Wikileaks Reveals BitTorrent Lawsuit Background

daria42 writes "A US diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks has revealed much of the previously hidden background behind the BitTorrent court case currently playing out in Australia's High Court, including the Motion Picture Association of America's prime mover role and US Embassy fears the trial could become portrayed as 'giant American bullies versus little Aussie battlers.'' Oops. Looks like there's a little bit of egg on the movie studios' faces!"

Comments

Oh gee

[AmonTheMetalhead]

I never saw that coming....

Re:Oh gee

[azalin]

But these studios are the victims here. Not the bullies.
Poor, wretched victims... Where is the MPAA relief fund when they are in such dire need.
*Glues plastic tear under left eye*

Re:Oh gee

[Anonymous Coward]

pro tip: if you'd use a clear drying glue you wouldn't need the plastic tear ; )

Re:Oh gee

[LordLimecat]

The ridicule is of course sure to garner an insightful mod; but I really dont see anything incorrect in what theyre saying.

If the accused in the case really are guilty (and Im not familiar with the case at all), their point is still valid, that it could become irrelevant and much could be made of the fact that its a big evil US corp.

As is in fact what youve just done; you didnt make a case that the laws were poorly written, or that there are issues with the prosecution, you focused on the fact that its the MPAA and they must therefore have no valid case. AKA the classic Jammie Thomas Apologist's Defense (also known as the Tenenbaum Gambit).

Re:Oh gee

[Anonymous Coward]

A celluloid animated tear would also fit the purpose. Oh, look at that smooth and magical movement of the tear!

Re:Oh gee

[Nadaka]

Or he could put the glue in his eye and shed real tears.

Re:Oh gee

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

Or sniff the glue and become an MPAA supporter.

Re:Oh gee

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe that the MPAA needs to go away and quit perverting society's laws via lobbyists and corruption for the sake of their obsolete business models, they are the bad guy in every story in which they appear. If they didn't exist, they wouldn't be a part of the case.

Re:Oh gee

[LordLimecat]

Just because theyre irresponsible and litigious and about as friendly as the Nazghul, doesnt mean that people are excused from following the laws of their land or from perjuring themselves; and it certainly doesnt mean that folks on slashdot are excused when THEY support such people as Jammie Thomas and Tenenbaum.

Good gracious, its as if, because MPAA commits one wrong, it excuses us circumventing the legal system just to spite them for that wrong. Illegal is illegal, whether or not you like the prosecution. Are people really pushing for anarchy and the abolition of the justice system?

Re:Oh gee

[MimeticLie]

If the accused in the case really are guilty (and Im not familiar with the case at all)

Perhaps you should have taken the time to learn what it was about, then. Even reading the summary of the previous /. story would have been enough. The case is about iiNet refusing to shut off the internet connections of its customers because AFACT tells them to. No guilt, no trial, no burden of proof.

As usual when dealing with the MPAA et al., even the kneejerk responses are well warranted.

Re:Oh gee

[daktari]

That! is really annoying. What is up with people and their This! Am I really getting that old? Is it too much to ask to actually write a few more words? And is This! the reason one feels the need to post as AC?

Re:Oh gee

[ifiwereasculptor]

This!

Re:Oh gee

[CCarrot]

That! is really annoying. What is up with people and their This! Am I really getting that old? Is it too much to ask to actually write a few more words? And is This! the reason one feels the need to post as AC?

Apparently it's 'Like' or '+1' for /.
Somewhat like the bare 'mod parent up' posts, without any supporting discussion behind them...

Re:Oh gee

[GameboyRMH]

Good gracious, its as if, because MPAA commits one wrong, it excuses us circumventing the legal system just to spite them for that wrong. Illegal is illegal, whether or not you like the prosecution. Are people really pushing for anarchy and the abolition of the justice system?

This is funny. When the MPAA does something wrong to the public, it's no excuse to break the laws that the MPAA made as a result, illegal is illegal!

If I bribed a politician to make it illegal to refuse to give me money on request, and I asked you for all the money in your wallet, by your logic you'd have to oblige me.

Re:Oh gee

[Tsingi]

Or stretch out a really bad joke and bring a tear to everyone's eye.

:)

Re:Oh gee

[Tsingi]

This:

Just because theyre (The MPAA) irresponsible and litigious and about as friendly as the Nazghu

Is an affront to the Nazgûl. A Black rider will be appearing at your home in the near future to collect restitution.

(Be thankful that you aren't getting a call from the MPAA.)

Re:Oh gee

[PsychoSlashDot]

That! is really annoying. What is up with people and their This! Am I really getting that old? Is it too much to ask to actually write a few more words? And is This! the reason one feels the need to post as AC?

It's nothing new. It's just the latest evolution of the same reality we've had for ages.

Don't know what I'm talking about?

When was the last time you saw a post containing nothing but "me too"?

Oh yeahhhhh. Look, sometimes people feel the pressure to make their opinion heard only they don't have a unique opinion. They have a "me too" opinion. Better they post "me too", "this", or the latest "+1" mini-post than re-write the parent comment. That way we don't have to actually read the same comment over and over again slightly reworded.

Let it go.

Re:Oh gee

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal does not mean wrong. It's plain foolish to obey laws "because they're the law". That's a level of moral development most people get past in their teens nowadays. It's doubly foolish if the legal system is the weapon being used against you. The law clearly needs to change to abolish copyright - the continued existence of copyright brings the legal system into disrepute.
 

Re:Oh gee

[TheReaperD]

When the justice system is no longer just to the people, then yes. Whether or not it has reached that point is a matter of opinion.

Re:Oh gee

[LordLimecat]

it's no excuse to break the laws that the MPAA made as a result, illegal is illegal!

A) According to our legal system, thats roughly correct, other than the big issue with your comment...
B) which is that MPAA doesnt make anything. 535 people in the capitol pass laws, and those people are voted on once every couple of years by people. This is ultimately democratic system, and the citizens are ultimately responsible for the laws that are passed.

If I bribed a politician to make it illegal to refuse to give me money on request, and I asked you for all the money in your wallet, by your logic you'd have to oblige me.

In your ridiculous scenario (which doesnt even make sense, since copyright infringement has been illegal since well before the MPAA existed), yes. You would have to show that bribery had taken place; the only alternative is that each person makes up their own mind which laws to follow, which is generally what we call anarchy.

Re:Oh gee

[cayenne8]

Me too!

:)

Re:Oh gee

[LordLimecat]

Illegal does not mean wrong.

Be that as it may, I would say that to download a song without restitution to the artist IS wrong, since that idea was explicitly written to the constitution (the social contract whereby our government gets its power), and is the expectation of any artist that signs with a label (that their labor will result in payment).

You deciding that music wants to be free is fine; write your own music and stop taking from musicians. And incidentally, "Labels are evil" is a cop-out, since artists dont have to sign with a label; they are adults, and are free to enter whatever agreements they like. They dont need you to rescue them from their contracts (and the money that you arent giving them).

Re:Oh gee

[tombeard]

No, we are pushing for anarchy and the abolition of the injustice system.

Re:Oh gee

[LordLimecat]

Whether or not they are guilty is irrelevant to this discussion and to the article. The article was about the US remarking on the type of media spin that might hit them, and the thread has become about "serves the MPAA right because they have no right to legal restitution for copyright infringement".

Re:Oh gee

[SleazyRidr]

Then no-one would need plastic tears, and those hard-working plastic tear manufacturers would be out of a job. Of course they'll blame the losses on plastic tear piracy...

Re:Oh gee

[Coren22]

This!

(sorry, just had to)

Re:Oh gee

[LordLimecat]

Yes, well, im sure people turned to governments because anarchy was working out super well.

Re:Oh gee

[poofmeisterp]

Then no-one would need plastic tears, and those hard-working plastic tear manufacturers would be out of a job. Of course they'll blame the losses on plastic tear piracy...

Then the plastic tear manufacturers would be found to have documents linking the corporate executives up to Hedge funds and stocks of glue manufacturers, but hey, that's okay because their precious material that they never even saw was stolen by those rascals at the glue manuf....... oh. :)

Re:Oh gee

[poofmeisterp]

This!

(sorry, just had to)

You both had to, didn't ya? Damn dependency on humor; it's gonna destroy all of you young rats these days. :)

Re:Oh gee

[poofmeisterp]

Just because theyre irresponsible and litigious and about as friendly as the Nazghul, doesnt mean that people are excused from following the laws of their land or from perjuring themselves...

You know that most laws aren't enforced, especially ones in the civil category, right? They're all there in case they are useful in a case against someone who is supposed to be guilty of something but law enforcement doesn't think they have enough to work with. In other words, if someone needs tools to get something out of someone or something, they can dig for laws to work with. In the line of work I'm in, I see examples of it daily. I *so* wish I could post those examples....

Hmm... I wonder how many lawsuits I could file right now for people and corporations harming me in one way or another.

I wonder if I'd have to do less work and just sue to make a living.... you know, if I could do that. Just if.

Hmm.. "Just if" sounds like "justice" if you hold on to your tongue while saying it. No, that's not flame bait, it's meant to be humorous. :)

Re:Oh gee

[daktari]

You raise a valid point. Looking at it that way, I'd certainly prefer to glance over such a mini-post than the alternative you mentioned. Still, it strikes me as a strange concept on /. Youtube? Yeah okay.

Right'o, I'm letting go (and that's not the Diazepam talking).

Re:Oh gee

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

The case goes something like this. AFACT (front group for MPAA) noticed some copyright shenanigans going on via iiNet. AFACT handed a whole bunch of information about the infringement to iiNet to "GET THEM TO DO SOMETHING!"

iiNet looked at the information and said "This looks like a job for the Australian Federal Police (Analogous to the FBI). We will hand on this information."

