht the purchase price, I will not buy it. I will delete it from wherever I have it saved. Before I used the internet, I bought maybe 2-3 cds a year, at concerts I attended, because I knew that I wanted the media. I never bought movies because going to a theatre isnt worth the cost, so bringing it home isnt worht 4 times the cost. Since I started downloading, I have introduced to movies that arent in theatres, and have purchased them in multiple formats. Same for music that isnt on the radio. But if I dont feel that the cost is worth the purchase, I dont purchase. Bonus features arent worth the money unless Im a collector. My viewpoint as a consumer is will I use the media enough to warrant the purchase price. I even give the benefit of will the purchase price include the value of everyone I invite over to enjoy the media with me. Even the most moronic of media moguls has to admit that 95-100% of the time, this just isnt true. Change the business model where I can pay based on use and make it reasonable. I should be able to watch a movie whenever the hell I want for $1. I can do this buy renting a movie from the grocery store, and can create theatre conditions by investing in hardware. The media itself doesnt create my speakers, or my projector television, or my electricity to run these things, or my rent to pay for a place to keep everything, or my insurance to protect myself in case something happens to my items. My dvd/blu-ray/cd/cassette tapes arent worth the insurance premiums. I work for a living, and thus I dont have time to watch a movie enough times to pay for it. Or listen to a song enough times to pay for it. Often, Im in the mood for a specific genre, but not a specific song. Honestly, the proper business model is that of XM and sirius: to provide continuously updated content for an ongoin fee, so that I get something for my money, without the interferance of things I dont want. There are very limited exceptions to these economic and social rules. I will download movies I havent seen, and when I find one worth its market price, I will buy it. If not, I will get rid of it. But unlike a ferrari, society doesnt have the option of paying what we think media is worth (at least not on a large scale). This "illegal downloading" is simply civil disobediance. Society values a ferrari not because of the software running its gps and the dashboard showing the low mileage, but because of the hardware allowing the vehicle to perform the value added basis of driving fast with control, the sleek looks, and the ability to get laid by owning it (women like expensive cars, men like sex, therefore men will pay for it. Women still like the cars for the hardware, not the software. They also like the pretty color, but that isnt a purchase/"steal" factor). Dont get me wrong, I do not agree with outright theft. I just think that peo
You have to frame the argument with dollars lost to be able to 'win' something in a lawsuit. Even you admitted that sometimes you would have bought something that you downloaded.
(BTW, I do not claim to have never done any of this.. I was on BBSes in the mid 80s... but most people grow up and realize that things need to be paid for.)
So, maybe the Warez scene should sue, too, if they're so upset about people stealing their stolen goods.
banner ads from eharmony
Dave drop a load on 'em
P2P, how can I explain it
I'll take you packet by packet
To have y'all nattin' while we be seedin' it
P is for peer, 2 is l33t for "to"
The last P...well...that's kinda simple
It's sorta like another way to call a client an equal
It's the server that be missin' here
You get on a torrent and be leechin' from the swarm
And your movies and shows appear gotta start to explainin'
Bust it
Hosting movies direct will get the feds to say hello
They get your IP and address and your knees fee like jello
And if not for feds, the hosting costs will eatcha alive
There's gotta be a better way to distribute and survive
Imagine there's no hardware, hosting or bandwith fees
just a torrent to download and and trackers to see
Every peer has a piece to share with every other peer
Reducing the burden and increasing redundancy without fear
Who thinks it's wrong 'cos I'm downloadin' and uploadin' at
Well if you do, that's P2P and you're not down with it
But if you don't, here's your membership
Chorus:
You down with P2P (Yeah you know me) 3X
Who's down with P2P (Every last IP)
You down with P2P (Yeah you know me) 3X
Who's down with P2P (All the IP's)
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Shouldn't the sentence be served in "intellectual jail" if the transgression is against "intellectual property"?
Actually, copyright is as much about control of the copyrighted material as it is about anything else. A perfect example is the GPL which uses copyright to guarantee source access to end users. There's no money involved, but the lawyers still get excited when someone distributes GPLed software illegally.
