Slashdot Mirror


Campaign Urges People To Send MPAA and RIAA Copied Currency

An anonymous reader writes "In response to the still-raging MPAA & RIAA, a kind of reverse piracy campaign has arisen. The "Send Them Your Money" campaign urges pirates and landlubbers alike to send scanned images of American currency to these agencies. According to the campaign's webpage, 'They've made it very clear that they consider digital copies to be just as valuable as the original.' The operation gained fame via sites like Reddit and Tumblr, inspiring citizens of other countries to send their legal tender to the MPAA and RIAA."

295 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. Genius. by Severus+Snape · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think I might do the same.

    1. Re:Genius. by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think I might do the same.

      Yes, it's genius. Clearly this is the same thing, because copies of money are identical to the original and can be used the same. Oh, wait... I just realized that this analogy is complete bullshit invented by a moron.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    2. Re:Genius. by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's kinda the point.

      That you missed.

      Now who's the moron?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Genius. by neokushan · · Score: 5, Funny

      I just copied this text from another comment:

      Whoosh!

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    4. Re:Genius. by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1, Troll

      That's kinda the point.

      That you missed.

      Now who's the moron?

      I'm still missing the point, then. Is this not an attempt to make a statement that copied money is equivalent to copied files? Please explain what I've missed, since I'm so stupid and you're so smart.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    5. Re:Genius. by Score+Whore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think he did miss the point. A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream. On the other hand a photocopied/scanned/printed copy of a dollar bill has zero value. Not even the people who are pushing this idea believe the equivalency proposed. If they did they would be perfectly happy with receiving photocopied cash as pay for their day jobs. Or they would be willing to receive 4 gigabyte streams of random bits in lieu of actual copies of movies, as long as the titles of the files were correct. Neither of these are true, so this whole thing is bunk.

    6. Re:Genius. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

      I just copied this text from another comment:

      Whoosh!

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Genius. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point. If you make a copy of a dollar bill, you can't use the copy. It is by definition not as valuable as the original. If you make a copy of a CD, you can use the copy. It is just as valuable as the original. Only a moron wouldn't see the difference. I don't remember anyone from the RIAA ever claiming that "A copy of anything is just as valuable as the original", obviously that would be stupid. I would also urge people to think twice before joining in on this retarded campaign. Ignoring it's obvious pointlessness, it is a federal crime to scan and print US currency.

    8. Re:Genius. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I just copied this text from another comment:

      Whoosh!
           

    9. Re:Genius. by Avarist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's kinda the point.

      That you missed.

      Now who's the moron?

      I'm still missing the point, then. Is this not an attempt to make a statement that copied money is equivalent to copied files? Please explain what I've missed, since I'm so stupid and you're so smart.

      It's making a statement that by the way MPAA & RIAA considers virtual copies of a film/game/song to be worth as much as the original, you might as well put the same logic to currency. Which doesn't make sense the same way that virtual copies of a film/game/song being worth as much as the original.

      --
      In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
    10. Re:Genius. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream

      Or more. After all, it's probably going to be easier to transcode and use if it isn't on a medium where the reader enforced DRM. Playing back a ripped DVD has several advantages over playing back the original. For example, if I pause the movie for a few minutes and the disk spins down, I get a stutter when I resume with the DVD. I don't with the ripped version, even if it's a bitwise copy. If the machine goes into power-saving mode, the player needs to reauthenticate with the drive, and often fails so the movie skips back to the start with a DVD. It doesn't with the ripped version, even with the CSS intact, because the encryption is handled entirely in software. So, from the perspective of a user, the copy is more valuable...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Genius. by idontgno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think there's another point here. Maybe it wasn't made clear in TFA (I dunno; I'm a Slashdotter, why would I read TFA?), but maybe the object lesson is "HERE is the real meaning of counterfeiting!"

      Which is also the real element of risk. If you copy currency well enough, you've run afoul of laws which make copyright violation look like a picnic at the beach. And if don't copy the currency well enough, you're failing to make any point other than "RAAAWR ME MAD AT YOU". You might as well just TP their headquarters.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    12. Re:Genius. by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's kinda the point.

      That you missed.

      Now who's the moron?

      I'm still missing the point, then. Is this not an attempt to make a statement that copied money is equivalent to copied files? Please explain what I've missed, since I'm so stupid and you're so smart.

      It's making a statement that by the way MPAA & RIAA considers virtual copies of a film/game/song to be worth as much as the original, you might as well put the same logic to currency. Which doesn't make sense the same way that virtual copies of a film/game/song being worth as much as the original.

      I can get the same entertainment value from a copy of a movie or song as I can from the original. It can even be argued that a copy is even more valuable than the original, because it's easier to use on whatever device I prefer due to lack of DRM. I didn't enjoy the movie or song any less because it was a copy since the quality of the experience was the same or better.

      I can only use a photocopy of money to wipe my ass with since I cannot even buy toilet paper with it. I do not enjoy the copy at all because I couldn't use it as currency and all it did is hurt my ass.

      How are those two things at all similar?

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    13. Re:Genius. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      But the physical medium is hardly worth anything to begin with. So where's the value? In the combination of content on the medium? Shouldn't that same combination also have value on a magnetic disk?

      The only consistent answer is that a copy of information has no value on its own, and that the real value lies in access to the content, a notion merrily encapsulated in the idea of licensing.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    14. Re:Genius. by DroolTwist · · Score: 2

      That's kinda the point.

      That you missed.

      Now who's the moron?

      I'm still missing the point, then. Is this not an attempt to make a statement that copied money is equivalent to copied files? Please explain what I've missed, since I'm so stupid and you're so smart.

      It's making a statement that by the way MPAA & RIAA considers virtual copies of a film/game/song to be worth as much as the original, you might as well put the same logic to currency. Which doesn't make sense the same way that virtual copies of a film/game/song being worth as much as the original.

      I can get the same entertainment value from a copy of a movie or song as I can from the original. It can even be argued that a copy is even more valuable than the original, because it's easier to use on whatever device I prefer due to lack of DRM. I didn't enjoy the movie or song any less because it was a copy since the quality of the experience was the same or better.

      I can only use a photocopy of money to wipe my ass with since I cannot even buy toilet paper with it. I do not enjoy the copy at all because I couldn't use it as currency and all it did is hurt my ass.

      How are those two things at all similar?

      I think the point is more along the lines of copies of an already purchased game should be worth as much as the copied currency. If I buy a game, say, at full price, and when I am done I give it to a friend, he should be able to install it and play it, since it was already purchased. At least thats how I see it. What I am waiting for is people to send in copied currency, and for the feds to bust everyone for counterfeiting.

    15. Re:Genius. by Znork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, would you accept digital copies of movies as payment for your day job? Maybe 5000 copies of a movie on iTunes a year?

      Oh, wait, you can't sell those. Seems they're worth exactly as much as a photocopy of a dollar bill...

    16. Re:Genius. by Capitaine · · Score: 5, Informative

      MPAA and RIAA often argue that piracy is theft. The whole point of this campaign is to illustrate the difference between piracy and theft by providing an example of object which copy is worthless while theft isn't.

    17. Re:Genius. by MisterMidi · · Score: 1

      ...it is a federal crime to scan and print US currency

      Which exactly is? The scanning, the printing or the act of doing both? What if you don't print it but email it instead? What if the receiving party prints it but didn't scan it? What if you're scanning and printing money for use in a piece of art? Real money obviously can't be used because it's expensive and government property.

      I would like to think it's the intent that counts (but IANAL and not that familiar with US counterfeit laws). If you're copying and printing money in order to use as real money, it's obviously counterfeiting. Otherwise, I'm not so sure.

    18. Re:Genius. by SuperAlgae · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The two things are similar in that neither one deprives the original owner of their copy, but the point is not that media content and money are really the same. The point is that copying something and physically taking it are NOT the same. The MPAA and RIAA push the idea that the two are equivalent, but if that were true, then they would be very happy to have copies of our money. Very few people argue that copied media content has no value or that content producers should not be fairly compensated. The problem is that the media industry's insistence on equating "digital copying" to "physically taking" is a false premise that makes reasonable discourse on the topic nearly impossible. This campaign does a pretty good job of highlighting its absurdity.

    19. Re:Genius. by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can only use a photocopy of money to wipe my ass with since I cannot even buy toilet paper with it.

      I live in Zimbabwe, you insensitive clod!!!!!!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:Genius. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not the money that is worth almost anything. Same with digital goods.

      Think TeamFortress 2. Make the game free, sell the useless items. Don't sell the movie, sell a convenient way to view the movie....etc..

      Rent out a house. You make more in the long run if you don't actually sell the house. People are willing to pay for access to something as long as said access it cheap and they don't need to manage it.

    21. Re:Genius. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream

      Or more. After all, it's probably going to be easier to transcode and use if it isn't on a medium where the reader enforced DRM. Playing back a ripped DVD has several advantages over playing back the original. For example, if I pause the movie for a few minutes and the disk spins down, I get a stutter when I resume with the DVD. I don't with the ripped version, even if it's a bitwise copy. If the machine goes into power-saving mode, the player needs to reauthenticate with the drive, and often fails so the movie skips back to the start with a DVD. It doesn't with the ripped version, even with the CSS intact, because the encryption is handled entirely in software. So, from the perspective of a user, the copy is more valuable...

      Bingo, a DRM free version of movie has more value than the corresponding DVD/Blu-ray version.
      I mean when you have people spending on recordable blu-rays that cost more than a pressed blu-ray you know that what the MPAA is legally offering is so crippled as to be less valuable than a pirate copy.
      A ripped blu-ray film I can watch on any HD screen or computer monitor. There is no HDCP not contend with. I can transcode to whatever format I wish and use on any media player. And I can think of many more uses.
      The time when the MPAA shouted jump and stupid masses of people gladly threw out perfectly functioning equipment to replace it with time limited revokable hardware is at an end. The pirates are effectively offering a superior product.
      Ethics aside, why should one be stupid enough to be ass fucked by the MPAA ? Your nice blu-ray player that you spend 300 $ on ? After 2-3 years no more firmware updates so new movies won't play because of updated revocation lists. This is not a good business model for consumers. Piracy is a good thing for the consumer at least until those holywood dickheads start smelling the coffee. Drm free files with watermark of personal information. The way mp3 files are sold on itunes. Anything less and it is a non starter at least for me.

    22. Re:Genius. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      They are only able to do this because they get their ink from the same manufacturer that the US does for their currency. Not having that magical ink, good luck. Your bills may look good, but they will never fool the sensors. Short of having government support, it would be virtually impossible to duplicate that level of reproduction anywhere else.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    23. Re:Genius. by nirgle · · Score: 4, Funny

      I made a more or less faithful digital representation of a different comment and then changed the specific wording so as to make it not an exact duplicate of the original one in order to avoid any sort of copyright infringement lawsuit, and I feel as though it was time well spent.

    24. Re:Genius. by bigredradio · · Score: 1

      I just copied this text from another comment: Whoosh!

    25. Re:Genius. by clodney · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you missed the point. If you make a copy of a dollar bill, you can't use the copy. It is by definition not as valuable as the original. If you make a copy of a CD, you can use the copy. It is just as valuable as the original. Only a moron wouldn't see the difference.

      If I make a perfect, bit for bit copy of a dollar bill, it is worth almost exactly as much as the original. Because by saying I made it perfectly, I have said that it is undetectable and I can pass it without fear of getting caught. It is worth ever so imperceptibly less than the original, because I have increased the money supply, leading to some inflation. And note that I didn't just devalue my new shiny dollar bill, I devalued all the money in circulation.

      Put in those terms, the government's anti-counterfeiting laws and the MPAA/RIAA anti-copying campaigns seem very much equivalent - both are designed to preserve the scarcity of something that has little intrinsic value, but instead has value in part because of its scarcity. Allowing unrestrained production of either leads to devaluation.

      So I think that this publicity stunt of sending images of currency to the RIAA is just proving their point - copying is bad, m'kay?

    26. Re:Genius. by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      right... but copying currency and attempting to use it as currency is a crime too... sort of playing into their hand here.

      Currency has value because we constructed a legal and trust system around the premise that you can exchange money for anything, without those protections the whole economy would implode back to a barter system. The physical currency itself is worthless, just as a DVD or blu ray disk is essentially worthless by itself. If anyone could print legal money it would rapidly become worthless. All the money you have is a copy of the money other people have, and only the issuer of that money has the right to print more of it. In the extreme, if they print enough of it, money becomes worth no more than its base materials cost (which for paper money is especially problematic). The challenge with governments having the power to print money is that they have a vested interest in the value of the money, but the problem with a fully independent central bank is that they have no reason to use currency to actually help solve problems, their vested interest is in holding onto the value they have. (This would be the difference between why the US, despite its massive debt does not face crippling interest rates, whereas the European central bank has mostly refused quantitative easing and so driven greece, italy, spain and portugal to the brink of bankruptcy and past the point of being able to borrow money in some cases). It's hard to pin down the right analogy for copyright, since in some ways it's like the ECB, independent of the 'broader interest' and mostly concerned with their own wealth, so I guess that's the closest approximation, but the MPAA/RIAA alliances are more like the federal reserve system, where several of the vested players get together and decide how to try and value copyright, but not *all* the vested players.

      The entire creative content industry exists in its current form because you can own the distribution rights to something that can be exchanged for money. If you can't own the distribution rights then you have to go back to charging for performances. That is sort of manageable for something like music, where radio and online would be advertising for concerts (although the experience of a concert is very different than the experience of listening to music in my office). It's not great, because a recording of a concert may be 'better' than going to the concert itself, but movies and games can't really be 'performed' as theatre. In those cases you only get paid because someone pays you for a copy of the work you did.

    27. Re:Genius. by sudden.zero · · Score: 1

      Good copies of money can be used the same as real money unless you get caught. Just like good copies of music can be used the same as the originals unless you get caught, so the analogy is the same!

    28. Re:Genius. by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream.

      It has the same recreational/educational value (depending on the DVD) but your original DVD can be resold. It has monetary value. A digital copy, whether iTunes or Pirate Bay, has no monetary value at all, just like a photocopy of a five dollar bill.

    29. Re:Genius. by bws111 · · Score: 2

      The only thing absurd in this is the ridiculous arguments that people (like you) use to defend it. What sense does 'if the two are equivalent they would be happy to have copies of our money' make? Why would they (or anyone else) accept a scanned image of money? It has nothing to do with 'physical equivalence'. It has to do with thing being offered being entirely worthless.