AFACT then said. "NO! YOU MUST STAMP PIRATES! Not just report things to the appropriate agency. We shall take you to court to make you do our will."

Judge 1 said "iiNet have a policy to deal with copyright infringement (Tell AFP). They have no obligation to seek out copyright infringement. It's not their movie."

AFACT said. "We want another judge. Get me the High Court" (similar to SCOTUS)

This is the end of act 1.

Re:Oh gee

[rtb61]

Its more than that. The US government is being made to look like some poor pathetic excuse of a sock puppet for any US corporation that pays the cent's on the dollar campaign bribes (how much it costs to pay the off, cents, versus how much it ends up costing the US taxpayer thousands of dollars)

It comes off as yet more, jump Mr Congressman, jump, don't ask how high Mr Senator, jump as high as you can. The whole US Department of state is coming of as some pathetic marketing and promotions agency for various campaign donors. Their annoying Mormons on steroids, knocking on other countries doors, demanding worship of the US God, they even print it right on there. "In God We Trust" the US dollar, what an embarrassment.

Wars, trumped up diplomatic disputes, a channel for corporate bribes to other governments and, corporate (often not even US corporations any more) leverage.

Re:Oh gee

[Dr Max]

B) 535 people in the capitol pass laws, and those people are voted on once every couple of years by people. This is ultimately democratic system, and the citizens are ultimately responsible for the laws that are passed.

This is the problem with our democracy. Do you think voting on 1 out of 535 people you have never met gives people good control over what laws will get passed? The government (in Australia at least) can do whatever it wants and does.

Re:Oh gee

[mjwx]

But these studios are the victims here. Not the bullies.
Poor, wretched victims... Where is the MPAA relief fund when they are in such dire need.
*Glues plastic tear under left eye*

Give now to the Make A Fortune foundation so that some poor executive who only has three BWM's can get the huge bonus he needs for another luxury car.

Please, give generously.

Re:Oh gee

[azalin]

I do accept the point they might have the law on their side. Still the MPAA was specifically created as a lobbying and if necessary bullying organization. The creators do have rights and people have to be paid. But maybe, just maybe they also should rethink their business practices to. If you just haul a few not exactly innocent, but small fish into court and threaten them with an army of lawyers that might help a bit on the short term, but people (more or less rightly) conceive you as a big evil corp (TM). You should also look for the reasons and look for a sensible solution. Give them a cheap and convenient alternative to illegal downloads, stop artificial delays and encourage proper behavior. Then start a warning and information campaign on eye level. The start issuing warnings to the remaining offenders. Target the big offenders and folks who make money with piracy. Tell people why, make sure they understand and at least partially agree. Do that in public. Do not threaten small offenders with insane fines, let them of cheap the first time (like 100$).
Issuing a fine of this size will be accepted, serve as a warning to all hearing of it and will decrease private piracy IF a decent alternative is given. Backing such a fine with a threat of hundreds of thousands in damages will not.

Re:Oh gee

[thePuck77]

People didn't "turn to" governments. First there were extended families, with kinship rules and physical strength dictating who made the rules. Then tribes with similar rules, then villages, then cities, then city-states, then empires/kingdoms, then countries/nations. At no point did people have the choice to accept the authority of each structure in turn...the strongest ruled at first, then once the Agricultural Revolution hit, it became the strongest and wealthiest, and that's pretty much the way it is now.

Re:Oh gee

[thePuck77]

It's called turning into a third-world country.

Re:Oh gee

[LordLimecat]

Yea, except for those times (Rome, American Revolution, lots of others) where the WERENT just stuck with "the strongest rules".

Pretty sure Rome didnt go from "city-state" to "empire". I think there might have been an intermediate step there somewhere.

And what?

[chuckymonkey]

Good, nice to see stuff like this. Although to be honest I don't really see anything changing. Really, what are the proles going to do? Protest? I'm sure the MAFIAA is oh so terrified of the protesters who after a day or so will get tired, go home, and watch a movie and listen to some music.

Re:And what?

[Xest]

To be fair I think it's more subtle than that. Each time people see something like this they feel ever less guilty about, and ever less desensitized to piracy.

Each time the MPAA does something like this, they push people further and further away from legitimate services.

I for one don't see why anyone should see the slightest guilt in downloading MPAA movies, frankly paying money to buy their product to support their existence seems more morally bankrupt than downloading, or ideally just simply not watching their content at all nowadays.

Really, all wars in whatever context rely on either winning the hearts and minds of the people, or brutally supressing them. The MPAA in it's war on piracy is attempting the latter, yet even the latter only works as a temporary stop gap, the former is the only permanent solution, yet that's a battle they've already long lost.

Re:And what?

[Anonymous Coward]

For me it has nothing to do with guilt. I just find it easier to see if a movie is on Netflix's streaming service before I bother with other (unauthorized) sources.

Re:And what?

[grub]

Each time people see something like this they feel ever less guilty about, and ever less desensitized to piracy.

I think you nailed it.

Re:And what?

[tpgp]

I'm sure the MAFIAA is oh so terrified of the protesters who after a day or so will get tired, go home, and watch a movie and listen to some music.

You know, what? I reckon the people behind AFACT are truly terrified of people getting tired, going home, and watching a movie and listening to some music that they've downloaded from a non AFACT site.

Re:And what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that he meant "more desensitized".

Re:And what?

[Runaway1956]

"desensitized to piracy" Interesting concept. I presume that there are actually a few people who are sensitized to piracy? Who could that possibly be?

Oh! Silly me! That would be the authors, directors, actors, and assorted bungholes who depend on the industry for a living, because they mostly can't do honest work. All of those people who believe that they are valuable. Or, at least they believe that they are far more valuable than reality says they are.

Of course, there are a lot of treatments for various sensitivities nowadays. Maybe they should just visit their analysts?

Re:And what?

[Lumpy]

My favorite is the argument that downloading TV shows is stealing.
I pay for cableTV so I get all those channels. how the hell is it illegal for me to download a TV Show that aired on a TV channel I PAY FOR to watch it later? I'm just using the internet as a TiVo... which is 100% legal.

And how about all TV shows that are broadcast over public airwaves? Those are free to record.

So I gladly continue to download TV shows. and tell the MPAA,RIAA,WMAA, NCAA and WNBA to stuff it up their rectums.

Re:And what?

[grub]

Yeah, I didn't catch that but parsed it ;)

Re:And what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you don't pay for the privilege of watching TV shows. The TV shows are paid for by the commercials; your contribution is just an administrative fee for your commoditization.

Re:And what?

[Anonymous Coward]

For me it has nothing to do with guilt. I just find it easier to see if a movie is on Netflix's streaming service before I bother with other (unauthorized) sources.

No Netflix in Australia. No Hulu either. Double screwed.

Re:And what?

[LordLimecat]

Each time people see something like this they feel ever less guilty about, and ever less desensitized to piracy.

You mean "more desensitized" i think, which is ridiculous, since noone gives a crap about piracy now anyways.

I mean, I think a lot of the laws suck too, but to watch people honestly defending perpetually using pirated games and defending Joel Tenenbaum and Jammie Thomas, is ridiculous. As bad as the laws (and their requisite punishments) might be, I dont think anyone can make the case that people care too MUCH about piracy and copyright. One might remark that that is in fact the reason that MPAA is reacting so violently, because they recognize that noone really cares, and emotion on the subject ranges from general apathy to violent opposition.

Re:And what?

[LordLimecat]

I pay for cableTV so I get all those channels. how the hell is it illegal for me to download a TV Show that aired on a TV channel I PAY FOR to watch it later?

Because the laws of the land, in combination with the terms you agreed to with your cable and internet service, say so.

Its like people think they arent responsible for the laws of their land or for the agreements they sign. If you dont like the terms, dont sign the agreement (regarding software licensing, DRM, etc). If you dont like the laws, change how you vote. But dont try to push some "I can do whatever I want and then act outraged when the courts disagree" nonsense, part of being an adult is that you put childish ideas behind you..

Re:And what?

[Xest]

"If you dont like the laws, change how you vote."

But this is equally a rediculous argument. When parties are too focussed on corporate interests at the expense of the voterbase, through, as we've seen recently in the UK, the likes of entire political parties running shit scared of the likes of Murdoch, then what use is voting when it comes to such things? On such issues most Western countries simply can't be classified as democracies as democratic principles are ignored when legislation is made surrounding things like saner copyright laws.

"But dont try to push some "I can do whatever I want and then act outraged when the courts disagree" nonsense, part of being an adult is that you put childish ideas behind you.."

Except many adults would disagree with you, and in fact, so would history.

Pirate radio in the UK in the 60s and 70s was instrumental in creating the UK's thriving private and public sector radio broadcaster market today. At the time law meant that radio was limited to literally only a select few stations, but because pirate radio persisted, government finally, over 20 - 30 years eventually realised that the only way to solve the problem was to give consumers what they want, not to fight them, because it's a fight that government and other vested interests cannot win.

The ideas you see as childish are the types of ideas that have kept democracy thriving. Bowing down blindly to government and putting faith indefinitely in a corruptible political system is naive at best.

Re:And what?

[Anonymus]

I buy and pay for music and games all the times, sometimes even just donating directly, but only when it's essentially direct from the artist (not via an *IAA) and free of DRM. I wish everyone would just put up a donation link. As it is, I feel more guilt in giving money to the RIAA than I do in pirating from artists, but I'd love to remove the guilt from that and then I'd feel proud to pirate things.

Re:And what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that like the voting thing is so simple.