The movie industry doesn't have to claim that they are losing money. They simply have to point out that someone else is distributing their copyrighted material illegally.
Now, I'm not a fan of the MPAA, and I am certainly not a fan of the RIAA, but I do believe that copyright has its place. For example, if TelevisionHead (a band I hopefully just made up), started distributing Radiohead's music as their own (or even without Radiohead's permission) copyright would be there to make sure the real owners received some justice.
Go Team!
Good job identifying a troll and feeding it immediately.
So, some pirates can get 10 years, yet we have Massachusetts' representative James Fagan calling a 10 year mandatory sentence for 3 time offending child predators 'draconian'. Ridiculous.
-Bradley H.
Funny calling someone a pussy while posting Anonymously. I bet you don't get the irony in that do you.
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Here's an interesting idea!
If you don't want people to have your data then DON'T release it to the public.
It's like keeping a blog then getting upset when people find it and link other people to it.
âoeIt wasn't my wishes for this blog to be linked to, only the people I show it to are allowed to read itâ
I know bad analogy but I think you can see where I'm going with this.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
The MPAA are well aware of the benefits of free downloads,
but they will never admit this because it means losing a major revenue stream.(lawsuits)
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Is your argument that if you can copy something for free, then it costs nothing to produce it? That's not exactly right... At best, you eliminate distributers and the cost of producing the media, only a fraction of the overall cost. You also introduce new costs for hosting and the like....
What you are sayin is you wanted to remove profit and dictate how much money the various employees are paid...?
(Yes 10 years is stupid in this case)
What sort of crack are you smoking?
How are they not losing a sale? they have one less Ferrari to sell!
Sorry I forgot, Ferrari make money by building cars noone buys. /sarcasticmokeryofidiocy
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Paragraphs, man, paragraphs.
If you can't be bothered to format the expression of your thoughts properly, it is often a pretty good indication that you can't be bothered to form your thoughts properly either. I would like to have read your post, but it promises too much effort for too little reward.
While you're at it, we have these things called apostrophes too.
IANAL, but my girlfriend is, and she says that judges only rarely award the maximum sentence. Think about it - if the ringleader of an organization that managed to pirate almost everything the US entertainment industry produces and give it away to the rest of the world for free was caught, would he deserve ten years? Maybe.
For a case like this, I doubt the judge is going to award 10 years in prison - it's still up to the judge's discretion. The maximum sentence could be 1000 years and it probably wouldn't make any difference to this case.
While I must agree that jail time is perhaps a bit inappropriate, I also take issue with those that think there was no real crime committed, that this is a have vs. have not issue, or that this is about "imaginary property." There IS something being stolen here. If you built a new computer, with a new design, started to sell it, and someone simply started stealing your supply and gave them away, I imagine you would be quite upset! If you create something, be it physical, or a creative work, and you want to get paid for it, you have that right. Those who steal that product and give it away are not "noble" or "altruistic." They are thieves, and they deserve to be punished. If the original owners wanted it given away, they would have open sourced it, wouldn't they? So, to the poster who stated that we should start stealing and redistributing everything and asked "What would happen?" I will tell you this: What would happen is people would STOP making these products, and you would be left without a major part of our culture and entertainment industries. All you would have left is the ability to watch skaters taking railings in the crotch for your amusement. Going after the uploaders is right, and much better than trying to go after the downloaders, who often are completely unaware that they are committing a crime. Uploading of copyrighted material is the problem. 10 years of jail time though? Makes no sense. How is society bettered by THAT action? Maybe they are trying to make an example of this person, but they are also setting a bad precedent in a country that already throws way too many people in jail for really poor reasons.
Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
They *are* costing the studios money
Nonsense. It could be free advertising and a net win for them.
The fact that you've been round slashdot long enough to see that argument many times, and others, and still pretend that those arguments don't exist strongly suggests that you are being willfully ignorant.