      And where exactly do they equate copying with physical taking anyway? Lemme guess, you're one of those people who insist the word 'stealing' means depriving the original owner of a physical object. To which I offer: stealing a kiss, stealing away in the night, stealing a peek, stealing a base, stealing one's thunder, stealing an idea, stealing one's heart, etc. Exactly what did the original owner lose in each of those cases? Nothing. What do they all have in common? Being done without permission or surreptitiously, you know, just like copyright infringement.

    30. Re:Genius. by artor3 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But it's not an apples to apples comparison.

      When you copy money, you gain nothing.

      When you copy a movie or song, you gain access to something just as valuable as the original, without paying. Some people may not have paid regardless, but a great many would have paid if they didn't have the option to get it for free. Not every pirated copy is a lost sale, but many are.

      If copying money worked the same as copying a movie, which is to say that the copy was just as useful as the original, it would be devastating to the world economy. It seems that if anything, this childish campaign is a poignant reminder that copying can cause problems.

    31. Re:Genius. by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      Yeah... I think this isn't going to get the point across.

      To the RIAA/MPAA pirating is like making a bootleg, almost. Just being digital, the quality is a much higher quality than you can get with a physical good. By buying/taking a free version of a bootleg they see it as robbing a sale from the legitimate product. Of course the flip side of the argument still works. The type of person to actually look around for a boot Louie Vuitton purse or Rolex likely isn't the type of person to shovel out cash for the real thing, and thus isn't a true lost sale.

      By the same logic this would be bootleg money, or in more common terms counterfeit. This would be like sending counterfeit money to the RIAA/MPAA if you apply their logic here at the best. At the worst, they take this at face value, claim how easily digital currency can be inflated and they begin arguing for additional "inflation" based theft against all their customers in court.

      I'm sorry. I haven't seen anything this stupid since the last time I read up on Jack Thompson. I feel like they missed the point of cited inspiration or step along the way.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    32. Re:Genius. by mhajicek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What most people fail to realize about this is that the analogy is backwards. You're starting with the assumption that a dollar has value, but it's just a fancy serialized copy on a piece of paper. It has no actual value. Way back when the dollar was backed by metal it had the value of that metal, but no longer. Paying with dollars is like paying with multiple copies of the same song.

    33. Re:Genius. by Fned · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think he did miss the point. A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream.

      Yeah, "zero".

      If you make a million copies of a movie you bought for a dollar, are you now a millionaire?

      Of course you aren't. One copy is worth the same as a million copies.

      There's only one number in mathematics that retains the same value no matter what you multiply it by.

      That's the fundamental issue, now: creation of the work is still valuable, and access to the work is still valuable, but copies are no longer valuable at all. Guess which of those three things copyright gives exclusive privelege to?

      Remember, they're not selling creation (except on Kickstarter), or access (except at the movie theater). Most of what they're selling is COPIES. Absolutely worthless copies. Which people only actually buy for three reasons:

      1) They want to fund creation and understand that buying copies is the only way to do that under the current stupid business model.
      or
      2) They're worried about getting caught doing something illegal
      or
      3) They're not very bright.

      The point of this campaign is to point out the total lack of value that digial copies have. People who don't get this won't get it, but it's still irrevocably true. Digital copies cost nothing to make and you lose nothing when you destroy them. Xeroxed money is actually worth MORE, since it costs something to make and you lose something when you destroy it.

    34. Re:Genius. by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      If you're going to call people childish you should probably check your own everything is black or white perspective at the door, especially if you're going to call the analogy idiotic.

      The reason people are fighting so hard is because the whole situation is very one-sided. Fair-use was protected in near history, so was the first sale doctrine. Combine that with ridiculous numbers that RIAA and MPAA and BSA put forth and it's very hard to want to take their side. Just about everyone can agree that artists producing works should be compensated for said work. That said, the RIAA famously doesn't reward artists and uses that money for less than ethical purposes.

    35. Re:Genius. by Anastomosis · · Score: 1

      The word "stealing" may have various and sundry meanings, but the legal definition of theft does not.

    36. Re:Genius. by Score+Whore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dollars actually have a value -- just as every state controlled currency has a value -- they are required for you to pay your taxes. You cannot send a bushel of corn to the IRS on tax day. This means that the corn producer needs dollar bills. So people who need corn need to have dollar bills. And so on.

    37. Re:Genius. by Fned · · Score: 1

      It can even be argued that a copy is even more valuable than the original, because it's easier to use on whatever device I prefer due to lack of DRM.

      Really? So if you delete the digital copy, you actually lose more value than if you destroy the original?

      What if you make a hundred digital copies, and then delete them? OH MY GOD, you've just lost, like, thousands of dollars!

    38. Re:Genius. by schwinn8 · · Score: 2

      "I don't remember anyone from the RIAA ever claiming that "A copy of anything is just as valuable as the original", obviously that would be stupid."

      And that's the point, the RIAA DOES claim that the copy is a lost sale... ie exactly the same as the original CD that they didn't sell, and hence want you to now pay for. This is the very argument that this stunt is playing against.

      You are correct that the copied bill does not have monetary value, and hence is not as valuable as the original. However, then why can't the same argument be made supporting MP3s? They AREN'T the same as the original, yet you can get sued for having them. Now, you might say that this is because it's "close enough" to the original. Great... so what about reprints of art? Are they sold at the same value of the original, because they are "close enough" to the original? Do they not provide the same "entertainment value" as the original?

    39. Re:Genius. by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 2

      The only thing that makes a dollar bill worth anything is your willingness to accept it. It is just a piece of paper. What makes photocopies of dollar bills any less valuable? You are really overly analyzing the metaphor that this campaign is using. The key point is to show solidarity. Not to actually make the MPAA happy by giving them photocopied money. Nobody actually expects the MPAA to see this photocopied money as valuable.

    40. Re:Genius. by Fned · · Score: 1

      I think the point is more along the lines of copies of an already purchased game should be worth as much as the copied currency.

      I disagree. There is no technical way to make a digital copy worth anything, and the laws required to make people behave as if it were worth something are utterly destructive to freedom. Case in point, every single law we have passed or tried to pass to make digital copies worth something.

    41. Re:Genius. by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Amazingly similar to the situation the early American colonies were in, isn't it? The Crown would only accept taxes in British currency, which the Americans didn't have. So the money lenders would lend or sell British currency at extortionist rates for people to use to pay their tax debt with.

    42. Re:Genius. by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Oh, you mean like identity theft and theft of service, which do not 'take' anything from the victim? The word you are looking for (and which the RIAA, etc, never use) is larceny.

    43. Re:Genius. by Fned · · Score: 1

      But the physical medium is hardly worth anything to begin with. So where's the value? In the combination of content on the medium? Shouldn't that same combination also have value on a magnetic disk?

      The only consistent answer is that a copy of information has no value on its own, and that the real value lies in access to the content, a notion merrily encapsulated in the idea of licensing.

      Yes! Also, even more merrily encapsulated in the idea of sponsorship

      Not having created something yet is the ultimate access restriction.

    44. Re:Genius. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, YOU missed the point. What is a DVD's value to a movie studio? Its only reason for existance is to be sold for money. You can sell the DVD you buy at the store but nobody's going to knowingly pay you for a copy of that DVD. The "value" they refer to isn't the value to the customer, it's the value to the manufacturer.

    45. Re:Genius. by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the point is more along the lines of copies of an already purchased game should be worth as much as the copied currency.

      I disagree. There is no technical way to make a digital copy worth anything, and the laws required to make people behave as if it were worth something are utterly destructive to freedom. Case in point, every single law we have passed or tried to pass to make digital copies worth something.

      A movie DVD is nothing but a digital copy of the original film. Does a blank DVD has the same value as a movie DVD? Of course not, the movie DVD is more valuable because of the digital copy of the movie contained on it. The value of that movie to you is constant whether you get it on DVD, iTunes or TPB. Only the delivery mechanism has changed. Either they're all worth something, or they're all worth nothing; you can't have it both ways.

      DRM is a different issue, and it sucks.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    46. Re:Genius. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I couldn't use it as currency and all it did is hurt my ass.

      Here ya go!

      http://www.geekalerts.com/money-toilet-paper/

      I hope this helps.

    47. Re:Genius. by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      That's begging the question. The protesters aren't denying that licensing exists; but that technology has diminished it's value as an idea.

      Well I'm sure not all of them are arguing that, but what is protesting but a pithy slogan or action to represent broader and more nuanced goals?

    48. Re:Genius. by bws111 · · Score: 2

      If he is over analyzing the metaphor it is because the metaphor is completely wrong. Here is their 'metaphor' in a nutshell: "You say people are willing to accept copies of songs the same as originals, so you should be willing to accept a copy of money as an original". It makes no sense at all. None. People ARE willing to accept copies of songs the same as originals, and no-one is willing to accept copies of money.

      The thing that makes photocopies less valuable is that NO ONE WILL ACCEPT THEM from you. And if you did try to use them, you have committed a felony.

    49. Re:Genius. by manaway · · Score: 1

      At a yard sale, homemade DVDs and VHS tapes typically end up in the free box, while used retail versions are $1 to $5. I suspect copies of money would be much the same.

    50. Re:Genius. by SuperAlgae · · Score: 1

      As I said, the money campaign makes an absurd equivalency between two things to bring attention to another absurd equivalency. It is not meant to prove anything but rather highlight the issue. (At least that is my take on it.)

      "where exactly do they equate copying with physical taking anyway"
      When they propose that acts of piracy equate to lost sales (and I'm sure I could find more literal examples when I have some time). While I do not condone piracy, there is no direct equivalency to lost sales, and any discussion of how to combat piracy needs to accept that.

      I don't care much about semantics like the term "stealing" except when people try to use it to misrepresent an issue. I'm pretty sure the media companies are not using it like "stealing one's heart". Regardless, clear unbiased terminology (or a lack thereof) is not the biggest problem here.

      The problem is that the media companies are not combating THEFT. They are combating COPYING. Copying in itself is not theft. Legitimate customers have good reasons to want to make copies, but the measures that media companies put in place to supposedly prevent piracy often hurt legitimate customers more than pirates. Pirates just break the copy protection and then end up with copies that are actually better than what PAYING CUSTOMERS get. As a paying customer, this is just about the biggest insult a company can lay upon me. Are they really trying to stop pirates or just trying to make my life more difficult? And it is not just a matter of "feeling" hurt. Real damage can result when companies use piracy as an excuse to push things like root-kit copy protection schemes, overly aggressive take-downs, and SOPA.

      I'm no fan of places like pirate bay. It seems to me like the people running those sites are total scum and need to be put in jail for a long time. So let's focus our efforts on actually stopping thieves rather than treating everyone like criminals.

    51. Re:Genius. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      How are those two things at all similar?

      They are not at all similar. Just like copying and theft are not at all similar.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    52. Re:Genius. by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      How is this all related to what I said?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    53. Re:Genius. by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      It can even be argued that a copy is even more valuable than the original, because it's easier to use on whatever device I prefer due to lack of DRM.

      Really? So if you delete the digital copy, you actually lose more value than if you destroy the original?

      What if you make a hundred digital copies, and then delete them? OH MY GOD, you've just lost, like, thousands of dollars!

      Don't be inane. When you refer to the "original" you are really talking about the master studio copy of the performance. _Everything_ else is a copy.

      Since you appear to need it spelled out, the value is in the entertainment and enjoyment provided by the copy. I think I can put this in simpler terms.

      Two people wish to be entertained for two and a half minutes. They both inexplicably love Sanjaya. Person A buys a track from Google Music. Person B copies the track from person A. They both independently listen to the music and are entertained. They have both received _value_. Person A paid $1 to receive that value. Person B paid nothing. One of them is an entitled little shit. Guess which one?

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    54. Re:Genius. by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      That's why I said "almost", because there are things that can be done with an original disc that cannot be done with your downloaded ISO. That doesn't mean it has utility. For most people the utility of a movie is the entertainment value of watching a movie. Among those who buy a movie, resale value is not typically an attribute they consider in their purchase. For everyone else there is the option of renting from redbox or netflix, or streaming from any numerous services.

      The argument that you cannot resell your digital copy therefore it has no value is exceptionally weak. There are literally hundreds or thousands of transactions that people engage in every day that cannot be resold. Take a haircut, you cannot resell a haircut, does that mean that it has no value and you should not have to pay for the skill and time of the barber?

    55. Re:Genius. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Let's have some balance. They do their best to make sure you can't give up ownership of the game you just bought. So why not glue and staple the payment to their faces? Fair is fair after all.

    56. Re:Genius. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      If you print up a trillion dollars worth of perfect copies of money, are you now a trillionaire? Of course not. It is just paper.

      If you distribute that trillion dollars worth of perfect fakes to a hundred million people, have you done any harm? Hell yes. All money just became worth a whole lot less. The people who legitimately own the money supply (ie all of us) have been harmed.

      If digital copies have no value, why do so many people want them (to the point that they are willing to break the law to get them)? Your point that digital copies have zero value is demonstrably 100% false. Value is determined by the desirability of something, not its cost to produce. Is a gold nugget found in a stream while fishing any less valuable than one that was mined at great expense?

    57. Re:Genius. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Money is not paper. Money is value transferred from one person to another. That transfer may occur by passing bits of paper, or it may occur by transferring numbers on a ledger. It is all still money.

    58. Re:Genius. by hardburlyboogerman · · Score: 1

      Here is an image to send to the MAFIAA-> http://twitpic.com/8wqj94

      --
      Geek Hillbilly
    59. Re:Genius. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I figured it was worth saying, just to make the whole point that this symbolic act is ever-so-slightly off-target.

      ...also, depending on the century, 'protest' may mean 'to speak positively'. The modern usage of protesting is a mangled contraction of protesting against things; previously one would have also protested for them as well. You probably already knew that.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    60. Re:Genius. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok, I'll try to make it simple.

      The idea behind the campaign is that the MPAA thinks that the copies that float about the internet is money lost to them. Because the value of that copy is the same as the one they would have sold to you. Value, by definition, is determined by the one who WANTS a commodity, not the person who wants to get rid of it. Because the value of a commodity is by definition only what a prospective interested party is able and willing to pay for it.

      Allow me an example. I want a bigger TV. But not enough to pay the price a bigger TV would cost. Hence I am not willing to pay the price for it and thus no sale happens. As you can see, my willingness to pay the price, not the seller's willingness to sell it for a certain price, determines whether a sale happens.