I defy you to find me one, high-ranking, honest politician who does everything legitimately and cares about absolutely everyone and their interests/rights. Also, they have to be able to be able to actually *do* something, be intelligent, have good problem solving skills. Sometimes those types get elected in smaller positions but they tend to get shafted by the ranking politicians who aren't as benevolent. Even their own staff don't tend to take them seriously. They rarely last.

If you can find someone like that, I'll put all my weight behind them, and I don't get behind much.

Re:And what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the MAFIAA is oh so terrified of the protesters who after a day or so will get tired, go home, and watch a movie and listen to some music.

You know, what? I reckon the people behind AFACT are truly terrified of people getting tired, going home, and watching a movie and listening to some music that they've downloaded from a non AFACT site.

And then talk up said movies and music to their friends, who will be more likely to buy said movies legitimately. Thus giving the MPAA/RIAA more money to sue the first group for more money.

Yeah. I'm sure they're reeeeeeeeal terrified that the people they sue money out of indirectly advertise for them, and that said people never seem to notice or care.

Re:And what?

[introcept]

If you dont like the laws, change how you vote.

Right, so which of the two parties is pro-copyright reform? Voting doesn't make a lick of difference when the laws are being written by the MPAA.The price of digital media in Australia is extortionate and in many cases content is not available at all legitimately. As long as US media companies treat Australian consumers like shit and try to manipulate government policy, they don't deserve to be paid.

Re:And what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm writing a game right now with the assumption that everyone is going to try to hack it, DoS the servers, fuck with it, and pirate it. If your shit is getting fucked with, pirated, etc. then you're not doing something right.

The problem is that all the fucks that feel entitled to profits with no work on security or DRM need to get off their high horse. It's their problem if they're software is being stolen.

Re:And what?

[RearNakedChoke]

I pay for cableTV so I get all those channels. how the hell is it illegal for me to download a TV Show that aired on a TV channel I PAY FOR to watch it later?

Because the laws of the land, in combination with the terms you agreed to with your cable and internet service, say so.

Its like people think they arent responsible for the laws of their land or for the agreements they sign. If you dont like the terms, dont sign the agreement (regarding software licensing, DRM, etc). If you dont like the laws, change how you vote. But dont try to push some "I can do whatever I want and then act outraged when the courts disagree" nonsense, part of being an adult is that you put childish ideas behind you..

There's many times where you SHOULD say fuck the law. It was the LAW that made slavery legal. And it was "illegal", "lawbreaking" slaves that dared escape from their masters. And it took a damn war to make change, not stupid letters to their congressman. And It was the fucking LAW that made Rosa Parks a criminal. It wasn't the fucking voting booth that made change. It was people breaking stupid ass laws and going to jail that did it. And don't try to argue that slavery is different than corrupt copyright law. Of course it is dumbass. The point isn't the level of injustice, but rather that injustice is sometimes best overcome via civil disobedience.

Re:And what?

[wagnerrp]

Really, all wars in whatever context rely on either winning the hearts and minds of the people, or brutally supressing them. The MPAA in it's war on piracy is attempting the latter, yet even the latter only works as a temporary stop gap, the former is the only permanent solution, yet that's a battle they've already long lost.

Let me ask you, what do you think the purpose of DRM is? Go up to a dozen people on the street and ask them the same thing. Nearly all of them will tell you DRM is to prevent media theft. With how quickly TV and movies show up on the internet, surely someone, somewhere in the industry would have realized all their efforts aren't doing a damn thing, and perhaps they should not spend all that money developing such measures.

DRM has nothing to do with anti-piracy measures. It exists to assert control over the consumer, and the consumer's rightfully purchased product, long after they have relinquished ownership of it. It exists to take away the rights and capabilities of the legitimate paying customer, so they can only consume their media in approved ways on approved hardware. The have sidelined the real issue, distracting people with this piracy red herring. The HAVE already won the hearts and minds of the people. It's a battle we've already long lost.

If you want to continue promoting the illegal duplication and distribution of copyrighted works, they you're just a dirty thief who wants all the things you don't want to pay for. If you actually want to "win the war" against the MPAA, find a way to campaign to the public about the real use for DRM. No on cares what happens to the pirates, but they will care when they understand how their own rights as law-abiding citizens are being taken away.

Re:And what?

[rocket rancher]

To be fair I think it's more subtle than that. Each time people see something like this they feel ever less guilty about, and ever less desensitized to piracy.

Each time the MPAA does something like this, they push people further and further away from legitimate services.

I for one don't see why anyone should see the slightest guilt in downloading MPAA movies, frankly paying money to buy their product to support their existence seems more morally bankrupt than downloading, or ideally just simply not watching their content at all nowadays.

Really, all wars in whatever context rely on either winning the hearts and minds of the people, or brutally supressing them. The MPAA in it's war on piracy is attempting the latter, yet even the latter only works as a temporary stop gap, the former is the only permanent solution, yet that's a battle they've already long lost.

right -- do I really need to remind you that if you grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow? You protect profits by whatever means necessary. Failing to do so is immoral, since the only morality in business is a comfortably darwinian one.

Re:And what?

[LordLimecat]

There's many times where you SHOULD say fuck the law. It was the LAW that made slavery legal.

Why not Godwin the conversation while we're at it?

I mean, this isnt slavery we're talking about. The gross, heinous travesty is that an artist signed a contract with a company for money, agreeing that the company owned the rights to the results of their labor; and that company released it under certain licensing terms. At any time you can choose not to purchase that license, but I fail to see in what way you can claim "you not getting the latest work from Justin Beiber" is any different than "you not being entitled to a free copy of Microsoft Windows", or how you can possibly compare it to "forcible enslavement of a people".

The sense of entitlement here is overwhelming; someone did work to produce the music, and unfortunately for you you simply dont have a claim on it for free.

Re:And what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally! And if I don't barricade my house it's my problem if it gets ransacked. And if a girl wears a short skirt and doesn't learn self defense sufficient to fight off a 6'3" attacker then it's her problem if she gets raped.

Re:And what?

[Anonymous Coward]

What has the MPAA done that is so heinous? All they are guilty of here is orchestrating a lawsuit to defend what they perceive to be their rights, and attempting to minimize the publicity of said orchestration.

Are they noble? No. Are they guilty of heinous crimes that justify the illegal dissemination of their products? I think not.

I do not want to defend the MPAA, but to say that their actions push people away from legitimate services is disingenuous. Their actions might be used as justification for those who feel the need to rationalize their "theft", but they do not rise to the level where they objectively justify such a stance any more than they encourage otherwise copyright respecting citizens to immediately begin a life of piracy.

Re:And what?

[shinkanzen]

There is a great book about this subject by Matt Mason which you can download for free at http://www.thepiratesdilemma.com/

Re:And what?

[LordLimecat]

Oh, whats that, you wanted to vote by party?

Yea, that might be part of your problem. Vote by candidate, find one who will actually make promises and keep them (and absolutely refuse to vote for them again if they do not), and make them stick to them.

It works for entitlements, doesnt it?

Re:And what?

[hitmark]

It is also about creator lock-in. Consider that if a author wants to change ebook distributor, all his current ebook releases may be behind a different DRM system. Try explaining that to your readers.

Re:And what?

[poofmeisterp]

I for one don't see why anyone should see the slightest guilt in downloading MPAA movies, frankly paying money to buy their product to support their existence seems more morally bankrupt than downloading, or ideally just simply not watching their content at all nowadays.

Hear, hear.

Let me add to that... Like any other war with something that is not 100% traceable (yes, I said 100%, not 98%, 99%.... 100%), there is never going to be an end to its existence. The more suit there is, the more knowledge people gain on the tracing mechanisms used to find it. The more knowledge, the more defense. The more defense, the more offense.

But, wait, it's not 100% traceable! It's information. It will NEVER stop being shared. You (MPAA et al) may simply stop finding out HOW it is shared. This will continue forever like many other concepts and substances (alcohol is one off the top of my head).

If it looks like all piracy has stopped and only sales exist, you may wonder where in the hell the profits are. Why isn't it being bought as much as it seems popular in the comparative sense? Because it's not. The ones who don't have cash to throw down on something they feel should be free, and CAN get their hands on for free, will.

I'll back up the OC and say that the more you discourage something, the more it's abused. It's simple, SIMPLE psychology. You think you can beat psychology with punishment? Try encouraging something by using other means, like, oh, making the fans of the person more able to see them one-on-one and interact with them (the REAL them), virtual or physical? How about enabling the fans to be contributors to the product? Just throwing crap that hits my mind spur-of-the-moment here.

You lost the battle and you're not going to win by flexing. Try ingenuity and quit trying historical repetition.

Re:And what?

[poofmeisterp]

Heh. See my comment above, grub. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2406288&cid=37268548

Good to see ya again. Haven't been on for quite a while.

Re:And what?

[poofmeisterp]

Totally! And if I don't barricade my house it's my problem if it gets ransacked. And if a girl wears a short skirt and doesn't learn self defense sufficient to fight off a 6'3" attacker then it's her problem if she gets raped.

No.

Imagine the Internet space like a physical object. A house. A street, a city. Everyday space.

The music that someone just made is on the outside of the house, as is everything else that's not encrypted. Since it's DRM'ed, we'll say it's in a box on the side of the house. We see it, we know what it is from a distance. We go up to get it and realize that the box is controlled and you have to make a purchase to get the box open. Once it's open, you can take an article of what's in there out of it. So now we paid and have a CD with songs on it. Sweet! Win, win.

Now, someone else comes by and purchases it, gets in the box, and gets the CD out. They take it back to their private location and make copies of it using whatever method they use... but it's now copied. They use special means to place it around in many, MANY places; in the case of torrent, we'll say on the sides of many peoples' houses, in parks, on telephone polls on the street. It's right there and has an open box. You can take it. Win, lose.