Copyright fanatics like you really need to get out more.
---
Paid marketers are the worst zealots.
Nah, make him WATCH the crap he's pirating. That's punishment enough. If he's a pussy as you say, prison might be just where he wants to be.
> I've seen cases of murderers getting less than this.
Yeah, but did they hurt any important corporations with lots of money and political influence when killing?
Didn't think so.
The MPAA doesn't prosecute anyone. This isn't France, where private citizens or organizations can prosecute. In the US, it is the government that prosecutes. Indeed, the press release didn't even mention the MPAA, and it appears thjey had little (if anything) to do with the case. Even the law that was used (the No Electronic Theft Act) wasn't an MPAA creation (although I'm sure they were supportive). It was largely a BSA/RIAA creation back in 1997, before movie piracy was common.
I hate the MPAA as much as the next guy, but this is our elected government prosecuting this case. If we disagree, then perhaps all you "small government" people ought to vote on who persecutes little guys the least, rather than who'll give you the biggest tax breaks.
Make cheese not war 8:)
"How do you prove that the people who downloaded whatever they downloaded would have paid for it if that was the only way they could get it?"
You don't have to. Copyright law isn't about proving damages; it's about respecting rights.
Other laws work like this, too. If you violate my property rights (say, by trespassing), I can have you removed and punished even if I can't prove that, say, you trampled my flower bed.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
I disagree with this, a few years ago when the Matrix Reloaded was screened it took 5/6 months to be released. My parents boot a boot leg copy of the DVD 3 months after its screening cause they liked the film and wanted to watch it. Sure they went out to buy the DVD when it was released so the companies didn't lose any money but in that particular case I didn't know a single person who didn't own a boot legged copy of the film.
I've always thought that film showed what can happen if you delay the release of something too long. Personnally I prefer to wait, most films released at £12/14 will be between £3-7 3 months after release. But most people won't and with P2P getting access to films has gotten so easy the computer iliterate like my Dad can use it.
Don't get me wrong I agree 10 years inprisonment is insane and would like to see an overhaul of copyright law (worldwide) so non-commerical copyright infringement becomes legal. I do think prelease material can cost companies money but then those same companies need to work out how to add value to their product rather than take value away (DRM, Force you to watch trailers/adverts force you to watch piracy is a crime video, etc....) The only reason I've been buying Blu-ray disks is because at the current moment they don't have that sort of crap on them.
I disagree with this, a few years ago when the Matrix Reloaded was screened it took 5/6 months to be released.
Again, their business model is not significantly based on release.
Anecdotal cases like yours, where a film sits on the shelf for months or years tend to be films that the studio thinks suck, and usually they are right. I don't think a strong argument can be made for encouraging sucky movies.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
So, tell us how you feel about your parents naming you "Trauma_Hound1"?
I now know why some people write "Wow, just, wow", and where I once sneered, I now join them.
Wow. Just... wow.
But fuck it, if you don't want people to steal your TV, don't fucking buy one!
idiot.
god you are fucking ignorant.
People with a lot more brain cells than you, and a lot more data an d money and information decide the best advertsiing strategies for their million dollar movies. they don't need some ignorant arrogant cunt like you sat in mom's basement to lecture them about free advertising.
grow up and get a job you retard
If you violate my property rights (say, by trespassing), I can have you ... punished
Actually in many jurisdictions (the UK and Australia, to name but two), you can't. You can ask someone to leave your property, and law enforcement will assist you if they refuse, but to punish someone for trespassing you will have to be able to prove damage. In Scotland, if you own open land - moors, mountainsides and the like - then you're SOL because people have the right to roam over it.
I'm curious: You don't appear to be a nerd, so why are you here?
In fact, you don't appear to even be intelligent. You'd be happier on Digg, I think.
Good job identifying somebody you disagree with and labeling him a troll immediately.