      People copy content. I hope I'm not spilling breaking news here, I guess it's pretty much common knowledge by now that this happens. The question now is whether this constitutes a lost sale. That in turn is determined by the question whether people would be willing to pay the price they would alternatively have to pay if they could not copy.

      The content industry now claims that they do. It is very likely, though, that the number of people able and willing to pay the price would be much lower than the 100% they claim. Will nobody buy? Certainly not, there's of course people who would buy if they cannot copy, but I would guess we're a far cry from the windfall they claim.

      And the price for that, the loss of the internet as we know it, is far too steep for such a petty gain.

      The idea behind the protest is now exactly that claim. That the copy someone made is a lost sale, and hence lost money to them. So it's only logical to send them a copy of money for the copy of their content. Sounds reasonable if you ask me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    61. Re:Genius. by bws111 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you actually trying to say that no-one ever pirated a single song that they would have purchased had the pirated copy not been available? That position is equally as absurd as claiming that every download is a lost sale (a position I don't think they've ever taken legally). The truth is somewhere in between there, but it is impossible to tell exactly where.

      Yes, people should be able to make their own copies for their own personal use. And yes, DRM sucks. But let's be honest here, DRM came LONG (many decades) after people demonstrated their willingness to make and distribute copies.

      For the discussion to move anywhere, both sides need to adjust their thinking. The media companies should make clear that making copies for your own personal use is OK. But, at the same time, sites the TPB and file sharers should be denounced just as harshly as the media companies for forcing the media companies to act in their own best interest so harshly.

      Much as the pirates hate to admit it, the media companies have changed. The arguments used to be 'if we could just download instead of buying physical CDs, we wouldn't pirate'. Then it was 'if we could buy a single song for $1 instead of a whole CD, we wouldn't pirate'. For more than a decade that has been possible. Then it was 'well, if we could hear the song first we wouldn't pirate'. Most sites selling songs let you sample them before purchase. Then it was 'well, there is DRM on the songs, so I can't play it on all my devices'. Most sites now sell DRM-free songs. On the other hand, even with those changes, piracy still continues, just as rampant as ever. Until people are willing to admit that piracy IS a problem, you can expect the media companies to just continue digging their heels in.

    62. Re:Genius. by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Allow me an example. I want a bigger TV. But not enough to pay the price a bigger TV would cost. Hence I am not willing to pay the price for it and thus no sale happens. As you can see, my willingness to pay the price, not the seller's willingness to sell it for a certain price, determines whether a sale happens

      The difference being you don't want to pay the price for the TV, so you go without it. Pirates, however, just take what they want when something costs more than $0 because they are too cheap/entitled/etc

    63. Re:Genius. by Matt_R · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does a blank DVD has the same value as a movie DVD? Of course not, the movie DVD is more valuable

      Depends on the movie.. at least you can put your own content on a blank :)

    64. Re:Genius. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      That is some mighty fine editing you have done there. You seem to have left out:

      a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
      b : to take away by force or unjust means
      c : to take surreptitiously or without permission

      Are you saying piracy does not take or appropriate without right? Or that it is not taking surreptitiously or without permission?

      And before you want to argue 'take', the same dictionary offers this as the first definition of take:

      To get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control

      and later: to obtain or secure for use (as by lease, subscription, or purchase)

    65. Re:Genius. by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Well, there is the issue of storage, data transfer and the hardware used to make said copy... which is very near zero, but not such.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    66. Re:Genius. by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      One can endlessly reinterpret a symbolic act because metaphors are always imperfect.

      And the entomology is interesting, I wonder how the term became so completely opposite of the base components.

    67. Re:Genius. by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I modded you just as +Insightful as the other one! :D

    68. Re:Genius. by Imrik · · Score: 1

      It's not an apples to apples comparison, it's comparing apples vs oranges to pears vs tangerines.

    69. Re:Genius. by Lussarn · · Score: 2

      I can only use a photocopy of money to wipe my ass with since I cannot even buy toilet paper with it. I do not enjoy the copy at all because I couldn't use it as currency and all it did is hurt my ass.

      How are those two things at all similar?

      More similar then you think. Money will hurt your ass just as much as the photocopy when used as toilet paper.

    70. Re:Genius. by SuperAlgae · · Score: 1

      "Are you actually trying to say that no-one ever pirated a single song that they would have purchased had the pirated copy not been available?"
      What possessed you to even suggest that? I know of no one who claims that. My point is that the relation between piracy and sales is much more complex. In some ways piracy can even increase sales by getting more exposure for the product.

      "The truth is somewhere in between there, but it is impossible to tell exactly where."
      That is what I am saying, but before we enter that gray area of discussion, we must accept that digital copying is a whole different beast from physically taking. Traditional concepts of physical theft do not apply, so we need to re-evaluate how to determine the degree of the crime and its damage.

      "sites the TPB and file sharers should be denounced just as harshly as the media companies"
      I'm pretty sure I did that. I wouldn't be quite as harsh on someone with a small number of pirated songs (like you would not put someone in prison for stealing a pack of gum), but I was very clear about my feelings on TPB.

      It is true that the media companies have changed some policies... as they became so outmoded that it threatened their bottom line. However, their policy of using piracy as an excuse to exert undue control over the public remains firmly in tact...
      http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html

      Short answer... the media companies see you, me, and every other person as not just customers or pirates. They see us as potential competitors, and they want to make sure we never have a chance.

    71. Re:Genius. by HyperQuantum · · Score: 1

      I see the moderation was copied as well.

      --
      I am not really here right now.
    72. Re:Genius. by asliarun · · Score: 2

      It can even be argued that a copy is even more valuable than the original, because it's easier to use on whatever device I prefer due to lack of DRM.

      Really? So if you delete the digital copy, you actually lose more value than if you destroy the original?

      What if you make a hundred digital copies, and then delete them? OH MY GOD, you've just lost, like, thousands of dollars!

      Don't be inane. When you refer to the "original" you are really talking about the master studio copy of the performance. _Everything_ else is a copy.

      Since you appear to need it spelled out, the value is in the entertainment and enjoyment provided by the copy. I think I can put this in simpler terms.

      Two people wish to be entertained for two and a half minutes. They both inexplicably love Sanjaya. Person A buys a track from Google Music. Person B copies the track from person A. They both independently listen to the music and are entertained. They have both received _value_. Person A paid $1 to receive that value. Person B paid nothing. One of them is an entitled little shit. Guess which one?

      The only reason your argument *sounds* correct is because you have dumbed down this complex problem way too much.
      Please consider the following usage cases - using your above example:
      1. If person A wants to listen to Sanjaya twice, i.e. she wants to be entertained for 5 minutes, not 2.5; should she pay more?
      2. If person A listens to Sanjaya along with family or friends, should she pay more?
      3. If person A plays the song in her restaurant, should she pay more?
      4. If person A creates a personal copy of the song and plays the song on 2 different media devices, should she pay more?
      5. If person A sells her song to person C and deletes her personal copy, should she pay more?
      6. If person A rents her song to someone else (only one person at a time), should she pay more?
      7. If person A rents her song to someone else (multiple people at the same time), should she pay more?
      8a. If person A decides to do all of the above but with a much lower quality/bitrate copy, does that change anything?
      8b. Alternately, if person B copies a low bitrate version of the song, is she still an entitled little shit?
      9. If for some reason, person A loses her song or the song gets corrupted or deleted, should she be able to download it again for free?
      10. If person B paid 1 cent to person A with the understanding that she will only listen to the song once in the next 24 hours and then will delete it, and honored the agreement, is she still an entitled little shit?

      I'm quite sure I haven't covered all possible usage cases - the above are only some naive ones that I can think of. Even so, I personally cannot think of satisfactory answers that sound ethical and economically fair to both the content creator and the content consumer. I suspect that the correct workable answer would be more reasonable than fair, more practical and just, and would lie somewhere in the middle of the two polar stances that people.are taking on this subject.

    73. Re:Genius. by Fned · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you print up a trillion dollars worth of perfect copies of money, are you now a trillionaire? Of course not. It is just paper.

      If you distribute that trillion dollars worth of perfect fakes to a hundred million people, have you done any harm? Hell yes. All money just became worth a whole lot less. The people who legitimately own the money supply (ie all of us) have been harmed.

      1. You've made perfect copies of a physical object, so those copies have a discrete value.
      2. The copies represent an even greater value -- that is to say, each copy GRANTS ACCESS to a specific unit of real value. If you falsely get access to something valuable, that hurts the people who have legitimate access to that value.

      Does illegally copying a song reduce access to everyone else who has a legitimate copy? No. They can still listen all the way to the end of their own copies, anytime they like.

      (Unless they have a DRM'd copy, then they might not be able to access the content they legally own a copy of).

      If digital copies have no value, why do so many people want them (to the point that they are willing to break the law to get them)?

      They don't. They want access to the content. Here's the problem: giving someone a copy gives them access to the content. But since the copy has no value, the person with access can create infinite copies at will. In fact, they have to make and destroy multiple copies every time they want to access the content.

      This is why there is no technical solution for DRM: you have to grant access to make copies, and deny access to make copies, to the same party simultaneously This works perfectly with physical copies, since one person having access to that copy automatically means someone else doesn't, and there is an inherent cost to making more physical copies. Not so with digital copies.

      Even if, science-fictionally-hypothetically here, you could get it to work, it wouldn't make the copies valuable; it would just allow you to conveniently monetize access to the work, sort of the way a theater does.
       

      Your point that digital copies have zero value is demonstrably 100% false.

      You are 100% wrong. They have no intrinsic value at all. Period. All value assigned to them is based on crude modifications to laws designed for physical objects.
      Creating them is valuable, and accessing them is valuable, but copying them is not valuable. You cannot make them valuable by saying so over and over.

      Value is determined by the desirability of something, not its cost to produce. Is a gold nugget found in a stream while fishing any less valuable than one that was mined at great expense?

      So, you were in Econ 101, and the professor was talking about the relationship between "supply and demand", and, what... you woke up during "and"?!

      DIGITAL FILES ARE NOT PHYSICAL OBJECTS. THEY DO NOT BEHAVE THE WAY PHYSICAL OBJECTS BEHAVE. Is a gold nugget that you created by waving your magic wand at it worth anything? If everyone has a magic wand, the answer is "no." If everyone can create gold nuggets with a wave of a magic wand, gold nuggets become worthless. You cannot sell them at any price under that condition.

      Infinite supply always drives price down to infinitely small, unless demand is also infinite.

    74. Re:Genius. by Fned · · Score: 2

      A movie DVD is nothing but a digital copy of the original film. Does a blank DVD has the same value as a movie DVD?

      It has MORE value, if you already have another copy of that movie.

      Of course not,

      Of course wrong.

      the movie DVD is more valuable because of the digital copy of the movie contained on it.

      It's valuable because it GRANTS ACCESS to the digital copy of the movie contained on it, yes. Access is valuable. Copies are not. Which is more valuable, a blank DVD, or a movie DVD that's region-coded to a region you don't have a player for?

      The value of that movie to you is constant whether you get it on DVD, iTunes or TPB. Only the delivery mechanism has changed. Either they're all worth something, or they're all worth nothing; you can't have it both ways.

      Correct. They are all worth something if you want access to the work, and they are worth nothing if you don't want access to the work.

      That last bit is important because:

      You don't require additional access to the work if you already have access to it.

      In other words, having access to one copy is the same as having access to an infinite number of copies. It's the access that has value, not the copies. You can create and destroy the copies at will without creating or losing any value whatsoever, as long as you still have access to the data. If copies give you additional access to the work, i.e. backups, different formats, etc., then they seem to have value, but saying that "copies only have value if they ensure access to the work" is really just the same thing as saying "access has value and copies do not".

      DRM is a different issue, and it sucks.

      It is not a different issue at all, and yes it does suck. It sucks because it assumes the same thing that you do, which is that digital copies can be made to have value. They can't, so DRM can really only try to control access -- but since it's trying to both deny and grant access to the same party simultaneously, it inevitably either fails or denies access to a legitimate owner (or, more likely than not, both).

    75. Re:Genius. by Fned · · Score: 1

      Don't be inane.

      You first.

      When you refer to the "original" you are really talking about the master studio copy of the performance. _Everything_ else is a copy.

      You said it: the master studio copy is a copy of the performance. It has no intrinsic value whatsoever. The performance has value, and the master studio copy is only valuable in that it provides access to the performance after the fact (which would otherwise only be possible with a time machine). Creation is valuable, and access is valuable, but copies are not. Back in the days of analog copies, access and copies were inseparably tied together, so selling access by selling copies was a great idea. But on a computer, access and copies aren't exactly the same thing anymore; as long as you have access, you can create and destroy copies at will without creating or destroying any value. As a result, selling copies has gone from being a great idea to being a really stupid idea, and not everyone has figured that out yet.

      Since you appear to need it spelled out, the value is in the entertainment and enjoyment provided by the copy.

      Incorrect. Value is in the entertainment and enjoyment provided by ACCESS TO THE DATA IN THE COPY. The copy itself has no discrete value whatsoever separate from the cost of it's medium and the effectiveness of its access.

      As I've repeated a million fucking times on here, inside Computerland, creation has value, and access has value, but copies do not. So why are they still trying to sell us copies?

      I think I can put this in simpler terms.

      Could you try putting it in smarter ones?

      Two people wish to be entertained for two and a half minutes. They both inexplicably love Sanjaya. Person A buys a track from Google Music. Person B copies the track from person A. They both independently listen to the music and are entertained. They have both received _value_. Person A paid $1 to receive that value.

      Incorrect. Person A paid $1 to encourage further works by the same artist (lacking any sane business model through which to do so directly), or because he's afraid he might get punished for copying it for free. If he paid $1 for any other reason, he's an idiot, because what he bought isn't worth anything.

    76. Re:Genius. by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      The argumentum ad absurdium here though, is that the following scenarios of A and B also have the same financial and value outcomes, but have radically different social acceptance factors.

      1) A buys the track, calls B into the living room, and they listen to the track together at the same time. A buys the track for 1$. B hears the track for free. B is not an entitlement complex asshole.

      2) A buys the track, and puts it on an SD card for her MP3 player so she can listen to it while she jogs. She lends the whole player, including her library of purchased tracks to B so he can jam at the gym. B hears an epic shitton of tracks for free. B is not an entitlement complex asshole.