Some people will decide that it's not right to take this thing that you know should be paid for. Others won't care. Others will try to find out where it comes from and give some money to the original source by getting another copy. Others will take it, like it, and post it on the walls of many other locations so that many more people can find it and grab it, no charge. Depends on mentality.

What you're talking about is the social "right" and "wrong". It's considered wrong to grab music that should be paid for, but hell, you listen to it all of the time and ignore the commercials anyway. Who cares? Well, some care. Those ones say that you shouldn't pay any attention to music that's available in many locations because it's just "wrong". That's a mentality.

Now, look at it from the perspective of the Human mind. The mind likes music. It's a way for the person to feel both musically excited and most importantly, the animal instinct of the person doesn't like silence. It means danger is possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence#In_danger). Humans like to be reminded that things are okay and life is moving along safely so we like to hear people, things people created, or animals and objects we know are safe to be around. It's instinctive. It just is as it is. This is a mentality that has existed for thousands and thousands of years (further if you believe in evolution).

Having said that, imagine trying to fight the battle with all people that they aren't allowed to have this thing called "music" unless they pay for it. Ok, that's fine to a degree because there's some music available for free anyway (radio, classical, or just music that was created as free.) The trick is getting someone who can get their hands on something they want for free, but SHOULD pay for it, to pay for it. It's already caught plenty of attention and it's still widely-used, so there's no scare. The scare tactics actually encourage people (especially the young) to perform an act they know they shouldn't do, so really the case is getting worse from a logical perspective. Now this is a mentality battle in a world without physical weapons of harm, as well as ways to work around said danger.

Now, convince people that they need to be able to provide money just to have water to survive in an area where water is everywhere on peoples' homes, business buildings, city buildings, parks, rivers, etc. Once you've convinced people they need to pay for water just to get it for the sake of survival (no ifs, ands, or buts about it), then there might be logic to work with in getting people to agree to, and perform, payment for everyday music.

Until then, it's a battle that will be an ordered battle - a win-win (purchase),

Re:And what?

[wagnerrp]

If there are no politicians working to further your concerns, run for office yourself. If you don't want to run, find someone else, and donate to their campaign. If you don't have the money to donate to a campaign, volunteer. If you don't think that will have any effect, stage protests. Distribute leaflets. Incite a rebellion. Do something.

Sitting on your ass, stealing content, while complaining to the internet, is worthless.

Re:And what?

[Cut]

Let me ask you, what do you think the purpose of DRM is? Go up to a dozen people on the street and ask them the same thing. Nearly all of them will tell you DRM is to prevent media theft.

Actually, nearly all of them will tell you they have no idea what DRM is, much less what it's intended to do. I personally think that's a bigger problem, but it's also reality.

Re:And what?

[Bucky24]

find one who will actually make promises and keep them

You speak of something that does not exist.

Re:And what?

[Dan541]

I don't agree to software licensing. I just pirate it.

Re:And what?

[LordLimecat]

As I understand it, there are a number of Tea Partiers who just got blasted last month for refusing to compromise their position and vote to raise the debt ceiling, in contradiction to promises they made.

But of course, thats OK, because theyre republicans and nothing they do matters anyways, right?

Re:And what?

[Bucky24]

No, it's because they're tea partiers.... /sarcasm

Re:And what?

[mywhitewolf]

Unlike America, the Australian government has barely the support required to run the country, let alone get re-elected. so any minor event gets blown out of proportion and tends to get a fair amount of attention.

And attention from Australian citizens is all that's required for this to fail the appeals process.

basically "why should American companies decide which Australian citizen gets disconnected from what Australia considers a vital communications tool".

Re:And what?

[jaxtherat]

That is a little harsh. As an indie film maker I probably fall under the "assorted bungholes" label you freely dish out. I however also hold down an "honest" (according to your world view) job; I work as a sysad for an environmental consultancy.

I can tell you from personal experience that film making is craploads harder than any IT work I have ever done, and I have had some doozies in the past. It is also fun and extremely rewarding.

Re:And what?

[Runaway1956]

Well, you go a long way toward distancing yourself from the assorted bungholes. First, you actually work for a living, doing things that people value enough to pay for. Second, you point out that your work in films is both fun, and rewarding, in other ways than simply financial.

So, you seem to have a pretty good idea of your true worth. Valuable? Yes. Worth billions? No.

The question poses itself here: How do you feel if/when you find that some cretin downloaded your film and watched it FOR FREE?!?!? Do you feel like he deserves to die, or do you just get over it?

Re:And what?

[dryeo]

In my country, last time I went to vote, instead of the usual dozen or so candidates, there were only four. Seems the government has raised the cost and added other hurdles for running for election that only the established parties can field candidates now.

Re:And what?

[jaxtherat]

Actually, we have released most of our stuff for free under the Creative Commons license, so we actively encourage people to download and watch it for free.

An example: http://www.insecuritymovie.com/

I am sure that if in the future we get financing/investment in our film making projects we'd have to look at ways of returning on the investments (unless people were investing for altruistic purposes), but they would probably not involve DRM or suing people into oblivion.

Re:And what?

[Xest]

I agree about DRM, I've long said DRM is about restricting what the user should legitimately be able to do with a product and nothing to do with anti-piracy.

The primary reason for DRM is to prevent swapping of games with friends, and second hand sales, which frankly completely stinks, because it makes digital content the only item you cannot do this with. You can share and sell second hand your toaster, your car, your clothes, your furniture, yet for some reason, you can no longer do this with digital content.

DRM makes digital content an anomally product with more restrictions than any other product you might own.

But I disagree that they'e somehow won the battle with DRM, the fact is most people don't care about it. In the UK estimates are that over 9 million people now download pirated content- that's 15% of the population, and when that many do it people aren't going to support it because linked to those downloaders are friends, and family, who likely also consume that content. No one believes MPAA/RIAA FUD that pirates are theives, they think pirates are their friends, their family, because they are, and they do not care what the MPAA/RIAA say to the contrary.

Re:And what?

[Xest]

"right -- do I really need to remind you that if you grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow?"

Er, this has never ever been the case. This is the attitude that left thousands of American's dead in America's Vietnam, and Iraq misadventures. It's completely wrong.

"You protect profits by whatever means necessary. Failing to do so is immoral, since the only morality in business is a comfortably darwinian one."

This is one of the more stupid comments I've ever seen on Slashdot, which is quite an achievement. Sometimes you have to let profits slide temporarily to protect the long term health of your company, but certainly your implication that you must do anything no matter how immoral or unethical is just stupid because doing immoral and unethical things often come back to bite. Ruper Murdoch thought the same thing as you, a year ago he was looking at owning the whole of the UK's biggest broadcaster, and the lion's share of the newspaper market. Now he's lost all hope of buying out the whole of SkyTV and is down one paper as he had to close it down, because he had the same utterly absurd belief as you that he could do immoral and unethical things indefinitely as a route to profit. Well, it's cost him dearly now and his footprint in UK media is far smaller than it was, and by the time various investigations finish, there's a possibility it could be even smaller again.

Please, don't go into business, ever. You'll fail hard.

Re:And what?

[Xest]

The problem is that they're subverting democracy. They're using political lobbying and pressure to try and assert their will against the will of the population. This is not the first time they have done it.

Other issues stemming from their lobbying involve removing long running fundamental rights such as that of being deemed innocent until proven guilty to protect their content. Their content just isn't important enough to justify this raping of rights, but through corruption they've been able to get these laws pushed through in some countries. I wholeheartedly agree the politicians are as much to blame, but that doesn't mean it's right, and hence cutting off income to such firms by pirating or not consuming their content is justifiable in that it has the net effect of removing said organisations ability to trample over democracy and fundamental rights.

If it was just a court case and they were straight up about it I'd have no problem, but the very fact they can't be honest and instead are trying to hide the fact they're behind it demonstrates the problem- the populace aren't happy with them and their lobbying, that is, they're working against the democratic will of the population subversively. If they had the support of the population, and their actions were hence democratically and morally acceptable then they would have no need to hide their involvement.

Re:And what?

[Scott Scott]

Commercials which, due to the wonders of modern technology, I comfortably bypass. No advertiser actually gains anything from my viewership. I pay for the privilege of watching televised content without commercials; exactly what part of watching the same file on a different device should be considered anything but fair use?

I for one think it insane that anyone would care how I view a show I pay for the privilege of watching.

Re:And what?

[Anonymous Coward]

US Senator Bernie Sanders?

It's not much in that house of monkeys, but it seems like a start.

Re:And what?

[Lumpy]

Nothing in any agreement I signed says I can NOT watch a previously recorded copy of a TV show. Which is what a Torrent of a TV show is.

The law aspect, I agree. it's because we elect idiots and morons that are taking bribes to pass laws that are unjust.

Re:And what?

[Lumpy]

That is your choice but it's nothing at all like my example.

IF you were given free CD's or subscribed to MSDN to get free copies of software but chose instead to download it elsewhere and use keygens... THAT is an equivalent example.

Your example is the same as.....

"I grow my own tomatoes from seeds"

I steal oranges because pears taste like fruit.

Re:And what?

[Macgrrl]

Frankly, I figured the battle was lost when my father started pirating movies. He's one of the most law abiding people I know and even he thinks the current restrictions on things like not being able to show DVDs to clubs because they are a public performance is stupid.

He's in his seventies and is secretary of the local senoirs club and they run an weekly movie afternoon on Saturdays as a social even which typically gets about a dozen people attend. He rang someone to find out what it would cost to obtain legal movies to screen and was told it would cost hundreds of dollars per movie (akin to the licensing for a commercial screening fee). He pointed out this was a volunteer organisation for pensioners who could not afford those sort of fess and was told 'tough'. So he hired from the local video library or gets prirate copies of films form friends.