P2P (as in bittorrent) is not efficient at all.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
The Land of the Fee?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Similar freedom exists also in Finland (and most other Nordic countries), called freedom to roam. You can move unmotorized in forest, pick berries and mushroom, camp temporarily and a few other things. But you should respect other people's privacy and homes and fields etc.
Cost has a definition. It is the amount of resources needed to produce a good or service. A thief stealing a DVD, costs the studios money, they paid to print the DVD. So tell me how are these pirates costing any content producer money? They cost internet providers bandwidth (which can be argued is a resource). But no extra cost is imposed on studios by what pirates do.
Their real "crime" is not earning the studios money. They're free riders. Which should hardly be a jailable offense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
He should of accepted the numerous plea agreements they sent, he would of then served 5 months like the 8 others...
Short video using media recorded around the release of Sith documenting the perception of piracy in relation to Star Wars.
http://noneinc.com/sound/Thee_Backslacpkping_With_Media/
File Name: %20-BSWM-SithPiracy.mov
If you'd like to come over with your car-duplicating equipment and make an exact copy of my Ferrari without damaging it, you're welcome to do so.
MacLaren tried that... did not go well.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
I'm not even going to use my karma bonus. The parent just isn't worth it.
thank you for sharing this wonderful piece of information with us. our lives are now much brighter, thanks to it.
Read radical news here
You might change your tune if your name were Mr. Ferrari and you made your money by designing, building, and selling those cars.
In a world where car-duplicating equipment exists, it doesn't make any economic sense to build and sell cars. If my name were Mr. Ferrari and I made my living that way, I could either fight against technological progress by lobbying the government to make car-duplicating equipment illegal, or (my own personal preference) I could stop trying to make my living using an outdated economic model.
The question that this raises is how we as a society can best encourage people to design better cars than we now have while encouraging the widest adoption of improvements. The current system of patents and, outside this analogy, the current system of copyright, are one answer to this question, but not necessarily the best answer.
I would prefer an answer that makes the benefits of new technology more widely available to more people, discourages practices such as patent trolling and sitting on new technology so that others can't implement or build on it, and keeps more effort and resources focused on meeting people's needs and less on supporting an army of lawyers.
My truck is like a series of tubes.
I feel compelled to purchase on DVD or better the movies I've taped in the past from television (typically HBO). I don't feel compelled to purchase on CD or buy a download of music I've recorded in the past from radio.
However, while I also don't download music, I would make my own DVD of some movies if they would just air somewhere. I'd still buy a copy if it came out (and have done), but I'm not interested in paying for a download unless I can burn it to common and compatible portable media. A short list:
Electric Dreams (1984) Probably never released due to rights issues, wide sampling of television, commercials, and moviesMoontrap (1989) Walter Koenig and Bruce Campbell and orange pods on the Moon containing cannibalistic robots, effectively remade as Virus (1999) 10 years earlier
TAG: The Assassination Game (1982) Campus rubber-dart game (like the paintball in Gotcha! (1985)) where one player obsessed with winning decides to start killing for real
Prime Risk (1985) Two teenagers plotting to get back at a bank that wronged them by cloning ATM cards stumble across a terrorist plot to bankrupt the nation (currently only available in full-frame Region 2 PAL in German)
The Squeeze (1987) Poker player unable to bluff convincingly ("Did my eye twitch?") stumbles upon plot to rig the lottery when his ex-wife wins playing their divorce date
Terminal Entry (1986) Teenage kids stumble onto a network used by terrorists and think it is a game (3 years after WarGames (1983))
And yes, I realize that most of these are considered crap and not considered popular enough to warrant a pressing.
Yet still I can't bring myself to buy Tank (1984), Iceman (1984), or Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970) due to them not being widescreen. Perhaps they think the latter two are too wide for DVD, unable to keep enough vertical resolution even as an anamorphic DVD (can I hope for a Blu-Ray release?), but they released Tank (1984) twice at 1.33:1 (4:3) when the movie is 1.85:1 (16.65:9). an almost perfect fit.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
However the comment I was responding to was claiming that the studio was losing money. So 100% relevant.