Campaign Urges People To Send MPAA and RIAA Copied Currency

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Campaign Urges People To Send MPAA and RIAA Copied Currency

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday March 15, 2012 @05:12AM from the counterfeiting-equipment-not-included dept.

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."

89 of 413 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Genius. by Severus+Snape · 2012-03-15 05:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think I might do the same.
1. Re:Genius. by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2012-03-15 05:25 · 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 · 2012-03-15 05:27 · 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 · 2012-03-15 05:32 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I just copied this text from another comment:
  Whoosh!
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
4. Re:Genius. by Score+Whore · 2012-03-15 05:34 · 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.
5. Re:Genius. by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-03-15 05:35 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I just copied this text from another comment:
  Whoosh!
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
6. Re:Genius. by Avarist · 2012-03-15 05:39 · 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.
7. Re:Genius. by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-15 05:50 · 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
8. Re:Genius. by idontgno · 2012-03-15 05:50 · 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.
9. Re:Genius. by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2012-03-15 05:50 · 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.
10. Re:Genius. by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-15 05:52 · 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!
11. Re:Genius. by DroolTwist · 2012-03-15 05:57 · 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.
12. Re:Genius. by Znork · 2012-03-15 05:58 · 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...
13. Re:Genius. by Capitaine · 2012-03-15 06:09 · 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.
14. Re:Genius. by SuperAlgae · 2012-03-15 06:15 · 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.
15. Re:Genius. by Hognoxious · 2012-03-15 06:16 · 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."
16. Re:Genius. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 06:22 · 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.
17. Re:Genius. by nirgle · 2012-03-15 06:27 · 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.
18. Re:Genius. by clodney · 2012-03-15 06:38 · 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?
19. Re:Genius. by mcgrew · 2012-03-15 06:52 · 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.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
20. Re:Genius. by bws111 · 2012-03-15 06:55 · 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.
21. Re:Genius. by mhajicek · 2012-03-15 07:05 · 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.
22. Re:Genius. by Fned · 2012-03-15 07:06 · 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.
23. Re:Genius. by Score+Whore · 2012-03-15 07:11 · 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.
24. Re:Genius. by schwinn8 · 2012-03-15 07:17 · 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?
25. Re:Genius. by iamwahoo2 · 2012-03-15 07:17 · 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.
26. Re:Genius. by bws111 · 2012-03-15 07:23 · 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.
27. Re:Genius. by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2012-03-15 07:32 · 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.
28. Re:Genius. by bws111 · 2012-03-15 07:38 · 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.
29. Re:Genius. by Opportunist · 2012-03-15 08:29 · 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.
30. Re:Genius. by bws111 · 2012-03-15 08:46 · 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.
31. Re:Genius. by Matt_R · 2012-03-15 08:52 · 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 :)
32. Re:Genius. by Lussarn · 2012-03-15 09:35 · 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.
33. Re:Genius. by asliarun · 2012-03-15 09:58 · 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.
34. Re:Genius. by Fned · 2012-03-15 10:33 · 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.
35. Re:Genius. by Fned · 2012-03-15 10:58 · 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).
36. Re:Genius. by hairyfeet · 2012-03-15 12:16 · 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.
37. Re:Genius. by Kalriath · 2012-03-15 12:43 · 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".
38. Re:Genius. by xQx · 2012-03-15 13:51 · 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.
39. Re:Genius. by DigiTechGuy · 2012-03-16 02:38 · 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.
Re: by binarylarry · 2012-03-15 05:14 · 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!
i thought scanners won't scan money? by alen · 2012-03-15 05:15 · 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 Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 05:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actually, they tend to have the firmware, yes...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation
2. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by shippers · 2012-03-15 05:21 · Score: 2
  
  Just scanned a £12 note with no problem!
3. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 05:23 · 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.
4. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by bws111 · 2012-03-15 05:35 · Score: 2
  
  You are aware that vending machines, ATM's etc do this sort of thing aren't you?
5. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by theshowmecanuck · 2012-03-15 05:35 · 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.
6. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by neokushan · 2012-03-15 05:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yeah I tried that once, it said something had performed an illegal operation and my whole PC shut down!
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
7. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by v1 · 2012-03-15 05:44 · 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.
8. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by slaker · 2012-03-15 05:46 · 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
9. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by m.ducharme · 2012-03-15 06:01 · 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.
10. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by Sperbels · 2012-03-15 06:42 · 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.
11. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by theshowmecanuck · 2012-03-15 07:30 · 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.
12. Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? by techno-vampire · 2012-03-15 11:21 · 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
Too bad they're trying to make scanning $ illegal by SirGeek · 2012-03-15 05:15 · 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 .

--
UPS Sucks
Valuable Images by gknoy · 2012-03-15 05:16 · Score: 5, Funny

Could I send them a drawing of a spider instead?
1. Re:Valuable Images by Crasoose · 2012-03-15 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  Make sure you include all 8 legs, they are really greedy.
2. Re:Valuable Images by rwv · 2012-03-15 05:39 · 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.
3. Re:Valuable Images by longhairedgnome · 2012-03-15 05:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  http://www.27bslash6.com/overdue.html
  
  --
  GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
Banks do this, sort of. by na1led · 2012-03-15 05:16 · 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 · 2012-03-15 05:40 · 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 na1led · 2012-03-15 05:53 · 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.
3. Re:Banks do this, sort of. by Obfuscant · 2012-03-15 06:27 · 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".
Just an FYI by bigredradio · 2012-03-15 05:18 · Score: 4, Informative

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

--
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
1. Re:Just an FYI by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 05:22 · 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 · 2012-03-15 05:24 · 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 microcars · 2012-03-15 05:54 · 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
Re: by SomePgmr · 2012-03-15 05:22 · 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?
Re:Better not make the copy look too good. by phantomfive · 2012-03-15 05:22 · 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."
FTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 05:24 · 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
Re: by kimvette · 2012-03-15 05:24 · 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
Re: by DanTheStone · 2012-03-15 05:26 · 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.
Doesn't work by Richard_at_work · 2012-03-15 05:28 · 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 · 2012-03-15 05:32 · 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 theshowmecanuck · 2012-03-15 05:44 · 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.
3. Re:Doesn't work by Walterk · 2012-03-15 06:26 · 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.
  
  --
  
  "If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
4. Re:Doesn't work by artor3 · 2012-03-15 06:42 · 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.
Re:My own currency by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 05:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Compose a song and send them a recording, then ask for change.
Re: by cplusplus · 2012-03-15 05:31 · 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
Re:It's illegal by cplusplus · 2012-03-15 05:33 · 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
More Accurate by trongey · 2012-03-15 05:39 · 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.
Re:Felony by joeboomer628 · 2012-03-15 05:40 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
JoeR
Re: by izomiac · 2012-03-15 05:40 · Score: 2

IMHO, scanning coins would be a good way to send the same message, but not risk running afoul of counterfeiting laws.
Re: by khallow · 2012-03-15 05:44 · 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.
Re: by Obfuscant · 2012-03-15 05:55 · 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.
Re: by symbolset · 2012-03-15 06:00 · 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.
If I print out a music file, is it copying? by argee · 2012-03-15 06:22 · Score: 2

Ok, so I take this song, and I print it out on paper.
Like 01000100100100001000010110010100101 etc.
Is that copy illegal?
Be careful by Vrtigo1 · 2012-03-15 06:42 · 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.
EURion constellation by slackware+3.6 · 2012-03-15 07:15 · Score: 3, Informative

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