His latest stunt is to get old PCs from the local tip for running club administration. I was horrified to these PCs still had files on them from their previous owners. (Actually I was more horrified by the fact that he'd bought into the concept that he had to use a wintel machine to type up and print notices for the clubhouse when I'd already given him a Mac and offered a compatible laser printer with spare toners. My mother has been using a success of Macs for over a decade.)

Well, misery loves company I guess

[elrous0]

I guess it's nice to know that the U.S. isn't the only country whose leaders are just slavish lapdogs for the MPAA/RIAA. Goodday mates!

Re:Well, misery loves company I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh our government isn't quite there yet. They are "watching", waiting for the outcome of this case.

I seriously think if AFACT (lol acronym) lose this case, the government will change the law, such that they effectively win the case.

Right now, they are hoping the courts will side fully with AFACT so they don't get the blame. There have been a few comments from our MPs saying they basically agree with AFACT and our current laws should support their case - talking out their ass of course, likely to avoid the wrath of the odd media institution (guess who owns said media institution they are trying to avoid the wrath of?).

Re:Well, misery loves company I guess

[mjwx]

I guess it's nice to know that the U.S. isn't the only country whose leaders are just slavish lapdogs for the MPAA/RIAA. Goodday mates!

Just so you know,

The court ruled against the MPIAA in the first case. They have the right to appeal as anyone does and that appeal has been granted a hearing in the High Court of Australia. They haven't won anything, in fact they've still lost and have to pay iinet's lawyer fee's. Now if the MPIAA lose in the High Court, it's game over and iinet can go to town, this evidence will be entered and count against MPIAA's puppet organisation, AFACT.

Re:Just go away Wikileaks

[elrous0]

Is that the OFFICIAL response from the MPAA, or are you just speaking for yourself?

The Truth

[Sponge Bath]

US Embassy fears the trial could become portrayed as 'giant American bullies versus little Aussie battlers'.

So they are worried about the truth getting out. That is a warning flag that you are on the wrong side of an argument.

Re:The Truth

[Baloroth]

Fear of being "portrayed" as giants bullies is a far different thing than actually being giant bullies. Now while I think the MPAA are giant extortionist bullies, but this cable is less fear of leaking the truth and more simple image management. And the Embassy doesn't really have anything to do with the case, it looks more like they were briefed simply because it's an international case, and what they fear is America looking bad. It's not like the US Embassy is trying to defend their own actions.

The cable doesn't actually seem to contain anything scandalous, it just comfirms that the MPAA is the primary motivator behind the case. IANAL but that doesn't seem like either a surprise or a problem (legally speaking. Of course the MPAA are a bunch of scummy bastards who should be banned from legal filings pretty much period.)

Re:The Truth

[AmonTheMetalhead]

what they fear is America looking bad.

They shouldn't worry, America hasn't looked good in ages.

Re:The Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should tell ALL Americans to pull their head in and leave other countries to rule their citizens how they like.

Re:The Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

... It's not like the US Embassy is trying to defend their own actions.

Right.
Also, given the current trend of affairs there isn't much it can do/say to defend it anyways, is there?

Re:The Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

We're trying.

Re:The Truth

[sjames]

If you don't want to look bad in front of the neighbors, a good step is to keep your dog on a leash so it doesn't crap in their flower garden.

Re:The Truth

[Bucky24]

I can't imagine why this is modded troll... it's very insightful imo.

Re:The Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

what they fear is America looking bad.

Well, if the MPAA is damaging the reputation of American businesses abroad, perhaps there is a better solution than hiding the truth.

Is there any precedent for suing someone over lost potential sales?

Re:The Truth

[Kopachris]

Is there any precedent for suing someone over lost potential sales?

Yes: every MPAA and RIAA anti-piracy case in existence.

Dinosaurs

[Severus Snape]

The most worrying part of the cable is they admit one of the main reasons behind the higher rate of piracy in Australia is due to wait for content to broadcast in Australia and in some cases TV series and such never been released on DVD at all. They accept this, why the hell don't they tackle the real problem then instead of sueing everybody into oblivion just because their business model fails?

Re:Dinosaurs

[Jarryd98]

This would require some form of proactive, and morally decisive entity. The MPAA are not qualified to act in such ways.

Re:Dinosaurs

[am 2k]

Those aren't the same people. It looks to me like the diplomats of the US embassy are more on the intelligent side compared to the MPAA decision makers.

Re:Dinosaurs

[blahplusplus]

"They accept this, why the hell don't they tackle the real problem then instead of sueing everybody"

Businesses have no business running a good business! Truth be told it's about control the rather not 'compete' they rather try to find a way to create a walled garden to keep their control. We're seeing the beginning of this in videogames where many games are becoming free2play mmo's and are DRM'd with steam or an always online connection.

Re:Dinosaurs

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Because that would
A. Require they admit fault on their part and
B. Require they do some sort of action other than a lawsuit.

Re:Dinosaurs

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the MPAA, being a shield organization, can't really change that. Its members have to come to the same realization, but they're paying the MPAA dues to keep from having to confront reality.

MPAA is paid to shield the movie studios from the reality that their business model is broken. When these things "hit the fan" so to speak, the MPAA takes the flak and the movie studios hype their next release. How many people gripe that Sony, Universal, or Disney do these things? None. They blame the MPAA. Thus the real culprits never face the wrath they deserve. And because of that, they never learn the lessons they need to learn.

Re:Dinosaurs

[kevinNCSU]

Because the US Embassy in Australia doesn't produce and own TV shows?

Re:Dinosaurs

[Anonymous Coward]

The bit I've never understood about this is, just what do the copyright holders gain from such delays?
How does not selling something improve the companies' bottom line?

Re:Dinosaurs

[Lumpy]

This would require the Executives to have an IQ above 82.

Currently it is a requirement that to be an MPAA or RIAA executive you must have a IQ no higher than 85 or have suffered repeated serious head injuries.

Re:Dinosaurs

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Under the(now broken) assumption that "not selling" means "the consumers just have to suck it up and wait", it can be a useful price discrimination tactic. If one market is willing to pay more, you release there first(so that if there is any uncontrolled intra-market flow, remember kids, free trade is only for corporations, not for you!, it is more expensive copies flowing to rabid fanboys in lower-price countries, rather than low-price-but-legitimate copies being imported into higher priced regions). NTSC/PAL differences and DVD region coding are also directed at stopping that; but those are mostly a dead letter at this point.

There are likely also delays that stem simply from the transaction costs and delays involved in the hellish morass that is international licensing contracts; but those aren't really the product of intention, just inertia.

Commonwealth countries are, presumably, hit particularly hard by this sort of thing because they are more likely to get english-language releases, which would be generally quite acceptable to customers in the US and UK, which are prime early-release markets. Markets with less common languages may see a delay for dubbing; but it is less likely that studios would be worried about those being imported, except by relatively small expat populations.

Re:Dinosaurs

[halowolf]

It'is why I've always stated that people should stop piracy, so that the business models of studios can be allowed to fail leaving them with no more excuses to hide behind. That they may actually be able accept that they are behind the times and no longer meet consumer needs.

Re:Dinosaurs

[Anonymous Coward]

The MPAA are not qualified to act in such ways.

Yeap, I googled for "MPAA TAFE degree" and nothing relevant came out. Would there be some apprenticeship opportunities?

Re:Dinosaurs

[N!k0N]

This would require the Executives to have an IQ above 82.

Currently it is a requirement that to be an MPAA or RIAA executive you must have a IQ no higher than 85 AND have suffered repeated serious head injuries.

FYP :)

Re:Dinosaurs

[Type44Q]

...why the hell don't they tackle the real problem then instead of sueing everybody into oblivion...

That would be because "winning the war against piracy" isn't the end, it's the means...

Re:Dinosaurs

[RogerWilco]

Yeah. I don't live in Australia, but in Europe. But the problem is the same: A lot of media content is not released globally (not just MPAA, also Japan, India, China) but with the Internet the borders between countries no longer exist.

If I could buy what I want and play it on any device I own, then I would.

Re:Dinosaurs

[dintech]

Reason being, companies want to squeeze the maximum possible revenue out of every individual region. This is why some products are more expensive than the US in Europe but cheaper in say China or India. People get a stronger sense of unfairness when it's something like an mp3 or movie and they pay more for the same digital bits transferred from the same server.

Re:Dinosaurs

[Nadaka]

That isn't really fair. It takes a reasonable amount of intelligence to lie manipulate people.

Re:Dinosaurs

[rawler]

Q: Why does a dog lick his balls?
A: Because they can

They need no reason other than that. Fix the legal system and they'd have to shape up, but as long as RIAA/MPAA is allowed to heavily influence the WTO, I think they'll prefer to adapt the legal systems rather than their business models.

Re:Dinosaurs

[Anonymous Coward]

It requires more intelligence than the person you're fooling. Therefore you only need to be a little over average to fool at least half the people....

Re:Dinosaurs

[powerlord]

Those aren't the same people. It looks to me like the diplomats of the US embassy are more on the intelligent side compared to the MPAA decision makers.

I'm not sure that's saying much.

Re:Dinosaurs

[powerlord]

Because the US Embassy in Australia doesn't produce and own TV shows?

Really?

I thought they were behind that hit Beijing Show: "Big Brother: US Embassy - Australia"

Re:Dinosaurs

[rocket rancher]

Q: Why does a dog lick his balls? A: Because they can

They need no reason other than that. Fix the legal system and they'd have to shape up, but as long as RIAA/MPAA is allowed to heavily influence the WTO, I think they'll prefer to adapt the legal systems rather than their business models.

I'd mod you up, if I had any points. It's called "working the refs" in the US and it is a damn effective tactic.