      In these latter two cases, the distributor demanding zero-tolerance enforcement of royalty transactions for each and every person exposed to the performance is the entitlement complex asshole, since he is the one insisting he is intitled to compensation for out of band exposure, and demanding restrictions on harmless activities of his potential customers to ensure his demands for what he feels he is entitled to are met.

      This is what things like "public performance" fees for singing in public without a paying audience, and the whole SOPA/PIPA shit are about.

      Its one thing if A lends B her player, and he dumps a copy if her SDCard for his own use. What right does he have to copy her media? What right does he have to the data anyway?

      That isn't what is being effectively killed here though. What is being killed is ("hey, come listen to this!" "Oh hey, that's good, who is that?" ) and ("these are all my old CDs that I don't listen to anymore. How much can I get for the whole box?")

      Personally, I feel the intrinsic mindset of the distributor and artist to feel justification in destroying the enjoyment of sharing music, and destroying the ability to pass on a license because they feel entitled to have continually nothing but new sales, and licensed 1person:1payment parity is far more onerous.

      Just my 2 cents worth.

    77. Re:Genius. by Tom · · Score: 1

      A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream.

      Has it?

      Thought experiment:

      You own 1 DVD Set "Lord of the Rings Trilogy". Let's give it a value of $50.
      If this is your only posession (for this thought experiment), you own goods worth $50.

      If I give you another identical DVD Set, you now own goods worth $100.
      If I give you 2 more, your posessions are now worth $200.

      Your friend has a digital copy of the same DVD Set. How much is it worth? Following your argument, it is worth almost the same, so let's say $40.

      #~ cp -r Lord_of_the_Rings LotR2

      He now has two copies on his drive. According to your argument, their combined value is now $80.
      If he does that twice more he now owns movies worth $160.

      Or does he?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    78. Re:Genius. by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And THIS is why I have NO problem with pirates or piracy, because its a classic case of the free market routing around damage. The same thing happens with tangible goods when you have a black market. in this case people are willing to pay X amount for a thing that does Y, they won't provide it, so somebody else does, just that simple. My dad has an Nbox media tank, that thing is perfect for him, but legally there isn't a single thing it can play, nothing. it is allowed to exist ONLY because of piracy, because the MPAA refuse to simply sell an .avi and according to DMCA you can't even rip a DVD into a format that it'll read.

      So yet again we have media cartels holding up innovation, or did everyone forget how they fought tooth and nail against VCRs, going so far as to call them "The Boston Strangler" and delayed them in court? or how they blocked DAT and kept it from becoming anything but studio recording equipment? How about slowing down MP3 players for 2 years with the Rio case? And now we have the cartels blocking what should be the most obvious next step, the media tank. There should be NO reason why people like my dad couldn't just go to amazon, whip out a CC, download an .avi onto a flashstick, and plug it in to have a movie. So instead of giving them the money all we can do is route around the damage yet again, just as we did when they tried to push DRM crapped WMAs over MP3, and now instead of embracing this new tech they are offering these DRM infected files with movies now that are nothing but a series of flaming hoops to jump...or you can just go to TPB, which do you think folks will choose?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    79. Re:Genius. by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      You said "teenage nonsense" implying childish behavior and illustrated your own childish behavior by phrasing the problem as a black and white, right or wrong issue. When all legal leverage is on the side of the RIAA, you can't begrudge people for wanting to take back rights that always existed in the past such as format shifting.

      You have the additional problem of the fact that while the music industry has grown, prices have remain fixed regardless of the cost involved. When distribution costs mere pennies for thousands of songs you have to look at how much you're charging. It was until Apple dragged them kicking and screaming that you could really buy legally online and even though you could only license a single copy with format shifting against the license agreement. Fair-use went out the window.

      There are certainly those out there that just want stuff for free regardless of the damage it can cause. These people are far fewer than being portrayed. Most people that pirate music use it as a preview tool to decide what concerts to go to or what songs/albums to buy. Both ways leaves the artist compensated for their work so the moral argument falls flat.

    80. Re:Genius. by Zadaz · · Score: 1

      Except money is currency and a movie is a product. Yes, they're both fungible, but one is consumed, the other is exchanged for goods and services. So, no, they're not equal.

      Frankly I wouldn't mess with sending something that could get the Secret Service involved to an organization that's known for using law enforcement for it's own ends. Especially for a form of "protest" that the RIAA won't understand and won't bother them a bit. The only people who are benefiting from this are the post office.

    81. Re:Genius. by Kalriath · · Score: 2

      Actually, making them at all is a felony, unless you copy it at least 150% of the original size or at most 75% of the original size and only in black and white.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    82. Re:Genius. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      True. But I meant that the reason you would not accept a counterfeit from someone else is that you would be committing a felony when trying to use it.

    83. Re:Genius. by xQx · · Score: 1

      Interesting you bring up "Stealing an Idea", since, Ideas cannot be protected under our legal system.

      So, I can come up with the idea of an iPad. I can't patent it, I can't copyright it... Then, when apple make billions of dollars from my idea, I am entitled to .... NOTHING.

      I can come up with a business process that saves companies around the world millions. Another example of something that cannot be copyrighted, patented, or protected in any way. I can write it down then the written copy can be copyrighted, but not the process. So, when someone "steals" it, again, I'm entitled to nothing.

      So, does this mean that nobody comes up with new ideas for stuff? Nobody develops better business processes?

      To my point: If I'm caught stealing kiss, stealing away in the night, stealing a peek, stealing a base, stealing one's thunder, stealing an idea, stealing one's heart, or stealing a business process ... I have have not "stolen" anything according to the law. You say that stealing music and movies is just like the aformentioned? ... well, I'd say they differ only because have legal protection.

      But the kicker is... if I copy a movie because it's free, and I wouldn't have bought it anyway, because I don't think it's worth $1; and you still have your copy - what exactly have I deprived anyone of?

    84. Re:Genius. by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Um. Yes? Is this supposed to be a trick question? If the agreed upon value of a copy of the Lord of the Rings DVD set is $40, then yes. Of course you have greatly simplified the situation and ignored supply and demand. But based on your criteria your argument is solid.

      I know you are trying to make some point about cost to reproduce the media or possibly what is means to have, effectively, no scarcity. But all that shows is that you are either ignoring or don't understand some fairly foundational principles of economics.

      Suppose you have a third friend who doesn't have the DVD set nor has he seen the movies. Instead of him going out and buying or renting the DVDs you let him log into your ftp server and he pulls the files across onto his hard drive. It cost him $0. Can we conclude then that the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is of no value to him? No we cannot. Your friend sits down and spends 9 hours watching the movies. Now your friend could have spent those 9 hours mowing lawns at $5/hour so we know that the value of watching the movies was at least $45 to him. Therefore you haven't made the movies valueless, you've only transferred the value to your friend and away from Peter Jackson and his merry band of Kiwis.

    85. Re:Genius. by xQx · · Score: 2

      A dollar has value, but it is a specific kind of value. Just as a bushel of corn has value, but of a specific kind.

      Let me demonstrate the worthlessness of a dollar... Imagine you have a billion dollars, but you will never come into contact with another person ever again.

      Now, which would you prefer in this situation? A billion dollars, or a bushel of corn?

      The value of a dollar is this: It is a tool that makes other people do things for you.

      But, It only has value as long as people will perform for the dollar ... which means it only has value while others think it has value. All it takes for a dollar to be value-less is for it to be no longer respected by people, or for there to be no people. A photocopied dollar would be just as valuable as a dollar if only people would respect it as a currency.

    86. Re:Genius. by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Your argument about an imaginary dollar in your imaginary world makes great sense. Now come back to the real world and talk with the rest of us.

    87. Re:Genius. by Tom · · Score: 1

      But based on your criteria your argument is solid.

      So let's follow it through then.

      Your friend gives you his hard drive after filling it up with copies of LotR. Say it fits 1000 copies. Now that harddrive is worth $40,000 - seriously?

      You copy the entire drive. Have you really just created $40,000 worth of goods? Out of what? Out of nothing?

      We could solve the entire financial crisis by making enough copies of LotR if this argument were solid.

      Suppose you have a third friend

      That is not the same argument anymore. I'm talking about the intrinsic value of the item. Not some kind of arbitrary wage/hour equivalent. Your argument is nonsense, economically. I could spend 5 hours staring at the wall. Does that change the value of the wall, because I could've spent my time otherwise? No, of course not. How you spend your time doesn't change the value of the things you spend it with. The item of value is the time spent, not the method of spending it.

      But the most important error in your argument is the word "transferred". Because that is exactly where the whole issue is. If your friend downloads something from your FTP server, the value does not get transferred. Transfer implies that something moves from me to you, i.e. before the transfer, I have it and you don't and after the transfer you have it and I don't. But that's not the case with digital copies. After copying, you have it and I also still have it.

      And that's the trouble with assigning value to copies. If the copy has any value at all, then creating a copy creates value.

      Digitial copying - and that is why this action of sending images of bills is so brilliant - destroys the relationship between value and money. We realize that they are not the same. No matter how you twist it, you have a problem - until you realize that "value" does not mean $$$ by necessity. Your friend making a copy of one of your files does indeed create value, but it does not create wealth.

      Of course, the harddrive from above is not worth $40,000 because it contains only one movie worth $40, so the value of the drive (ignoring the hardware) is $40 because it contains one movie - no matter in how many copies.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    88. Re:Genius. by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      Actually, making them at all is a felony, unless you copy it at least 150% of the original size or at most 75% of the original size and only in black and white.

      Right. So if we copy them on extra-large bits it's legal?

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    89. Re:Genius. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure a pirate doesn't care whether he sinks a ship or smashes a shop window to get his TV...

      But let's assume you misuse the word pirate as it's often done and go with that. Your assumption, like the content industry's, is that everyone who created a copy for free would instead have gone and bought one. That is not the case. One key incentive is actually that it is free.

      Let's try it another way. Imagine there were 100" TVs, free for the taking. They're standing there on the sidewalk, they probably belong to someone but nobody is around, nobody is looking and they almost seem like they're really there for free. And it's generally not seen as a big transgression to take one. You have 100 people there, how many do you think will grab one and take it home? well, probably not all of them, but I'd be surprised if it were fewer than 90 of them.

      Would all 90 have bought one? Hell no. Some could not have afforded it, some wouldn't spend the money on it. I'd be surprised if more than a handful would have actually bought a TV.

      Yet that's exactly the claim of the content industry. They claim that if these people who copied their content would all have bought it instead if they could not have copied it.

      I dunno, oddly the content industry is the only one that thinks that way. Else, you'd see most stores pop up in areas where a lot of stuff gets stolen. Surprisingly, it ain't so...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    90. Re:Genius. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not everything with a value needs to have a price. But let's not dive into philosophy.

      Price IS actually a big decider whether someone not only wants something but also intends to get it. Either that or the huge SALE and -50% signs are pretty useless ads.

      Price is a deciding factor in the question whether acquisition happens. Not for everyone, of course, but for the majority of people. A price tag of zero is certainly lowering the inhibition to get something by a sizable margin. And of course this also means that someone who would not get it at a higher price gets it at this one. And yes, believe it or not, there are actually people who don't discriminate what they download, they just download everything and anything, whether they actually want it or not, just because it's there and it's free. They would not buy that. Not even for 99 cents.

      Also, please understand the difference between explanation and justification. The former is easy. The latter not. I can easily explain to you why people go on killing sprees. Justify it, I cannot.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    91. Re:Genius. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and with pleasure. Just last week I deprived the local Bugatti dealer of a rightful profit. I walked by his show room, looked at the new model, enjoyed its design and then I went and dared to not buy one.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    92. Re:Genius. by Guignol · · Score: 1

      (I'm part Russian, so I can tell that joke and it's totally cool, tovarich.")

      So could I be... So could I be...
      Now don't you ever attempt a dentist joke !

    93. Re:Genius. by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 2

      If you print up a trillion dollars worth of perfect copies of money, are you now a trillionaire? Of course not. It is just paper.

      If you distribute that trillion dollars worth of perfect fakes to a hundred million people, have you done any harm? Hell yes. All money just became worth a whole lot less. The people who legitimately own the money supply (ie all of us) have been harmed.

      Sounds exactly like waht the Federal Reserve does. They print a whole lot of money, which is based on and backed by nothing, then distribute that to a whole lot of banks and well connected people adn businesses. Then all the money the rest of us hold is worth less. The buying power of what we have decreases as that new unbacked money enters the money supply. Those who get it first, the rich and well connected, get to spend that money before it's introduction reduces the value of currently held money.

      The Federal Reserve is a private central bank (an important concept in the Communist Manifesto), not a government organization or department. You don't legitimately own the money supply, neither do I, or anyone else here. It's privately owned. If you have a beef here, it should be with the Federal Reserve and the government for enabling the Federal Reserve to have a monopoly on an unbacked currency which they devalue (through inflation) every single day, making you poorer every single day.

    94. Re:Genius. by Avarist · · Score: 1

      I can get the same entertainment value from a copy of a movie or song as I can from the original.

      The same thing can be said from your quote: Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

      Does that mean I now owe you because I copied your quote and I can get the same entertainment from reading it as the original?

      If it doesn't apply to your quote how about a magic trick, an acrobatic move, a cooking recipes? Where do you draw the line? Well you don't, because it's all the same thing. As long as copies leave the original intact, it has no value.

      --
      In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
    95. Re:Genius. by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I suppose I should have said "some pirates". Yes the MAFIAA assuming everyone who pirates is a lost sale is bad logic, my point was if you weren't going to buy a product you shouldn't be able to enjoy the product.

    96. Re:Genius. by godefroi · · Score: 1

      So, let me get this straight. This is your logic:

      0) The (potential) consumer gets to determine the value of a good.
      1) I don't want the music/movie/game/whatever.
      2) Therefore, its value is zero.
      3) Therefore, I should be able to have it for free.
      4) Therefore, I'm justified in copyright violation.

      That's some solid reasoning, there.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    97. Re:Genius. by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Except that they can. There are businesses that will not accept cash, which is the truest form of dollar. I believe the IRS is one of them. There are businesses that will not accept checks, and others that will not accept credit cards. You can exchange cash for the digital dollars used by cards, but they are not the same thing, and there is no one universal currency in the US.

    98. Re:Genius. by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      What most people fail to realize about this is that the analogy is backwards. You're starting with the assumption that a dollar has value, but it's just a fancy serialized copy on a piece of paper. It has no actual value. Way back when the dollar was backed by metal it had the value of that metal, but no longer
      Except that the metal only has value because we agree it does. In the long run, any item used for value exchange is based on faith in the system. After all, who actually uses a "fancy...piece of paper" these days? By far, the most commonly used value exchange method is twiddling bits in a bunch of digital files.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    99. Re:Genius. by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      Add to this, I DESPISE WITH A BURNING RED PASSION when they refuse to let me skip forward over their god damn ads. Seriously, if I hit Menu, then I should get a menu, not an icon telling me to quit hitting buttons. I copy every DVD I have, and strip out that shit. The FBI warning hasn't changed since 1974, I con;t care to stare at it for 10 minuets every time I insert the DVD. And Disney, with your 30 previews before I can play the movie: Kill yourself. Painfully if possible. Fire will do. This is the primary reason I may become a serial killer of marketing people. Fucking brain dead morons, the world would be a better place without them. But, that's just my humble opinion.

    100. Re:Genius. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Or they would be willing to receive 4 gigabyte streams of random bits in lieu of actual copies of movies, as long as the titles of the files were correct. Neither of these are true, so this whole thing is bunk.

      And how many times have you heard of these Media Companies suing people with nothing more than a file name as "proof". It could be 4 gigabytes of random bits, but as long as the title of the file was correct you will get sued for sharing it in a torrent.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    101. Re:Genius. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I feel bad now. Every day I go to work and I pass by a bakery, and I enjoy the smell of the fresh bread, but I don't pay for that pleasure.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    102. Re:Genius. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Reduction ad absurdum is funny...

      The point is that the demander determines what value something has. The offerer determines the price. You might notice that there is a difference. My integrity, for example, is valuable to me, but it has no price.

      Only if that value you give an item meets or exceeds a price associated with its acquisition, you will acquire the item. Note that neither value nor price is limited to money. The price of acquiring an illegal copy is the hardship of finding it and accepting the risk associated with breaking the law. It seems that this price is acceptable for some people, and more acceptable than the monetary price attached to it by someone who is allowed to sell you that item. I draw that conclusion from the fact that the problem exists altogether. That does not mean that those prices are interchangeable. Someone willing to pay the price of hardship and illegality is not necessarily willing to pay the monetary price. Likewise, I would not be willing to pay the former and instead opt for the monetary price. If, and only if, that price is lower than the value I give that item, of course.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    103. Re:Genius. by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Except that the metal only has value because we agree it does

      Not true. The metal has value because we can do useful things with it. Sure the perceived value of gold and silver are much inflated over the actual value, but the actual value is still there. I currently have some parts running in a mill that are made of copper. The customer wants them made of copper not because of the perceived value of copper, but because of its mechanical and thermodynamic properties. They pay my company for the parts, we pay the copper supplier for the hunks of metal. The funny part is that we all pay in fiat notes, or more likely digital counters representing fiat notes.

    104. Re:Genius. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Using Treasury logic, yes.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    105. Re:Genius. by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      That's a poor analogy and you know it. Does the baker(y) normally charge you to smell the bread?

    106. Re:Genius. by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Does a blank DVD has the same value as a movie DVD?

      Given a lot of movies lately, I'd say which is worth more is 50/50

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  2. Re: by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just make sure your money is slightly bigger than real money or you might end up in Guantanamo bay.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  3. i thought scanners won't scan money? by alen · · Score: 2

    i keep reading how scanners and copying machines are programmed not to scan or copy money

    1. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by mcfatboy93 · · Score: 1

      seeing how my copy machine breaks down so often, I would be surprised if that was actually true. how could that piece of junk have anything in it besides the process to stop working.

      --
      Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
    2. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, they tend to have the firmware, yes...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation

    3. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by shippers · · Score: 2

      Just scanned a £12 note with no problem!

    4. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I actually worked for a copier company once upon a time.
      When users tried to make copies of money the copiers would display an error code and lock the machine until a technician was called at which time we were "required" to inform the manufacturer and the authorities.

      We only ever ran into this issue twice. Once at an office which though it would be funny to make copies of dollar bills with the employees photos on them and another time at a police station which needed to make copies of counterfeit bills for use as evidence in a trial.

    5. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      I don't understand your response. You're acting like scanners don't have circuitry to recognize, and refuse to copy money. Many/most do, and this has been documented on slashdot before.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    6. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by mindwhip · · Score: 1

      Like cake, that has always been a lie. Along with the embedded fingerprint that is supposedly able to trace a copy back to a specific machine.

      However it is very hard to make a passable copy using these devices, even the very high quality ones, as the paper (often actually a fabric and not paper) and inks (colour and texture) used, level of fine detail and other features such as metal woven strips make it almost impossible to scan or print without using a wet ink printing press.

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    7. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      easy to do have some sort of hard to see pattern that is hard see with the naked eye but can be picked up in a scan sort of a DO NOT COPY watermark.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    8. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by Dark$ide · · Score: 1

      Just scanned a £12 note with no problem!

      And you're now as guilty of infringing the Bank of England's copyright as I was when I scanned that 9 bob note.

      Seriously the tenner in my wallet does have "© the Governor and Company of the Bank of England 2000" printed on the back of it.

      --

      Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

    9. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by bws111 · · Score: 2

      You are aware that vending machines, ATM's etc do this sort of thing aren't you?

    10. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      I think it might be more like 'make it a bitch to print'. Copying the images is easy and possible. Printing the very fine details takes special presses and papers (linen in many cases). And of course watermarks etc.

      I was at a Schnuks grocery store in Saint Louis MO (Clayton actually) one night about 5 years ago and there were a bunch of the managers holding up a bill and examining it etc. When I asked they told me it was a counterfeit $50 dollar bill. One guy held it up to the light for me to see the watermark. The perpetrator had bleached a $5 dollar bill and then used an inkjet to print a $50 dollar bill image on the now white $5 dollar bill. The only reason they caught it was the watermark.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    11. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by neokushan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah I tried that once, it said something had performed an illegal operation and my whole PC shut down!

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    12. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah?! Well *I* just scanned a $13 bill with no problems!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    13. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by meerling · · Score: 1

      :) maybe that's why it's screwed up :)

    14. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by v1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ike cake, that has always been a lie. Along with the embedded fingerprint that is supposedly able to trace a copy back to a specific machine.

      No, this is very real in color photocopiers and color laser printers. They tend to place a copy of their serial number at regular intervals on color printouts, in such a faint yellow that it's impossible for the human eye to see. This makes any color printout traceable to the machine that printed it. Commonly in use by law enforcement for tracking things like death threats, ransom notes, etc.

      Google for "hidden yellow serial number" and find lots of information from reputable sources. First hit I glanced at just now is from PC World. Good quote from there, Peter Crean, a senior research fellow at Xerox, says his company's laser printers, copiers and multifunction workstations, such as its WorkCentre Pro series, put the "serial number of each machine coded in little yellow dots" in every printout. The millimeter-sized dots appear about every inch on a page, nestled within the printed words and margins. "It's a trail back to you, like a license plate," Crean says.

      No tinfoil hat necessary, this one's for real. Last time I looked this up I ran across a technician that works at one of those in R&D telling how every one of their color copiers has a dedicated board inline in the image processing chain whose only job is to "insert" the serial number into the image stream before it goes to the imager.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    15. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by slaker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ages ago I was teaching a bunch of people how to work scanners in a training session. We scanned a whole bunch of stuff and most people were clearly able to see that commercially printed content doesn't look appreciably different when scanned at 600dpi or 1200dpi. Eventually I had the bright idea to try to scan a $20 bill since they're actually fine fabric and not paper. It scanned fine at 600dpi and previewed OK at higher settings, but every time I tried to scan it at a higher setting, the area of the bill would be replaced by black pixels in the finished image. My students and I decided it was probably an anti-counterfeiting measure and after about 40 minutes of experimentation with things like discoloring the bills, tearing them so they no longer resembled whole bills (we used a couple $1s for that), zooming in on small areas etc. we determined that whatever was going on was actually pretty tough to fool.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    16. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by meerling · · Score: 1

      You'd be amazed how often people have gotten away with passing off photocopied notes on regular paper.
      Make it something less than $20, fold, spindle, and mutilate until it looks like a properly stressed/aged bill, and most cashiers will take it even if it has a picture of "Bozo the Clown", and says "Trust in the Force".
      Really. I've even seen someone give them a Twee Dollar Bill. (Yes, I said TWEE) Most of the time they take it as a $3, something that's never been in circulation in this country. Of course, she's just playing jokes and gives them real money back as she tells them she wants her Twee Dollar Bill back. Some of them think it's funny, the rest are either embarrassed or confused.

      Now mindwhip is talking about a good counterfeit, I'm just talking about what most cashiers will accept out of apathy/stupidity/ignorance/whatever.

    17. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I scanned some Canadian 100s for Halloween (going as a corrupt stock trader), and they scanned fine, but the Windows print spooler rejected them and instead printed the URL of something like fair-use.com.

      I ended up printed them using Linux CUPS, and that worked fine. Exact size and everything, except black and white only to they were obvious fakes and useful only as props.

    18. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by m.ducharme · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We only ever ran into this issue twice.... at a police station which needed to make copies of counterfeit bills for use as evidence in a trial.

      that's hilarious.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    19. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      $3 bills aren't as fake as you'd think. They have existed in the US albeit not as Federal Reserve Notes.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    20. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by Sperbels · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Back in 2003 I tried to use an HP scanner on a twenty. It wouldn't do it. It even opened up a browser window and sent me to a government anticounterfeiting site. Which could also give my IP address to the Secret Service...and potentially result in a nice little early morning raid. I decided I'd never try that EVER again.

    21. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      This is one of the main reasons the US dollar is a relatively easy currency to counterfeit. The really tricky bit of counterfeiting is finding the right paper (or cloth, more often), but because dollar bills are the same size you can (as mentioned) just bleach a $1. I've been handed plenty of fake Sterling notes whilst working in pubs, and the feel of the paper is a dead givaway 99% of the time.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    22. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      Scan a bunch of coins in instead.

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    23. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      I always found it Funny that the Americans mock the rest of the worlds money as being "Monopoly money"

      In most other countries I know, the differnt colours and slighty different sizes for their bank notes would stop such a con before it was ever attempted

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    24. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by jcgam69 · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's pretty funny. The secret service will get a kick out of it too, except the agents I've met don't laugh very much.

    25. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know that trick wouldn't work with the new 100s and 50s in Canada (and soon the rest of the "paper" money). They are plastic now, like Australian money. And the Canadian bills have windows in them and holograms as well as monopoly money colours. :) Mind you, thanks to the low tech watermark it didn't work that time either. I find it aggravating sometimes in the 'States when I go to pay and pull out a wad of green and can't tell the ones, fives, tens, twenties, and fifties apart right away if they happen to have become bunched up. Colours and coins for smaller values help a lot there.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    26. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      And on the complete opposite end, when I visited California last summer California two different stores singled out and refused to take the one Canadian penny in a low-cash transaction involving some dollar bills and other coins. I even joked that the Canadian penny they were refusing was actually worth more than the American penny at the time.

      I have no idea what policies they were following, in Canada most places accept American coins without problem.

    27. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      Oh and the coin sizes. .

      Sequential coin sizes. As the face value of the coin rises, so too does the size of the coin. Another thing the US is lacking.

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    28. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      This is not a general bash US sentiment. . I just dont like their money :)

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    29. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      It was detecting the EURion constellation pattern and refusing to copy. Pretty standard.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    30. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      That would require a lot of very specialized knowledge about your model of printer. I'm sure professional counterfeiters can do it, but Joe Sixpack wanting to photoshop pictures of his dog onto some dollar bills will have a much harder time.

    31. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Me either. I used to live there for six or seven years. I have a lot of friends and am quite fond of Saint Louis where I lived (no better blues music anywhere... lot of live clubs). Although their politics leave quite a bit to be desired of late.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    32. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by HyperQuantum · · Score: 1

      Great. That would make a nice Denial Of Service attack, so to speak. You could sabotage someone's device by simply trying to scan/copy a money bill with it.

      --
      I am not really here right now.
    33. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      AIUI, the rationale for having all denominations the same color goes like this: if each denomination is a different color, most people will only look at the color, and if that's right they'll accept the bill without looking closely at it. If they're all the same color, you have to pay attention to what the bill looks like and you're more likely to spot a counterfit. The same principle applies, of course, if you're thinking of making them in different sizes. I don't know if the idea's right or not, but it's the reason I've always heard for making them all the same color.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    34. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by kyrio · · Score: 1

      Not that tough, actually. It's pretty well documented and can be easily beaten if you just have the current information, or a scanner that doesn't have that crippling code added to its firmware.

    35. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Actually the UK is like that. Have you ever seen the size of the one pound coin. Granted it's thicker, but tiny otherwise.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    36. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by kyrio · · Score: 1

      All businesses in Canada accept US coins - they can just be put back into circulation by the business because Canadians will also take them back as change. The US dollar coin is the only coin that might get rejected. I've received Euro as change many times, and just the face value is worth double what the Canadian coin it replaced would have been worth, add another .5 for the difference in market value and I'm up quite a nice amount!

      The problem citizens of the USA have is that they are afraid of anything that doesn't look like their funny money. The businesses can't take the Canadian coins because they wouldn't be able to recirculate them, nobody will take them as change.

    37. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Does anyone follow that rule.

      I know the US doesn't, Australia doesn't, Canada doesn't, the UK doesn't. The euro doesn't (assuming we are using diameter as the size metric), Japan doesn't, Sweden doesn't, New Zealand doesn't, Singapore doesn't, Norway doesn't, India doesn't.

      Oh China does...

    38. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      can be easily beaten if you just have... a scanner that doesn't have that crippling code added to its firmware.

      In which case you're not actually beating anything, are you?

    39. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by kyrio · · Score: 1

      By getting one of the very few that don't have it, you are beating the people who are asking manufacturers to include it.

  4. Too bad they're trying to make scanning $ illegal by SirGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    Haven't they found proprietary code/hardware in scanners that obscures images of money ?

    I would think that a "law abiding" group like the MPAA/RIAA would report people to the Treasury department for counterfeiting .

  5. Isn't that technically illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Even if you're just screwing around? I thought all scanned money had to have the huge NOT LEGAL TENDER shit on it, otherwise you were breaking the law...

    1. Re:Isn't that technically illegal? by Beorytis · · Score: 1

      I think you can also enlarge or reduce it significantly to make it obviously fake.

    2. Re:Isn't that technically illegal? by meerling · · Score: 1

      They always claim they want the BIG MONEY... Let's make it literal !