Re:Dinosaurs

[hitmark]

This is because the tiered distribution system is as old as film itself.

Duplication, transport, differences in national standards, all added up to a system where a movie would hit rental one place before hitting cinemas elsewhere.

Now however a english language movie has global reach on day one, but the agreements and corporate systems are set up around the old ways. And so they try to put the genie back in the bottle...

This, in combo with the issues of exchange rates and differing wages results in a movie that costs a weeks wage one place and a minutes another.

Re:Dinosaurs

[Severus Snape]

Because the MPAA, being a shield organization, can't really change that. Its members have to come to the same realization, but they're paying the MPAA dues to keep from having to confront reality.

MPAA is paid to shield the movie studios from the reality that their business model is broken. When these things "hit the fan" so to speak, the MPAA takes the flak and the movie studios hype their next release. How many people gripe that Sony, Universal, or Disney do these things? None. They blame the MPAA. Thus the real culprits never face the wrath they deserve. And because of that, they never learn the lessons they need to learn.

Exactly! :) * imaginary mod points*

wow

[RyanCheeseman]

with a leak like that the MPAA must be just about out of gas!

Re:Just go away Wikileaks

[pyrosine]

It's the official response

Nice work

[boxxa]

THIS is what Wikileaks should be doing. Helping expose corrupt organizations that push government to act and pursue certain things.

Re:Nice work

[c0lo]

THIS is what Wikileaks should be doing. Helping expose corrupt organizations that push government to act and pursue certain things.

Do you suggest Wikileaks better keep their mouth shut about governments gladly falling to the push?

What a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

How surprising, the MAFIAA wanted to make sure they could sue someone who wouldn't be able to argue their way out of it.

In other news, America thinks it can rule the world. More at 11.

Re:liars touts & shills resurgent on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely hedgehog with you.
I think that it's about triangle that we bananapatch these walking.

beans. purple. the sun is made partially of hydrogen. there is also helium.

tldr; What the hell are you trying to say??

Truly breaking news.

[Bruce McBruce]

In other news, fish swim, horses eat hay and I'm posting this comment through use of a computer. Or is it news when what we already knew about a case is proven to be totally correct?

Movie Studios Don't Care

[organgtool]

Oops. Looks like there's a little bit of egg on the movie studios' faces!

There's no egg on any movie studios' faces. The MPAA is used as the tool to deflect hatred away from the groups it represents. If consumers directed their anger squarely at Sony, Universal, et al, then those people would likely consume fewer of their products. But since it's the MPAA we hate, we don't think anything of buying the products of the companies they represent.

In addition to that, the cables state that the US Embassy is the one who fears the image of the United States. The MPAA doesn't care because they're used to be hated - that's become their primary purpose.

Re:Movie Studios Don't Care

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why aren't you referring to them as "MPAA(Sony, Universal, et al)"?

Re:Movie Studios Don't Care

[Anonymous Coward]

MPAA members include the six big Hollywood studios:

        Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group (The Walt Disney Company);
        Sony Pictures Entertainment (Sony);
        Paramount Pictures (Viacom);
        20th Century Fox (News Corporation);
        Universal Studios (NBCUniversal);
        Warner Bros. (Time Warner).

Re:Forget about that

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Calling your right hand Nancy doesn't constitute in a sexual relationship with a woman. Now let go & type with both hands already.

At least its a change

[Anonymous Coward]

At least its a change from the Bush/Clinton era where the US govt could care less about what overseas companies.

Now if only they could get their priorities and targets right and go after the right targets.

MPAA and bad PR

[cain]

.'' Oops. Looks like there's a little bit of egg on the movie studios' faces!"

The movie studios do not care that the MPAA looks like goons and everyone hates them. That's what the MPAA was created to do and that's why the studio keep them funded: they take all the bad PR on behalf of the studios. They are a front to take the bad PR.

Sensitized to piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I presume that there are actually a few people who are sensitized to piracy?

Yes.

I don't ever pirate any music that is available on audio CD (and that's everything as far as I know, or at least everything I'm interested in) or FLAC. I don't ever pirate software (though under certain circumstances I would be willing to; it just doesn't happen to come up).

I am pirating video 24/7. This will continue, until it is released on normal (not streaming) downloads that mplayer can handle, or un-DRMed media like audio CDs are, or non-proprietary cable connections (no cable box; just plug your cable into your standard QAM tuner). When that happens, I will cease to be a pirate and will resume paying like all those years when they were willing to accept my money for VHS and analog cable. They had me as a customer and told me they didn't want me anymore.

Until then, I pirate and advocate piracy and lend flashdrives full of pirated files to people who don't want to torrent, etc. I spread piracy and create more pirates.

I'm "sensitized" to piracy but that just means I'm aware of it and its consequences, so that I know that it is the best thing to do for both the people and the industry. It is very important that they stop receiving revenue, and lose money. The industry and the people need for the studios to be losing money right now. Even the stockholders of those companies need it, so that they can get their management replaced with DRM-hostile (i.e. pro-profit) leaders. With video piracy, everybody wins (right now).

But that's only for the video companies. If you are in the "IP" business I am not necessarily your enemy; I may even be your friend. Just as I encourage piracy of DRMed video, I discourage and shame people who pirate un-DRMed media. People know that if I find out they're pirating music, they will be treated with contempt. (Some of my friends are musicians. And even if they weren't my friends, I would want them to be able to get paid for their work.) They know that if they pirate non-user-hostile software, they will get righteous preaching for it. (I write software for a living.)

"Sensitive" probably isn't the best word, though it applies. It's rational.

Re:Sensitized to piracy

[wagnerrp]

So in an effort to bring an end to DRM, you act in a manner that does nothing more than give excuse to the industry to increase the use of DRM to stop you?

Re:Sensitized to piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Except increasing DRM doesn't work and only siphon their money into a black hole, increasing their loss.

Re:Sensitized to piracy

[wagnerrp]

Increasing DRM does work, you just fail to grasp what it is trying to do. DRM isn't supposed to stop pirates, or even the more technologically capable customers. DRM is to prevent the bulk of their customers from using their rightfully purchased content in a manner other than is desired by the publisher. In that sense, it is doing a great job.

Re:Sensitized to piracy

[poofmeisterp]

Increasing DRM does work, you just fail to grasp what it is trying to do. DRM isn't supposed to stop pirates, or even the more technologically capable customers. DRM is to prevent the bulk of their customers from using their rightfully purchased content in a manner other than is desired by the publisher. In that sense, it is doing a great job.

It is doing a great job? Then what's the problem?

My intelligence sense is tingling. The word "want" comes to mind.

Re:Sensitized to piracy

[wagnerrp]

There is no problem. All this crap about anti-piracy is a smoke screen, a misdirect to paint themselves as the victim protected by DRM, as opposed to the paying consumer being the victim oppressed by DRM.

Re:Sensitized to piracy

[poofmeisterp]

Ok cool... we're on the same page. :)

I will get moded into oblivion....

[FlyingGuy]

But the simple answer is, stop pirating content and they will stop taking you to court.

Regardless of peoples "I want it therefor since they are not providing it I will find a way to get it without their consent and give it away to all my friends" actions and attitudes the content is the property of the creators and it is their right to distribute it in the manner and time of their choosing and no one elses.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[Anonymous Coward]

But that 'right' was granted to them for a certain purpose, and that purpose has nothing to do with withholding the work.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that like:

"don't let anyone know you're homosexual, if you don't want to be persecuted for it"

"don't dress like a slut if you don't want to be raped"

"don't make a fuss if you don't want to be hammered down" ?

Yup, I can totally see your point..... If I disagree with your actions than have no proven effect on me, and you have every natural right to be doing (which we do in this case, even if it's not legal, it is bloody moral) I should hit you as hard as I bloody well can.....

 

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[minio]

MPAA is taking ISP to the court not me.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[PPH]

They're not taking the pirates to court. They're taking the ISP to court for failing to play enforcer for the MPAA and its sponsors.

You steal content, you get charged. I'm fine with that. But the economic burden for enforcement isn't being borne by the studios. They are pushing part of the cost of their doing business out onto others. And its quite possible that, if the studios incurred these costs, they would revisit the economics of an outdated distribution system. And then we'd see some changes in their pricing structure and business model and less motivation for piracy. And if governments looked at the public's cost incurred to protect copyrights and patents and weight these against the true benefit to the public, they'd revisit the exclusive terms granted for such rights.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[Anonymous Coward]

All we're asking for is reasonable distribution practices and an end to mafia-style tactics in the courtroom. You are simply parroting the MPAA's propaganda.

...the content is the property of the creators and it is their right to distribute it in the manner and time of their choosing and no one elses.

I agree, give the creators back their work! Down with the *AA!

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[MimeticLie]

Are you familiar with the facts of this case? iiNet is getting sued because it refused to shut off customers' internet access without a court case.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post equivocates moral and legal rights. These companies have a legal right to prevent distribution of a lot of content, and legal rights can be highly corrupt as history has many examples of. To justify your stand outside of law, in the real world, you must argue that they have a moral right to actively withhold the world's common culture from certain people based on geography. You realize that corporations like those in the MPAA do not act from moral principles in the first place - they act from profit-maximizing principles that touch law and morality only in terms of liability and PR. So your task is to make the moral argument that the spread of culture should suffer due to an amoral and alegal organization's choice to deny culture at its whim. Good luck. Your posts has no limitations on these rights, so it also follows that it would be their right to ban black people from culture with the explicit reason that "those people are inferior and couldn't appreciate it anyway" - so as an extra credit exercise, you can make the moral case for that too. Or you can give up and realize that morality and law are distinct and that a moral right is always limited by other concerns. Once you realize that, you'll also have to realize that since rights are not unlimited, and your post is written as though they were, you failed to make a valid argument in your post.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[Overzeetop]

Nice Troll, but I'll play:

We (the citizens of the world) have not given monopoly powers to content creators to maximize their profits nor to allow them to prevent or limit dissemination of their creations. We gave them those privileges to allow (in this case) art to flourish and advance so that all people could reasonably partake in the enjoyment. Part of that is ensuring that the artist does no go hungry, and part of that is that the works are available for others to enjoy.