  6. Valuable Images by gknoy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Could I send them a drawing of a spider instead?

    1. Re:Valuable Images by Lunaritian · · Score: 1

      Sadly I don't think spiders are valuable enough. But maybe a cow or something? One with just three udders of course, so they can't beat you in digital milk business.

    2. Re:Valuable Images by Crasoose · · Score: 2

      Make sure you include all 8 legs, they are really greedy.

    3. Re:Valuable Images by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      A drawing of a spider from me will cost more than one of their shitty movies. Because I get to set the value for it, not there. Also just like their shitty movies.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    4. Re:Valuable Images by rwv · · Score: 2

      Don't count on getting it back though, if they don't accept it as payment, if what you send is attached an an e-mail. Unlike payment officers at utility companies, the RIAA knows that sending attachments is piracy and *they* only commit piracy when it benefits them.

    5. Re:Valuable Images by meerling · · Score: 1

      Then they'll sic the FBI on you for Terrorism, you know how afraid some people are of spider pictures.

    6. Re:Valuable Images by longhairedgnome · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
    7. Re:Valuable Images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there...

    8. Re:Valuable Images by jjp9999 · · Score: 1

      They might try to sue you with their Spiderman rights.

    9. Re:Valuable Images by jjp9999 · · Score: 1

      Better yet, why not draw a photo, copyright it, then sue them for having it in their mailbox.

    10. Re:Valuable Images by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Could I send them a drawing of a spider instead?

      Thank you for the memory; I'd lost the link to and forgotten about David Thorne's site.

      For anyone still reading this, who likes to laugh: http://www.27bslash6.com/overdue.html

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  7. Banks do this, sort of. by na1led · · Score: 2

    When you deposit money in a bank, it's put into digital space. So what's the difference?

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    1. Re:Banks do this, sort of. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      What is digitized is the accounting ledger, not the money. The record that your money is deposited. Even when you purchase or pay on line, it is still just the ledger. The paper money still exists.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    2. Re:Banks do this, sort of. by xyourfacekillerx · · Score: 1

      At your bank, your "digital space" money copy corresponds to a real world valuable asset. There is a huge difference between that and a scan or photocopy of money.

    3. Re:Banks do this, sort of. by na1led · · Score: 2

      I don't think so. If everyone went to the bank and asked to withdraw all accounts, banks would not have the physical assets to do so. Plus, when you do deposit money to a bank, they use your money for investments. It's like a friend lets your borrow a DVD, and you rent it to someone else. Then when your friend asks for the DVD back, you tell him you mistakenly misplaced it, but you can give him a digital copy.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    4. Re:Banks do this, sort of. by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think so. If everyone went to the bank and asked to withdraw all accounts, banks would not have the physical assets to do so.

      Banks are required to keep at least a specific percentage of their deposits on hand to deal with withdrawals. For the rest, they'll tell you to come back tomorrow or the day after and they'll be ordering what they need from either another branch or the Federal Reserve. In either case, there is a physical object that you can get for that digital ledger entry, you just might not be able to get it the moment you demand it. If you look carefully, you'll note that your bank probably has a clause in their terms of service that tell you a time and quantity limit on taking your money out as cash.

      See here, or here. It is called "fractional reserve".

    5. Re:Banks do this, sort of. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      He said 'real world valuable asset', not 'physical money'. As they say in It's a Wonderful Life, "Your money isn't here, it's in Joe's house".

    6. Re:Banks do this, sort of. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      As they say in It's a Wonderful Life, "Your money isn't here, it's in Joe's house".

      You might realize that "It's A Wondeful Life" was about a time before the FDIC and FED put the rules about fractional reserves in place, and the runs on the banks (Potter's bank just closed their doors to solve their problem, remember) were why they were created.

      In today's world, yes, your money is in "Joe's house", but if you demanded it back you could get it. The difference is that today selling a debt (the money Joe owes the bank for his house) is trivial and fast. Your bank can do it if they have to get you your money, or they'll have to borrow it from FDIC, but you'll get your money. If you demand cash, they may have to buy bills from the FED, but you'll get that, too.

    7. Re:Banks do this, sort of. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know that. My point was that they do have real assets, they just don't have the cash on hand. Which I think is the same thing you are saying.

  8. Just an FYI by bigredradio · · Score: 4, Informative

    You might want to think about it first. http://www.secretservice.gov/money_law.shtml

    1. Re:Just an FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Scanned images are not printouts. The summary is misleading. A scan (digital), which they are recommending you send, would not be considered a counterfeit bill.

    2. Re:Just an FYI by gknoy · · Score: 2

      Printed reproductions, including photographs of paper currency, checks, bonds, postage stamps, revenue stamps, and securities of the United States and foreign governments (except under the conditions previously listed) are violations of Title 18, Section 474 of the United States Code.

      If you never print it, does it still violate the code? Something to ask the local treasury department, I guess.

    3. Re:Just an FYI by Amouth · · Score: 1

      "Anyone who manufactures a counterfeit U.S. coin in any denomination above five cents is subject to the same penalties as all other counterfeiters. "

      so we can make pennies and nickels all we want????

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    4. Re:Just an FYI by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      So if only people who make counterfeits worth more than a nickel are charged with counterfeiting law, does that mean we should pay the *IAA in scanned pennies?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    5. Re:Just an FYI by meerling · · Score: 1

      (ianal) I'd think not, since in that statement they are (to me) clearly indicating the old "image on a piece of paper" photograph, as opposed to the digital "information used to describe a visual representation to a display device" photo.

      But when dealing with lawyers, politicians, and government spooks, they'll twist anything how they want it to achieve their goals.

    6. Re:Just an FYI by microcars · · Score: 5, Interesting

      or just ask your accounting department what they think. *cough*

      Years ago I used to work in the film biz and we did a good number of commercials for the State Lottery.
      There was always a call for lots of "money" floating about in various forms.
      We got the most realistic "fake" money that was available from The Earl Hays Press in California.
      Their website does not list it but I'm pretty sure they still provide it. It looks pretty real unless you compare it to another "real" bill.
      Once, when I was visiting, someone there told me that the current incarnation was as far as they could go. They had apparently made something a bit more realistic, the Secret Service decided it was "too" good and confiscated the plates.

      Anyways, for some jobs when we only needed a few bills to film for something we STILL had to use "fake" money.
      The accounting dept people at the Ad Agency would always demand it to cover their asses. They read the rules as "any photographic reproduction" to apply to filming money so it could appear on a TV set as being involved in counterfitting.
      So then I would bring out the "best" fake money available and they would complain that it did not look real enough. (???)
      I once did this dance back and forth on a job and finally relented and showed them the most advanced "fake" money available for movie use, -it just became available this month-!
      It was a real $100 bill. They fell for it and filmed it.
      No one went to jail or lost their job.

      --
      I like microcars
    7. Re:Just an FYI by meerling · · Score: 1

      sure, but it would be dumb, costs too much, you'll be losing money. (lol)

    8. Re:Just an FYI by na1led · · Score: 1

      I don't see any Copyrights on my money, must be ok to copy.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  9. Really illegal? by Quartus486 · · Score: 1

    You're basically emailing a photo of a bill. Shouldn't be illegal, now should it?

    1. Re:Really illegal? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      If you follow this link then you should be breaking the law... oh, and google and wikipedia too. In fact, considering how the law is lately being shaped, slashdot owners houses should be raided by swat teams soon for this very link.

  10. Better not make the copy look too good. by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

    You'll be accused of counterfeiting.

    Of course the best option is to just throw the letter in the trash. I doubt the MPAA/RIAA will come after you, since they are just using a shotgun approach to extort money from the millions of uploaders they have in their database. They are hoping to dupe you into paying $5000. (Like the nigerian lottery scammers.)

    Oh and send some real money to the people who deserve it. Like JMS of Babylon 5 or the Writer/Artist of the Walking Dead, because they certainly aren't getting paid by the corporations (somehow these TV shows never show a profit).

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:Better not make the copy look too good. by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently it's ok as long as:

      The copy has to be one-sided
      The copy has to be the wrong size. It has to be at least 75% smaller or 150% larger than an actual bill
      You have to destroy the negatives, graphic files, or “digitized storage mediums” after their final use

      INAAL so if you go to jail after following this advice, I'll just laugh at you. But i read it on the internet.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Better not make the copy look too good. by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Anyone that had anything to do with Babylon 5 should be sending me money. Though I do agree with supporting artists that are getting raped by the corporate giants. That being said the remark about Babylon 5 was sarcasm. I think they never show profit cause they have more a cult following. I've been reading Walking Dead long before a show was even talked about.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    3. Re:Better not make the copy look too good. by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>"Anyone that had anything to do with Babylon 5 should be sending me money"

      Wow. Really? You must think B5 was crap. I consider Babylon 5 (and Star Trek DS9) the best science dramas ever produced for television. But then I've always preferred ongoing "videonovels" over the short story of the week format (like TNG). And I liked the political intrigue/war concept.

      As for profit: Nothing coming out of Hollywood ever makes a profit, not even megahits like Avatar or CSI. It's basically accounting fraud (they apply losses from other movie/TV shows to the profits & thereby claim Avatar/CSI had losses).

      Aside - I didn't discover Walking Dead until after the AMC announcement of a show. The comic is definitely superior but the show is pretty good too (since the comic creator is also the producer/writer).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:Better not make the copy look too good. by ThanatosMinor · · Score: 1

      Are you the same one who posted this bad math as AC or did it just copy/paste your bad math?

      Informative, yes...correct, no

    5. Re:Better not make the copy look too good. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I consider Babylon 5 (and Star Trek DS9) the best science dramas ever produced for television.

      This is getting really off-topic, but I have to give half-hearted support. B5 was one of the best until the end of season 4, where there was a rush to complete the story arcs because the show wasn't being renewed, and then season 5 was picked up.

      I consider the ending of the Shadow War to be on a par with Kirk "out-arguing the computer" as the solution to the problem dejure. "Hey, Daystrom Mark 7, scan the universe, see how you are causing death..." "Hey, you First Ones, you're acting like children with your petty squabbles. Y'all go away and let us take over because it is our turn now. And take them Shadows and Vorlons with you." "N'kay, bye!"

      Don't get me wrong. I thought the characters were outstanding. G'Kar and Mollari, and especially Flounder (Stephen Furst/Vir). Mr. Garibaldi. Zack. Bester as the evil side of Chekov. Will Robinson! I was almost able to get past Boxlightner as Captain Scarecrow, and adding Melissa Gilbert (real-life wife of BB) as tele-wife of Sheridan was ... creepy.

      It would be interesting to know the full story behind Michael O'hare. The last time I saw him was at a Visions convention in Chicago. He hadn't been invited and wasn't on the official guest list, but he set up a table near the autograph sessions and was selling pictures and autographs free-lance. Who's ox did he gore that made him persona non grata?

    6. Re:Better not make the copy look too good. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Copy pasted it from the article. For all I know, that's how it's written in the law, so I'm not going to fix it until checking, and I'm too lazy to check. If you do check the law, please let me know. It would be interesting, in a very unmotivated way.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Better not make the copy look too good. by ThanatosMinor · · Score: 1
    8. Re:Better not make the copy look too good. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol good to know

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  11. It's illegal by koan · · Score: 1

    To scan money.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:It's illegal by cplusplus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Incorrect, as long as you follow the rules. Rules For Use

      --
      "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
    2. Re:It's illegal by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      Sure, you and I know that. The GP and anyone seeing your link (directly or indirectly) will find that out. But they don't mention the rules for legally creating copies on that page encouraging you to scan your money. They should, otherwise this could potentially get some people into a lot of trouble.

  12. Great idea by bws111 · · Score: 1

    What a bunch of genius's. Now, instead of just being a pirate and having the RIAA & MPAA after you, you can also be a counterfeiter and have the feds after you.

  13. My own currency by ehiris · · Score: 1

    I'll send them my own currency in the form of whatever I feel like it should be (images, sound,...).
    According to them, it's as good, if not better than money.

    1. Re:My own currency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Compose a song and send them a recording, then ask for change.

  14. Re: by SomePgmr · · Score: 3, Informative

    I was going to say, isn't this a felony?

    Sounds like an easy way to get everyone that opposes you in a whole heap of trouble, all in one hit. So let's not do them any favors, eh?

  15. Re:Too bad they're trying to make scanning $ illeg by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    That assumes someone is dumb enough to do it and send their address on the envelope. I often send stuff that I want to get to a destination with the same return address as the sending address.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  16. It doesn't have to be a good copy by rjmx · · Score: 1

    Given that the **AA are likely to sue even if the filename sounds like one of their movies/songs, and given that mp3/ogg etc. are lossy codecs, you don't have to send them a scan of a bill at all. Just scrawl "Ten Dollars" on a piece of paper, scan it, and send it in.

    That should have exactly the same effect.

  17. Beautiful by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

    I wish I had thought of paying them in this way when the MPAA sued me.

  18. FTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    “Now wait,” you say, “isn’t copying money illegal?” Not if you do it right. Reproducing images of money (in the United States at least) is perfectly legal under three conditions:

            The copy has to be one-sided
            The copy has to be the wrong size. It has to be at least 75% smaller or 150% larger than an actual bill
            You have to destroy the negatives, graphic files, or “digitized storage mediums” after their final use

    1. Re:FTFA by ThanatosMinor · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of a urinal I saw recently that said its 1-pint flush saved 88% more water than standard 1-gallon urinals.

      75% smaller or 150% larger = 25% or 250% of the original size
      vs.
      25% smaller or 50% larger = 75% or 150% of the original size (actual law)

    2. Re:FTFA by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      We have two of those things at work. I'm tempted to hold it due to the lousy wording.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  19. Re: by kimvette · · Score: 3, Informative

    That won't work.

    Scan it in, and add in the text in a white box "This is a copy. Not worth the same as the original, is it?"

    Distributing a copy of money, even if the size is different to make it clear it is fake is sometimes considered counterfeit by the secret service, particularly if someone is already gunning for you. If you include a very clear disclaimer on the bill, any case should be thrown out by the courts because it will be obvious there is no intent to pass off your copy as the real deal.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  20. Not a good idea... by Gavin+Scott · · Score: 1

    In the US at least it's a federal crime to copy or scan and print (potentially even just scan) US currency, so this is one of those lame things you really don't want to do.

    You can end up with a visit from the FBI and potentially even prosecution if someone simply finds your copies in the trash and reports it.

    Just fooling around or having no criminal intent probably will not protect you, and the RIAA/MPAA will probably be more than happy to report you if you mail copies to them.

    G.

    1. Re:Not a good idea... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      So... don't put a return address on the damn envelope?

  21. Re: by DanTheStone · · Score: 4, Informative

    It shouldn't matter, as long as you're sending them only scans and not printouts. A scan or photograph could not be reasonably considered a counterfeit bill as long as it's not printed. The title and article misleadingly say "copied" bills, but the actual campaign says to send scans and photographs.

  22. Mark It So It's Obviously Fake by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    Make sure you put a mark on it as well as change the size so people can't mistake it as being real, even if you think it is obvious it is a copy. The secret service (in charge of counterfeiting as well as protecting the pres') doesn't have a sense of humour in these matters.

    On a side note, I read a story outlining one of the most successful counterfeiters ever. When they arrested him he was an old man. He'd been printing and passing off one dollar bills and five dollar bills for a few decades before he was caught. Seems his success was because he wasn't greedy only using them for himself and when he needed to. And since the bills weren't large denominations people didn't check them carefully. In the end when they caught him, it also turned out the counterfeit job wasn't even that particularly good. But because of the previous points, no-one noticed till he was quite old. And only then because he hadn't changed the printing job, but the currency had been upgraded/changed a couple times since. The bills looked newly printed but with an old style; that's when people noticed. I remember reading this in a magazine or readers digest or something years ago, otherwise I'd post a link.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:Mark It So It's Obviously Fake by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      Make sure you put a mark on it as well as change the size so people can't mistake it as being real, even if you think it is obvious it is a copy. The secret service (in charge of counterfeiting as well as protecting the pres') doesn't have a sense of humour in these matters.

      The whole situation is absurd. Why should an individual be brought to "justice" for photocopying or duplicating a dollar bill? What has he/she done to harm the value of the currency of the USA? The USA Federal Government and the Federal Reserve hold much more responsibility for tarnishing the reputation and value of the dollar. Crazy stuff.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    2. Re:Mark It So It's Obviously Fake by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I get your point. But how do you set limits? It's just easier to enforce if you say 'no copying' period. Then you don't have to deal with ambiguity. Keeping in your vein of thinking, the U.S. already has enough of a problem keeping up with jailing criminals with their antiquated drug laws (btw I don't smoke dope and think it is dumb to do so... it called dope for a reason... but it is also dumb to keep prosecuting it too... I think they are already at the near maximum to how many people are going to smoke it, legal or no, already, and it just overburdens the legal system and makes criminals out of non-criminals).

      FWIW, I got screwed by a photocopied counterfeit once. I went to pay with a ten that turned out to be copied. In a hurry I must have taken it as change somewhere. I had to pay with real money then took it to the local RCMP station (they are the feds in Canada and responsible for counterfeiting crimes). The desk sergeant just had me sign a quick report form about it (where did you get it, dont' know, how much, ten buck, thank you have a nice day). They said they had so many that unless it was a lot more they don't bother. Basically it was no different than someone stealing ten dollars from me, so all in all I can give the SS this one. Of course if I told them that they would probably have no sense of humour and just say we don't need your approval, at which time I would hate them for being arrogant pricks. But for now I'm OK. ;)

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    3. Re:Mark It So It's Obviously Fake by tekrat · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of Mr. 880

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042742/

      It's a movie.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    4. Re:Mark It So It's Obviously Fake by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      It's a movie but based on a true story. And thanks to your 880 reference it only took a few minutes to find it on snopes.com. But he didn't have the scam going as long as I remember and he got caught a different way... maybe that was the way they caught him in the movie. But I know I read about the story and never saw the movie. I would have remembered that. Thanks... I'll have to watch it now.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  23. Re:Too bad they're trying to make scanning $ illeg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If they claim an mp3 is as valuable as the original then a fuzzy image of money should be the same. I just consider them both a lossy compression.

  24. Funny! by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

    Funny, but I expect they won't even get it!

    --

    "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  25. Doesn't work by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A digital copy of a music file still has inherent value to the recipient, while a copy of a bank note does not - all you are doing is showing them you are as petulant as you consider them to be.

    The value of a music file is in the content, not the form of the file while the value of a bank note is in the ability to exchange it for other things, not the art work on the note - copies work fine in one case, and not at all in the other.

    1. Re:Doesn't work by Dan667 · · Score: 2

      the riaa and mpaa refuse to adapt their business model to the current environment. Anytime they want they could adopt a model like Valve's Steam Gaming Service. People behaving as irrationally as the mpaa and riaa is actually a good tactic.

    2. Re:Doesn't work by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Depends.

      A digital copy of a music file has value to the recipients because they may enjoy the music... or they may not.

      A digital copy (photo) of a bank note may have value to the recipients so far as they enjoy the photo... and seriously, does any of us have doubt that the MPAA/RIAA guys enjoy looking at bank notes?

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    3. Re:Doesn't work by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is obviously a symbolic protest, not meant to act as payment. Think of it as abstraction of complaining. Does that help?

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    4. Re:Doesn't work by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Anytime they want they could adopt a model like Valve's Steam Gaming Service.

      So... I'd have to be connected to the internet to play music- spend more time patching their music distribution service than actually playing music. Reinstall the whole software twice a week in order for it to work. Risk having my credit card stolen from their insecure web-site and have them continually advertise songs I don't want to me.

      I'd rather things didn't change. I will buy my CD- rip the music off it and use music from my CD on anything I want to play it on. I'd hate for music to be ruined in the same way that PC gaming has been ruined.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re:Doesn't work by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Last time I looked there was Amazon Music Store, iTunes and a bunch of others, Netflix, Lovefilm and a bunch of others...

      What else are you looking for?

    6. Re:Doesn't work by Walterk · · Score: 2

      Actually, on British Pound notes, it specifically states: "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of x". Therefore, a digital copy should have exactly the same value. It's a promise of some money.

    7. Re:Doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Think of it as abstraction of complaining. Does that help?

      So it's like TWO layers of useless? Wow!

    8. Re:Doesn't work by artor3 · · Score: 2

      No one's suggesting that the people behind this campaign are actually trying to pay with photocopied money. But they are trying to suggest that copies of music & movies hold no more value than copies of money, and that that makes their actions okay. It's a childish, idiotic argument.

    9. Re:Doesn't work by Fned · · Score: 1

      A digital copy of a music file still has inherent value to the recipient.

      No, it doesn't. access to the file has value to the recipient, but the copy itself has no inherent value whatsoever.

    10. Re:Doesn't work by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I think you have to look at where the value is. How I look at it is that if I make a copy of a CD or DVD I buy for my own use on my phone or as a backup, it has no inherent value to the RIAA or MPAA, or shouldn't because I have already bought the right to listen to it or watch it. So in this case, the money the RIAA complains about losing is bullshit, equal in value... no, actually worth less than the paper and postage on the facsimile of the money proposed to be sent to them

      Now if you suggest that the value is lost when someone pirates a copy then you are right, but unfortunately the RIAA and MPAA want to lump both of these ideas together. For this reason alone I can get behind protests against these organizations where once I had at least a modicum of sympathy (not much but a very little) since I used to play music and had friends who didn't get paid their due. And I don't care if it is the companies or the consumers who screw the artist, they're still being screwed... and I can say I care more for the little guys than the multimillionaire big shot music stars... and I shouldn't differentiate but I do... being human I guess.

      Anyway with the changes the RIAA and MPAA are trying to push, I no longer have any sympathy what-so-ever for them. For example, through lobbying these groups have managed to talk digital lock legislation into a new bill being debated (and soon to pass with a majority government) in Canada. The law says it's alright to make copies of your CD/music or DVDs except when the companies selling them put a digital lock on them. So what do you want to bet that these companies will now put locks on all media so that you aren't allowed to make copies, even for your own use. So this whole paradigm of me buying the rights to listen to music regardless of how I store it will be gone. People will have to buy a copy for their mp3 player, one for their computer, one for any other device, etc. And I have come to the conclusion I want this bill to pass. If it becomes so onerous for people to own music the government implementing the law stands a chance to fail because of it and the companies will face an outright revolt from even people who didn't care before. Then things might change to where the average person is a person again and companies are reduced to being legal entities once again i.e. where people come first and their organizations come second. Otherwise I don't see them doing so. Cynically yours...

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    11. Re:Doesn't work by artor3 · · Score: 1

      I don't have any sympathy for them either, but lack of sympathy for the RIAA doesn't excuse the behavior of the pirates. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that. For example, I like Ubisoft's games. They make a lot of quality titles. But their DRM is some of the most restrictive in the world, so I don't buy from them -- but I don't pirate either. I simply do without. There's enough entertainment content produced today that it's easy to just go elsewhere.

      Now, I'm sure some people will say, "Well, if I'm not going to pay regardless, what's the harm in just taking a copy for free?" The harm is that once you have established that pattern of behavior, it will become a rationalization. You'll find yourself deciding more and more often that this company or that one doesn't deserve your money.

      If you don't want to buy it, do without. There's plenty of alternatives out there.

    12. Re:Doesn't work by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you just said, including Ubisoft and how I deal with them too. What's funny is that I think being honest and not pirating might also hurt the recording industry more too. Some might say that the people who buy will still buy. But I think it is more like, if less people listen, then the less others will be encouraged to listen (out of sight out of mind). Crowd behaviour can work in both directions, and the spill over will be in the reverse direction. It will encourage people to take the earphone out of their ears and be sociable with other people again, since the ones listening won't be in such a high proportion. Here's to sociability.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    13. Re:Doesn't work by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      The value of a music file is in the content

      So if I have a Celine Dion CD, THEY owe ME money.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    14. Re:Doesn't work by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      It's a childish, idiotic argument.

      That's OK its being sent to childish idiots in the MAFIAA.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    15. Re:Doesn't work by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If I buy a CD I can resell the CD, but I can't resell a copy of thet CD -- the copy is as monitarily worthless as the counterfeit dollar.

    16. Re:Doesn't work by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Try and take any bank or person up on that promise with a photocopied note - you will rapidly see where the value actually lies, and it's not in your copy. The promise exists with the original issued note, not your copy, so once again there is a huge difference in perceived values here.

    17. Re:Doesn't work by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I disagree, access to the content has value to the recipient, be it in an original form or a copy. I don't buy an MP3 so I can admire the filename on my hard disk, I buy it to listen to the content it represents - and for the same reason, people don't torrent MP3s for the way they look on their filesystems, they torrent them for the content.

      So yes, the copy has inherent value, because the thing with the value is the content.

    18. Re:Doesn't work by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that "value" has to be monetary all the time. In a bank note the value is certainly monetary, and that value is lost when you photocopy it. However, the value of the CD is attached to the content it holds because thats why you bought it in the first place, so if you copy your CD, the copy you make still has value to you and others that listen to it, because the value inherent in it is due to the content and nothing else - and the content is an integral part of the copy, meaning you can gain all the enjoyment of listening to the copy in place of the original.

      So my point stands - in one case the value of the item is lost in the duplication, while in the other the value remains after the duplication, due to the types of value each have. People desire the content, not the thing, just as they desire the buying power of the nite rather than the thing.

      The only way in which your example was to be equal would be if you photocopied the CD rather than copying it - that way the copy loses the inherent value attached to it just the same way as the banknote.

    19. Re:Doesn't work by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that "value" has to be monetary all the time.

      No, just in this context. It isn't the value to you; if it wasn't more valuable to you than the money you paid for it you would have never bought it. But its value to the publisher is purely the lucre and only the lucre.

  26. Re: by cplusplus · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can read all the rules about copying money here: Rules For Use

    --
    "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
  27. Re: by meerling · · Score: 1

    By default it is, it's missing an entire dimension, thickness (or depth) of 0. With no Z, it's just not the same size.
    Fortunately there isn't anything useful on the edges of the money, so you don't really have to worry about scanning that.
    >^_^<

  28. Not even close by xyourfacekillerx · · Score: 1

    Users of download services such as file upload sites or Usenet or P2P services like SLSK do often pay for the privelage of being able to download copies of original IP like music, tv episodes and movies. This proves that there is an intrinsic value to such copies; they can be exchanged as goods for money or other goods and/or services. But a digital copy of cash cannot be exchanged in such manner. It's becoming increasingly embarassing for me to be a programmer when I have to be associated with moron ideas like this one by default.

  29. Re: by meerling · · Score: 1

    Some scanners and scan software will refuse to capture the image of what they think is actual currency. Don't know the current list of which ones are affected by that, it's not like people do it a lot.

  30. More Accurate by trongey · · Score: 2

    Just send them a digital copy of the copyrighted material. It has exactly the same value as the one you kept.
    Heck, send them two or thee copies. That way they make a bigger profit. They'll like that.

    --
    You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  31. Re:Felony by joeboomer628 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you MP3 encode them it will reduce them to a legal size.

    --
    JoeR
  32. Re: by izomiac · · Score: 2

    IMHO, scanning coins would be a good way to send the same message, but not risk running afoul of counterfeiting laws.

  33. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No, not just slightly bigger. There are regulations on this. Either less than 50% or greater than 150%, if I recall correctly.

  34. Re: by khallow · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or you could helpfully send a copy of the currency to the Secret Service and report the *IAA for incitement to counterfeiting.

  35. Slash dot comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I enjoy reading interesting comments. Unfortunately interesting comments are rare.

    Sometimes I think people might come through. Sometimes I think I can predict what the comments will look like. Sometimes I have questions about the news story that I hope I can figure out with the comments.

    In this case, no dice.

    First of all, I think digital copies are worth less than the physical product. That's probably the message they were trying to get through. But I couldn't even confirm that because the comments are so utterly pointless.

  36. Re: by Skapare · · Score: 1

    If a disclaimer does the job, then just include one on the copies of music/movies to make those copies worthless.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  37. I thought the best thing to do was ignore them by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Not that long ago, there was another slashdot article asking about people who had been sued by the RIAA... several responses admitted as much, but what I found intriguing was that *EVERY* person who said that they just ignored them when they get a letter, and did not try to respond in any way, did not ever have anything come of it beyond the initial threats.

  38. Re: by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you include a very clear disclaimer on the bill, any case should be thrown out by the courts because it will be obvious there is no intent to pass off your copy as the real deal.

    Except that by sending the copy to **AA as "legal tender" and trying to pay for your copy of digital content with it, you are unambiguously showing an intent to pass off the copy as real.