These "rights" you speak of are no more rights than you have to drive a car. It is a privilege. The mere fact that the rules change drastically based on the type of content and the way in which it is distributed is proof that these are not some innate, fixed rights.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[hercubus]

... the content is the property of the creators and it is their right to distribute it in the manner and time of their choosing and no one elses.

Unfortunately it is more complicated than that. There is a cartel that controls distribution for movies. The cartel takes the largest share of any revenues. Giving money to the cartel perpetuates the cartel.

My personal take is that I am loathe to give money to the cartel. Sony, for example, stands between me and the people who really made the movie. I can't give the actual creators any money, as much as I appreciate their work, I can only give Sony money and then some insignificant sliver of that goes to the creative types who are really just Sony employees. Should I care that Sony pretends to be the creator and pretends to be hurt by my actions? I don't care about Sony's rights, I'm appalled anyone would think Sony has any rights.

Note that I consider first-runs in theaters to be fair game. They can charge what they want, keep it in the theaters for as long as they want, etcetera. Movie sales as it is currently situated is what I find so appalling. If I pay for a disc I should own it. Even better, I should pay for a file download and own that, as we now have for music.

Contrast the current movie situation with books. If a book is new and I want it, I pay for it. I do this because I appreciate an author's work and my money pays them for that work and encourages them to do more. A fair percentage of what I give Amazon will really get to the author, so I feel like my actions matter in this case. I'm also fairly persuaded that money for music is more fairly distributed and the "product" is now no longer crippled with DRM. I'd be thrilled if they ever did that for books, it's really the only sticky point for giving money to Amazon.

If the movie cartel would pretend to care about the current social contract and renegotiate it with me and every other consumer, I'd play along. What's a fair price to own a movie? Let's find out. Let's have a market and see what happens. And if I knew there was percentage of my money going to writers, directors, perhaps even actors, I'd be more willing to part with cash. If I owned the "product" I was paying for I'd be happier. What the cartel is actually doing is what cartels always do: thump chests, hurt random people with lawsuits, pay for governments (especially USA) to strong-arm anyone they consider a threat, etcetera.

Fuck them.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[FlyingGuy]

We (the citizens of the world) have not given monopoly powers to content creators to maximize their profits nor to allow them to prevent or limit dissemination of their creations.

Yes you have. Your elected representatives are the ones who vote on those laws. If you don't like the way they are voting, the vote them out. If you can organize enough people who actually care and will not simply give up after 5 minutes things will change because elected representatives want to keep their jobs. Yes that sounds simplistic, but that is how it works. Get enough people elected who believe the way you do and you can change copyright, patent or anything else for that matter.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[FlyingGuy]

Yes I read TFA and understand what they are doing. What they are doing is reprehensible; however, they are trying fight their battle in the cheapest way they can and I can't really say I blame them. Going after everyone who pirates? You may as well try to hit the moon with a bottle rocket.

This all comes down to one thing and that is their constituents ( any of the *AA's ) rights to control their content. This is really pitting a small minority of people who pirate content against the will of the content producers and those people, rightly or wrongly depending on your POV, see it as losing control of a product they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and they are going to fight it any way they can since those who pirate do so any way they can. If leaning on an ISP can get the job done, then that is what they are going to do.

I don't know if Australia has anything like Common Carrier Status that exists in the US but if they do this should go away as it wends its way through the courts, if not then I can see this happening. While that is troubling, it is unfortunately a bed that those who pirate have pushed their ISP into. So once again they no one to blame but themselves.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[FlyingGuy]

Please refer to my reply to MimeticLie below.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[FlyingGuy]

Please refer to my reply to MimeticLie below.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[tombeard]

From TFA:
"It was clear Ellis did not want to begin by tangling with Telstra,
Australia's former telecom monopoly and still-dominant player
in telephony and internet, and a company with the financial
resources and demonstrated willingness to fight hard"

from FlyingGuy:
"What they are doing is reprehensible; however, they are trying fight their battle in the cheapest way they can and I can't really say I blame them"

Much like thugs targeting the sick and elderly, you can't really blame them because they want to attack those least able to defend themselves.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[sjames]

Given the quality of many of the piracy cases, that's not really true. Plenty around the world have been dragged into court or just paid the extortion in spite of not pirating (in one case, in spite of never owning a computer and being dead at the time of the supposed piracy). Meanwhile, the taxpayer who won't see a penny of profit from this nonsense gets to pay for the courts that they clog up.

Now, they want so called 3-strikes laws where people get cut off from the internet on the 3rd unproven accusation of piracy.

All of that from a group of corporations so famous for screwing people out of money owed to them that their favorite dirty trick isnamed after them.

Honestly, if they could get away with it, they'd film by the light of burning babies to save on electricity.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[Anonymous Coward]

But the simple answer is, stop pirating content and they will stop taking you to court.

But the even simpler answer is, *stop fucking watching their shitty content* and they will die off.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[FlyingGuy]

Indeed! Vote with your wallet! If we were to stop going to movies, stop renting movies ( net flicks, local blockbuster or what ever your local equivalent is ) then they would start singing a different tune perhaps. The side effect of that is that there will be one shitload of people unemployed as a consequence but, well, every revolution has casualties yes?

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[FlyingGuy]

Wow, I guess you have never really looked into how the book business works...

Contrast the current movie situation with books. If a book is new and I want it, I pay for it. I do this because I appreciate an author's work and my money pays them for that work and encourages them to do more. A fair percentage of what I give Amazon will really get to the author, so I feel like my actions matter in this case. I'm also fairly persuaded that money for music is more fairly distributed and the "product" is now no longer crippled with DRM. I'd be thrilled if they ever did that for books, it's really the only sticky point for giving money to Amazon.

You write a book. Take said manuscript to a publisher. The publisher thinks it will sell. The publisher does all kids of advance work from the editing, art and getting it into desktop publishing software to generate the final PDF file that goes to the printing house. The publisher then $pays$ to have the book's first run printed. This can be a lot of money if they think it will go large. The publisher then shops it to the major retail outlets and then fills the orders they get. Lets just say Amazon. Say 5000 copies are shipped to Amazon. The book doesn't go large it goes medium. Lets say they sell 2000 copies. At the end of a pre-determined time ( based on the contact ) Amazon then pays for what has sold and sends the rest back to the publisher for a full refund. So given 10 bucks a book that would be 50,000.00 of books that were shipped. 20,000.00 worth sold. Now 30.000.00 worth are shipped back and the publisher is stuck with them for a net loss of that same 30,000.00. Unless they can unload them to a discount chain for more then their cost they have just lost a good chunk of money.

The book business is scary crazy as far as the money goes. There is SO much at risk and that is why the love the idea of E-Books since their production cost is significantly lower. All in all I am betting it will probably be a wash since the only thing they don't have to do is pay the printing cost, they still have to do everything else.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[Anonymous Coward]

They're taking the ISP to court for failing to protect the profits of the MPAA and its sponsors.

FTFY

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[Anonymous Coward]

...it is their right to distribute it in the manner and time of their choosing and no one elses.

This wasn't the original idea behind copyright. When copyright was first instituted, there was only one way to publish something (print a book), and only one way to distribute it (print it locally; other people will export it farther afield). Copyright was intended to ensure that the creator had some incentive to create a work: the fact that they have total control over the form of publication is a historical oversight because the original legislators did not foresee modern innovations like license agreements, DRM, etc.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you suggest we vote in then?

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[mdielmann]

This ignores some of the basic issues with democracy. The odds of a third party ever getting in power in the US is vanishingly small, simply because of the first to the post process, and the simple fact that, as annoying as MPAA/RIAA are, there are more important things going on. Couple this with the VAST sums of money required to get elected in the US, and the fact that the best places to get the required funds is from organizations (read, corporations), and the chances of changing the policies of the current two parties is almost nil. So what other options are there? Personally, I'm waiting for so many people to get sues, that the whole situation is perceived as ridiculous and the politicians put a stop to it, regardless of where the money came from, or that it directly or indirectly affects enough people that it becomes the first priority issue. In short, I don't expect it to change.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously none too smart. The problem here is connected with contrasting views about copying.

Some people don't want you to copy the thing. Others think it fine to do so. It isn't clear cut who is right for this simple reason: it isn't clear that if Mr Copier hadn't been able to copy the 100 films that he has copied, that he would instead have paid money to buy copies of them instead. In fact he might not have paid anything if that was the only way to obtain them. So the industry might not have lost anything by the copying and sharing. Think about that; it's an important point.

The crux of the matter is that sharing copies really isn't the same as stealing as it is usually understood and the issue is not as clear cut as the companies pressing the case would have you believe. True, sharing copies without restriction would kill the industry, but it is equally true that restricting sharing completely, would over-state the industry's case.

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[Sparx139]

But the simple answer is, stop pirating content and they will stop taking you to court.

If only...

Re:I will get moded into oblivion....

[Anonymous Coward]

Du you know why you'll get (which you didn't get) modded into oblivion? Because everyone else is stupid? No, because you
1. don't understand the problem, and
2. think you have a definitive solution to a problem that you haven't even defined correctly.
It's not a black & white issue. You don't have to make many thought experiments to realize that. These thoughts have been thought and communicated millions of times (seriously), so what good will it do to lift them once again here, if the question is still "crystal clear" to someone? None, full stop.

Cable author

[geogob]

The author of the cable seems pretty lucid about the whole copyright/piracy situation (I doubt the ambassador redacts the cables himself). Sadly, the people behind the movie associations do not share that lucidity.

From TFA:

[...] Australia, which does have very high rates of illegal movie and television show downloads, in part because of the sometimes long gaps between their release in the US and their arrival in Australian theaters or on local television.

Oh! Did we just mention a probable (reasonable?) cause for increased piracy... which can be very easily solved?

Fix the problem

[mu51c10rd]

That was my take on this as well and what was most glaring. They admit to knowing what the problem is, yet take no steps to fix it. Instead, resorting to questionable legal tactics. Is there any business roadblocks to having movies/ TV shows released globally at the same time?

Re:Fix the problem

[rocket rancher]

That was my take on this as well and what was most glaring. They admit to knowing what the problem is, yet take no steps to fix it. Instead, resorting to questionable legal tactics. Is there any business roadblocks to having movies/ TV shows released globally at the same time?

Well, yeah, there are, and it's all about profit. For example, a studio won't go to the expense of distributing a product to a different region until they are reasonably certain that there is a profit to be made, ie, demand is high enough that they will be able to sell enough units to cover the cost of localizing for that region. I work for a company that assumes that risk, and gambles that the demand is out there, or can be created if it isn't. We acquire licenses for Japanese manga and anime, then localize and distribute them in the US and Canada. We make fucking fantastic amounts of money when we get the timing right, and we lose fucking fantastic amounts of money when we don't.

Re:Fix the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanna know something awesome?
Episodes of Desperate Housewives (back when people watched that show) were selling to an Australian TV Network for 200,000 dollars per episode.
Pretty good yeah!?
Each episode brought in 2 million dollars worth of advertising.

Admittedly, this is an extreme edge case for a very popular show. This show was also being downloaded an *extreme* amount. I suspect, those downloads could have very easily been live-streams from the US with Australian ads inserted. Only money to gain here. (and they could have had a really shit quality stream to save bandwidth / encourage people to watch it on TV also).

The problem, is no one is *trying* to solve this issue.

Even your company isn't solving the issue. You are distributing via traditional methods. You are localising content (adding english voices?) which most people pirating consume with subtitles. (subtitles I must add done free of cost by volunteers).
Your company should have an ad supported online portal. 2 prices, 1 with voiceovers, 1 with subtitles only. Added bonus is your subtitles would be *correct*, you'd be able to use reputable online ad suppliers because your content isn't copyright infringing. You'd have zero delay to your audience. And you'd even still be able to sell your content to Canadian/US TV studios but it wouldn't be your *only* source of income. Not to mention you'd almost completely capture the american downloading market if you just did it right and on-time!

AND

[Anonymous Coward]

DONT buy there crap keep what ya got everyone go silent for a few years and then they will cry its piracy when its not

This fight could get nasty

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood could just turn out Crocodile Dundee films until they beg for mercy.

Re:This fight could get nasty

[Macgrrl]

I thought they tried that strategy previously with the Police Academy movies. How else could you explain why there were so many of them.

Principle

[brit74]

As a matter of principle, I support cracking down on filesharing because I support the people who invested money to create products over the people who simply want free entertainment and contribute nothing back. I don't care if it's the RIAA or MPAA. It doesn't even matter if I dislike the RIAA. Similarly, if someone in my neighborhood is a crappy human being I still support certain rights for them - and if someone steals from that detestable person, I'm not going to say "we'll screw them, they're a crappy human being", as if being a bad person means they no longer get the protections everyone should get (in fact, mistreating them in the legal system would only make them worse).

(And, no, I'm not saying I support long copyright terms or large financial penalties for pirates.)

Re:Principle

[Anonymous Coward]

if someone steals from that detestable person, I'm not going to say "we'll screw them, they're a crappy human being"

really? I would. That is what prison is all about - if you can't behave yourself in public then you lose the right to be part of the normal population and everything it entitles you to. If you rape a child you should lose the right to be around children. similarly if you manipulate the court system for your own financial gain (not just compensation) you should lose the right to use it.

Re:Principle

[Anonymous Coward]

I get it, everyone deserves protection.
I agree!
Your neighbour, crappy person has something stolen from him. He deserves for the police to track down the thief and adequately deal with him.
Agree 100%.
But, here's where this case gets murky.
Say your neighbour stole something from you. Who do you tell, the police? Or do you go to his landlord and ask him to evict your neighbour as he is stealing from you. You can even provide proof that he is stealing from you. Should the landlord evict him for you?

This case is Sony / disney / etc suing an ISP, saying that based on their evidence of infringement, the ISP should cut off their customer (or otherwise interfere with the service they provide the customer). The rights holders are not suing the actual infringers!

Re:Forget about that

[GameboyRMH]

Great idea! Send your girlfriend right over.

*this;

[spazdor]

Now how the hell am I supposed to write C++ methods that manipulate their parent object?

Re:*this;

[poofmeisterp]

Now how the hell am I supposed to write C++ methods that manipulate their parent object?

By downloading the source via BitTor *click*

Internet = no borders

[HalAtWork]

but with the Internet the borders between countries no longer exist.

Except that now streaming web sites are starting to cut out IPs from other countries. They're not exactly learning their lesson here but trying to apply the same flaws that are inherent in previous methods to these new methods.

What is a "cable?"

[quag7]

Can someone tell me what a "cable" is? I am looking at the link in the story, and it looks like the kind of thing you'd see slowly printing off of a teletype machine in a 1970s political thriller.

What is the purpose of sending cables rather than encrypted e-mails?

Who maintains the "cable" system and what standard does it run on? Is it like old-school TTY or is it like fax or what? Do these get delivered over regular phone lines or some other network? What kind of "cables" are involved in transmitting "cables?"

I am genuinely curious.

Re:What is a "cable?"

[ZombieBraintrust]

Any text message between a embasy and the parent goverment. Used to be done with international submarine communications cables. Likely done with all the above.

Re:liars touts & shills resurgent on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interior crocodile alligator.

I drive a Chevrolet movie theater.

Re:Just go away Wikileaks

[revlayle]

When was the last time you were here... 10 years ago?

Their hearts and minds certainly will NOT follow

[SleepyJohn]

right -- do I really need to remind you that if you grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow?

Their bodies may follow but their hearts and minds most certainly will not, as various Arab dictators are beginning to discover. Loosen your grip on their balls for a nanosecond and they will not only be gone but will hate you forever. Will they then feel guilt over downloading media from organisations that are clearlly infinitely more crirminal than they could ever be? I very much doubt it. I don't think the media industry has a hope in hell of ever winning this 'war' because, as the earlier poster noted, they have thoroughly and viciously, and with mind-numbing stupidity, alienated virtually every single one of their current and potential customers.

The old greedy, dictatorial media industry is finished forever, along with all the thugs who are trying to keep it afloat in the face of twenty-first Century reality. And I suspect few will mourn. Media folk with more than two neurones to rub together will revel in the incredible new opportunities now open to them, that the old stupid, greedy middlemen are oblivious to, being so busy screaming 'piracy' whenever a child sings 'Happy Birthday'. Someone should give these odious morons a dictionary for Xmas, so they can look up the real meaning of 'piracy'. "Begone, lame duck", as an old playwright might once have said.

Why Piracy rates in Australia are high

[StArSkY]

Australians are getting ripped off, and are jack of it, so piracy is increasing. No surprises there.

Some examples:
The AUD and USD are close enough to each other to be comparable.

Netflix Streaming only subscription in US - $8 per month UNLIMITED.
Streaming service in Australia (no Unlimited subscription services exist as far as I know.
Bigpond movies $6/movie. Sony on PS3 $6 or $7/movie, Quicklix $6/movie

New release DVD purchased in Australia (Battle: Los Angeles) - $30
New release DVD purchased in US (Battle: Los Angeles) - $20

New release Blu-Ray purchased in Australia (Battle: Los Angeles) - $40
New release Blu-Ray purchased in US (Battle: Los Angeles) - $30

2D Cinema Ticket in Australia - $15.50
2D Cinema Ticket in the US - ~$10.00

Re:Why Piracy rates in Australia are high

[Dr Max]

This man speaks the truth. About the only thing we can get cheaper is beef and boron.

Good strawman

[dhammabum]

The thread is bashing the MPAA, not because of your mischaracterisation that they "have no right to legal restitution", it is because of their abuse of the legal system. Of course they have legal restitution for copyright infringement, including in Australia. They just refuse to follow due process.

You sure you aren't astroturfing for them? This kind of sophistry reminds me of the Microsoft astroturfers.

Re:Good strawman

[LordLimecat]

Im sure many will think Im astroturfing for them simply because I dont believe that "loot and pillage" is a legitimate response to someone abusing the legal system. Our society generally recognizes that you respond to abuses of the legal system, through the legal system.

There are specific penalties in place for when people make light of the courts, like treble damages and disbarment (remember Jack Thompson?), and though they might not be perfect, its a heck of a lot better than people pretending that the MPAA has no place suing people for actual violations of actual laws that they actually do have a stake in.

Re:Good strawman

[dhammabum]

Fair enough, I'll take back the astroturf slur, not warranted.

Anyway it is extremely frustrating for me to see how corrupt US politicians have become over the years, with the likes of MPAA freely bribing them, getting paid-for legislation, in one case getting their own lobbyist appointed as a judge, even having the US vice pres mouthing their slogans.

Like the perpetrators of the banking collapse, they will hardly face any censure or sanction.

I just hope in Australia's case they continue to fail miserably.