    There was (is?) a guy who hand-draws copies of paper money and uses them to pay for things. He has to be very clear up-front with anyone he deals with, "this is a piece of artwork that I am selling you, if you want to buy it", and then he can use that money to pay for his stuff. If he simply handed it over in exchange for goods he'd be counterfeiting. It doesn't matter how bad the copy is (and his were pretty good), it is still counterfeiting if you try to pass a copy as real.

  39. Re: by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

    My understanding is that those scanners won't just refuse to copy the image, they'll voluntarily brick themselves and not scan anything at all.

    --
    Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  40. Re:Deliberate misinterpretation by meerling · · Score: 1

    Of course, the law doesn't say digital copies have value either...

    But that's not the point. It's an attempt to try and highlight the absurdity of the position the Mafiaa have chosen to take with regards to digital copying.
    And since you seem to be a bit uninformed on these arguements, Mafiaa is a derogatory way to refer to both the MPAA and the RIAA that also attempts to cast scorn on their chosen business practices be creating a mental link to the organized crime syndicates.

  41. Re: by symbolset · · Score: 2

    So send them Zimbabwe dollars instead. Better message, and legal. I have a few quadrillion Zim dollars laying around here somewhere, but you can buy yours on ebay.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  42. I hope that's incredibly illegal by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    I know that in my country, that's called counterfeiting, and it's incredibly illegal. You might not want to do that. Not at any size, not at any quality, and not even in black and white. Quite frankly, if you can do it at all, that's probably covered under owning counterfeiting equipment and that alone is probably illegal enough.

    You're talking about federal currency here. That's not a joke.

  43. Re:I find it absolutely hilarious that... by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    Already tried --- look up the ``EURion Constellation''

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  44. If I print out a music file, is it copying? by argee · · Score: 2

    Ok, so I take this song, and I print it out on paper.
    Like 01000100100100001000010110010100101 etc.

    Is that copy illegal?

  45. Re:I find it absolutely hilarious that... by bws111 · · Score: 1

    You appear to only be focusing on the type of counterfeiting that is large scale (ie done by foreign governments) and is intended to devalue legitimate currency. All those protections you listed are to protect against that. Those types of operations do not use scanners and ink jet printers.

    However, another type of counterfeiting is only concerned with generating wealth for the counterfeiter. For that type of operation to be successful, the money only has to change hands once. And that mostly involves giving it to people who are not going to do any sort of authenticity checks on a $20 bill. Like, pretty much everyone. When you get cash from an ATM, do you check it? How do you know the guy who filled the ATM didn't take the real money and substitute counterfeits? How about when you get change at a store? How do you know the clerk didn't change real bills for fake ones? By the time the counterfeits are detected it is too late, and you are out the money (and may land in trouble of your own for trying to pass counterfeits).

    The biggest problem is the paper, and people have found ways to bleach the ink off smaller denominations and reprint with larger denominations.

    Scanned/printed counterfeiting is real, and the people most often hurt by it are regular individuals.

  46. Be careful by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lots of newer copiers and MFPs that do color scanning will actually lock themselves out if they think you're trying to scan and/or copy money. We didn't know that until we tried to scan a $100 bill to use as part of a PowerPoint presentation, and then had to wait 4 days to get the necessary unlock codes to make our copier function again.

    1. Re:Be careful by cpghost · · Score: 1

      That's the EURion DRM kicking in.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  47. Re: by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    But transcoding is lossy!

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  48. BE CAREFUL! by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Be careful if you are going to do this. Some stand alone scanners won't allow you to scan currency. Some color photocopiers at FedEx or the UPS store will lock up if you scan currency. Most newer machines have a "black box" that looks for stuff like that. If it locks, then whoever owns the machine may have a visit from someone to unlock it. The workaround that some use is if you scan it in b&w mode, or scan it at 75% under size or over 125% over size. I've seen my fare share of photocopiers over the last few years lock up because some church group wanted to print "fake money" for some sort of event. They got a visit from the manufacturer, and the government to unlock it.

  49. Banks do do this, not sort of. by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

    technically while this case the bill still exists, there is a counterfeiting law that was made roughly 100 years ago intended to prevent banks from making their own money, this law never conceived electronic banking. apparently there only exists about 2% of actual money the rest is even more imaginary as it only exists as ledger entries. Banks all the time make up money out of thin air when you go in and sign a promissory note.

    The thing I never got is that the promissory note supposedly has value with the intention that we use cash to pay for it. but English pounds are marked AS promissory notes. how do they ever get paid off?

  50. Re: by Machtyn · · Score: 1
    From that site, for the US dollar in the US. General information about the reproduction of banknotes:

    The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color illustrations of U.S. currency, provided that:

    1. the illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;
    2. the illustration is one-sided; and
    3. all negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use.

  51. Why not obviosly drawn money? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Even in child or xkcd style. After all they claim ownership even for whistled songs. It could even count for as difference in quality between a cd version and a low quality mp3.

    Maybe even better, you get sued by hundreds of dollars for copying songs, and you just draw that amount of money (in big enough currency) as payment. If copies worth even more than original drawing an one dollar bill should be enough.

  52. Fun Idea by hardburlyboogerman · · Score: 1

    Replace the picture on the Federal Reserve Note with a picture of a 1 finger salute.Edit the name under the pic too.Change the value shown(like 1,5,10,ect) to a 3.THEN SEND IT

    --
    Geek Hillbilly
    1. Re:Fun Idea by hardburlyboogerman · · Score: 1

      Since a lot of scanners won't copy US currency,just get an old joke 3 dollar bill,photoshop it as I suggested previously to get the image of a middle finger on it and let it go at that

      --
      Geek Hillbilly
  53. Judge Ooka would approve by Fned · · Score: 1

    Nowhere more appropriate I can think of to post this again.

    1. Re:Judge Ooka would approve by hardburlyboogerman · · Score: 1

      I clicked on that link.Loved the tale,too.Thanks

      --
      Geek Hillbilly
    2. Re:Judge Ooka would approve by udoschuermann · · Score: 1

      Excellent story. My thanks for posting that link!

      --
      --Udo.
  54. Re: by cslax · · Score: 1

    Photoshop does this, too.

  55. EURion constellation by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 3, Informative
  56. Intent is key by Quila · · Score: 1

    Years ago my organization printed a bunch of bills as a promotion. They were clearly fake at first glance, with our organization's name instead of the US, promotional print on the back instead of a normal bill's backside, etc.

    One day very serious guys in suits show up, seems someone tried to pass one of our bills as a real one in a foreign country. They kindly "asked" for our plates and "suggested" we don't do that again.

    We weren't in legal trouble since our intent was not fraudulent, but let's just say I wouldn't want to be in that position again. Best to just stay far away from the issue in the first place.

    1. Re:Intent is key by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      In the documentary Exit Through the Giftshop, British artist Banksy talks about the time he made spoof bank notes and handed them out at a festival. However, he then saw people successfully buying beer with them, realised that he had made a mistake, and doesn't know what to do with the ones he still has.

    2. Re:Intent is key by jimshatt · · Score: 1

      Well, buying more beer of course!

  57. Re:Felony by alienzed · · Score: 1

    or you could put an ad on the back and send proceeds to the original creator!

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
  58. License agreement by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

    Obviously, the copy idea has lots of problems. Perhaps, better would be when paying for music, send real money along with a license agreement stipulating how the physical currency may be used and/or transferred. Include the serial numbers as part of the license agreement.

  59. Stupid by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Whoever dreamed this up didn't think it through very well. Illegally copied money is devalued specifically by law, not because it's inherently less valuable. The fact that counterfeiters exist is clear evidence that copied money *does* have value, and in fact all legal currency is copied anyway by the mints who print it. It's hard to think of a *worse* way to make an argument that copied material is not just as valuable as the original.

  60. Re: by Bigby · · Score: 1

    To point (3). Does that mean scanning a dollar bill, resizing in Gimp, and posting on the internet require me to uninstall the browser, erase the image from the HD, remove Gimp, destroy the scanner, and burn the original dollar bill?

  61. Stupid protest. by forkfail · · Score: 1

    Because well enough copied money does have value, even if illicit.

    This "protest" makes their argument for them.

    --
    Check your premises.
  62. More on the value of copyrights and copies by I_Voter · · Score: 1

    More on the value of copyrights and copies
    TED Talk Video
    Comic author Rob Reid unveils Copyright Math (TM), a remarkable new field of study based on actual numbers from entertainment industry lawyers and lobbyists.

    Web Page
    http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html

    Download 18MB mp4
    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TEDTalks_video/~5/S3_r1Bi3kc4/RobReid_2012.mp4

  63. Back Street by Msdose · · Score: 1

    The music and other content put out by the content producers is almost all garbage which no one would choose to buy if they were to see or hear it first. That's why they want to stop copies that you can try for free. They know you won't buy it if you know how bad it is. Only by controlling the market and internet can they sell their product to people who are only allowed to know of it by advertising. They are selling counterfeit art as if it has value for real money which they refuse to refund when you realize you have been fooled. Most houses have drawers full of lousy product they bought because they weren't allowed to use it before they paid for it. The industry should be forced to accept all returns for a full refund. Then they would have to produce real product instead of the counterfeit stuff they flog now.

  64. Re: by Machtyn · · Score: 1

    That's one way to read it. But it also qualifies the directive "after their final use." It does not necessarily define when "final use" must be determined. The scanner, hard drive, etc, can all still be in use. But once they are no longer in use, it must be destroyed.

  65. won't let me post without a subject by aahpandasrun · · Score: 1

    Not a great method of making a difference, but it's an awesome prank.

  66. Boggs notes by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    Maybe you could hire J.S.G. Boggs to create your notes. What you don't want to do, however, is copy U.S. currency, because that can get you thrown in the slammer.

    Coincidentally, we recently watched The Man Who Copied, which was a pretty good film with a slow start. You might enjoy it.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Boggs notes by hardburlyboogerman · · Score: 1

      I found a website that you could and made 1. You can see it here->http://twitpic.com/8wqj94

      --
      Geek Hillbilly
    2. Re:Boggs notes by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      Nice job!

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    3. Re:Boggs notes by hardburlyboogerman · · Score: 1

      Thanks.I posted more at that site using Mitt Romney,Rick Santorum,Newt and Rush.Too Fucking funny.The Mitt on has the hashtag #mittmoney on Twitter

      --
      Geek Hillbilly
  67. Re: by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    One moment here... isn't one of the current arguments of the .*AAs that being in possession of, or initiating the act of downloading a digital copy in itself illegal?

    Doesn't that mean that THEY are guilty of multiple acts of trafficking in counterfeit goods?

  68. Re: by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    What if you fax them? No illegal printing/copying on your side, just theirs.

  69. Why RIAA profits do not exonerate piracy by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

    Here are the top two ways the RIAA continued to post profits despite rampant piracy:

    1 - Massive staff layoffs, I've seen the _floors_ of empty cubicles and offices at Sony/BMG's New York offices, one building of many.
    2 - Massive cuts in artist royalties, aka the 360 deal. Where labels used to only take a (large) percentage of retail album/single sales, they now take large percentage of everything from publishing to endorsements to merchandising to ringtones.

    In short, everybody in the music industry is suffering except the RIAA executives. There is a finite amount of effective music promotions that can be done, and the RIAA owns them, all of them. There are only so many appearances on TV shows, awards shows, major tours, only so much radio listenership, etc etc. Making a good career of music requires access to that level of promotions to some degree. The more you promote piracy, the bigger a cut labels take to provide access, and the harder you make it for musicians, not the label executives.

    So you keep on saying how RIAA profits prove piracy doesn't hurt anyone, and I'll keep playing gigs for the same rate musicians got in the 1970's. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    --

    War as we knew it was obsolete
    Nothing could beat complete denial
    - Emily Haines
  70. Here is a 100% legal digital copy of US currency. by jbeaupre · · Score: 1
    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  71. Duplicating Money by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    IS illegal.. unless its done in a way that prevents its from being mistaken as real currency, which sort of defeats the intent.

    While I'm all for making a statement, committing a crime in the process isn't overly productive.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  72. Re:Ethics by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    "Ethics aside, why should one be stupid enough..."

    Oh no, AC, you're square in the middle of it all.

    Of course the Pirated copies are "better value". But we have a tricky mix of Ethics and Draconian Law, that leads many people to try desperately to "play by the rules". Then the clear cognitive tension at all the hoops shows up. This is *absolutely* the heart of it all.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  73. Re: by russotto · · Score: 1

    3. all negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use.

    To point (3). Does that mean scanning a dollar bill, resizing in Gimp, and posting on the internet require me to uninstall the browser, erase the image from the HD, remove Gimp, destroy the scanner, and burn the original dollar bill?

    No. The language is pretty simple here; you have to erase anything that contains an "image of the illustration" or "any part thereof". The tricky part would be erasing any swap or other temporary files, but there's no need to destroy the browser, Gimp, the scanner, or the original dollar bill, since none of those contain an image of the illustration (the dollar bill is not an image of the illustration, it's merely the model for it).

    However, if you never printed it out, none of that applies. You then run into 18 USC 474, which provides in part

    Whoever, with intent to defraud, makes, executes, acquires, scans, captures, records, receives, transmits, reproduces, sells, or has in such personâ(TM)s control, custody, or possession, an analog, digital, or electronic image of any obligation or other security of the United States; or
    [...]
    Is guilty of a class B felony.

    So on paper you're OK lacking intent to defraud, but despite all that nonsense authoritarians tell you when they're passing the latest overbroad law, lack of intent means shit in court. They can "impute" intent from the act, making a total farce of any mens rea requirement, and you're going to PMITA prison.

  74. Name and shame by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    Name the brand, so that people know what companies to avoid.

    I use a Cannon MFP, the scanner happily handles ID cards, including driver's licence. I hadn't, but just tried currency. Not only scanned it, auto-switched to a high enough resolution to pick out the micro-printing.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  75. Re: by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Some scanners and scan software will refuse to capture the image of what they think is actual currency

    Define "actual" currency. The currency of the manufacturing nation (Yuan, probably) ; the designing nation (euros, US Dollars?) ; the nation of sale (whatever); the nation of delivery (as whatever) ; or any of the nations of transmission of the equipment or the data?

    Maybe, sending scans of a currency whose export from the home country is flat-out illegal, to their local embassy, would be a better test? Manats, or Shillings (Tz).

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  76. Re: by JazzLad · · Score: 1

    Not true; I have manipulated very high res (3300DPI) copies of the dollar bill in Photoshop. Source

    --
    "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever