Slashdot Mirror


WW2 Vet Sent 300,000 Pirated DVDs To Troops In Iraq, Afghanistan

nbauman writes "WW2 veteran 'Big Hy' Strachman, 92, pirated 300,000 DVD movies and sent them to soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, where they were widely distributed and deeply appreciated. Soldiers would gather around personal computers for movie nights, with mortars blasting in the background. 'It's reconnecting to everything you miss,' said one. Strachman received American flags, appreciative letters, and snapshots of soldiers holding up their DVDs. He spent about $30,000 of his own money. Strachman retired from his family's window and shade business in Manhattan in the 1990s. After his wife Harriet died in 2003, he spent sleepless nights on the Internet, and saw that soldiers were consistently asking for movie DVDs. He bought bootlegged disks for $5 in Penn Station, and then found a dealer at his local barbershop. He bought a $400 duplicater that made 7 copies at once, and mailed them 84 at a time, to Army Chaplains. The MPAA said they weren't aware of his operation. The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troops."

131 of 650 comments (clear)

  1. Well that's okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anything for the troops, of course.

    1. Re:Well that's okay by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hell yes! This guy is my fucking hero of the day...

    2. Re:Well that's okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, because that's our purpose — to "main and kill brown babies". They're perfectly fine, and will no doubt reach their fullest potential as humans, under the likes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. I hear that poisoned water goes well with Afghan schoolgirls' education. In fact, I hear there is no actual tyranny and oppression in the world — unless you count the US, of course.

      Dipshit.

    3. Re:Well that's okay by wiedzmin · · Score: 2

      I suppose that would depend on the movies they watched. Hope they weren't horror films with zombies or other abominations jumping out from around every corner :)

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    4. Re:Well that's okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      At the going rate, it would be more than $3 million for the same number of DVDs...

    5. Re:Well that's okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean outside of the $30,000 he estimates he's spent on blank discs and mailing the fucking things over there?

    6. Re:Well that's okay by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it was more to the point going after him would be a huge PR Issue.

      1. Sue a 92 year old man
      2. Sue a World War II vet.
      3. Sue someone giving something to the troops that their own personal expense.
      4. Do this during an election year.

      Being Old, people can assume you just out of touch, at best, or that you just don't quite know what is going on. (Old people know this and play the act to get what they want)

      Being a WWII vet, Society owes you for your help to save the world from Nazi and the Javanese war machine.

      Giving to the troops, Every honest american should support the troops, if you don't then you are a Hippy Communist.

      Election year. Those senators who are rerunning will not offer you much support, for they don't want the opponent to show that you are against the Elderly, Vets who Support the Troops.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Well that's okay by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As to your wonderful Sig.
      We have never had a Democracy.
      You would not want one.
      We have a democratically elected constitutional republic.
      Which means that we democratically elect politicians to act and make laws withing the confines of power delegated to them by a constitution.
      Capitalism was not the problem. The problem is that we continue to elect people who only make laws that empower themselves.
      A business can attempt to buy a politician to represent them. That is fine. Businesses and Unions do it all the time. The problem comes when the politicians make laws that create a new power that they then use against the people for the benefit of those paying for their re-elections.
      The bigger problem is that all the people voting in the election know that they are being fucked. They just do not care.
      So public laziness and apathy is what is wrecking the country.
      The problem is that puts all the blame on us. So instead of fixing the problem we create outside enemies to blame it on. That way we can do nothing about it and it is no longer our fault.
      Sleep well.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    8. Re:Well that's okay by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Several hundred Trillion by MPAA math.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    9. Re:Well that's okay by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

      JAVAnese? Shit, my understanding of WWII is totally off!

    10. Re:Well that's okay by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      If the people would vote them out then we would not have this problem.
      The politicians act this way because it works. It works because the people allow it.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    11. Re:Well that's okay by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Curse you Google! Google needs a better auto-correct.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re:Well that's okay by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2

      The bigger problem is that all the people voting in the election know that they are being fucked. They just do not care.
      So public laziness and apathy is what is wrecking the country.

      Actually, the biggest problem is that people are not apathetic enough. We need the opposite of the get out and vote program. If people who didn't deeply research candidates didn't bother to vote, then only the votes of those who are well-informed would count. You could no longer run an election by saying, "the other guy is a socialist / the other guy doesn't care about poor people" where the vast majority vote for the guy that has the best chance of winning against the guy they hate, without realizing both their records are strikingly similar.

      Go Apathy! It's the only thing that could actually make a democratically elected constitutional republic work!

    13. Re:Well that's okay by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      GP is an obvious troll, but hey - Shia family laws (aka legalized rape) in Afghanistan were adopted on U.S. watch. Which leads to the question: what good all that effort did, exactly?

    14. Re:Well that's okay by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the rest of the world outside of U.S., when you say "democracy", you mean a country where representatives are elected by the populace at large - kinda like U.S. Words like "republic" are largely orthogonal to that - not all representatives democracies are republics, and not all republics are democracies.

      Those antiquated definitions that you use - dating back to, what, Plato? - are quaint, but pretty pointless, since no country in the world today matches your definition of "democracy" - all that do have non-sham elections, elect representatives, don't vote directly on each and every law.

    15. Re:Well that's okay by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A business can attempt to buy a politician to represent them. That is fine. Businesses and Unions do it all the time.

      No it isn't fine: The majority of the country does not control a business nor have a vote in a union, so this bribery ensures that some people are not represented in government.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    16. Re:Well that's okay by doston · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, because that's our purpose — to "main and kill brown babies". They're perfectly fine, and will no doubt reach their fullest potential as humans, under the likes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. I hear that poisoned water goes well with Afghan schoolgirls' education. In fact, I hear there is no actual tyranny and oppression in the world — unless you count the US, of course.

      Dipshit.

      You mean the Saddam Hussein that the US installed and armed and only decided to kill when he wouldn't play ball with our oil companies? Were you referring to the Taliban that was headed by Bin Laden? Is that the same Bin Laden family the Bush's had ties to? http://www.denverpost.com/rodriguez/ci_4319898

      Who's the "Dipshit"?

      People like you, who spout mindless platitudes like "Support our Troops" have the blood of innocent men, women and children on your "Dipshit" hands.

    17. Re:Well that's okay by toriver · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, he means the Taliban that grew out of the U.S.-backed Mujahideen back when they were "good guys" fighting the "evil" Soviet invaders. Apparently fighting U.S. invaders is not as "good".

    18. Re:Well that's okay by Goobermunch · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not really. At $150,000 for willful infringement, and 330,000 copies, he's looking at $49,500,000,000, in damages. (SRC: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2)).*

      That's about 1/3 of Hollywood's combined gross for every movie released 1996 and 2012 (as of last weekend). (SRC: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/)

      No due process problem with that.

      --AC

      *Actually, the statutory damages are per work, not per infringing act, so the real number would be reduced to reflect the number of titles he copied, not the number of copies he made).

    19. Re:Well that's okay by doston · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it was more to the point going after him would be a huge PR Issue.

      1. Sue a 92 year old man 2. Sue a World War II vet. 3. Sue someone giving something to the troops that their own personal expense. 4. Do this during an election year.

      Being Old, people can assume you just out of touch, at best, or that you just don't quite know what is going on. (Old people know this and play the act to get what they want)

      Being a WWII vet, Society owes you for your help to save the world from Nazi and the Javanese war machine.

      Giving to the troops, Every honest american should support the troops, if you don't then you are a Hippy Communist.

      Election year. Those senators who are rerunning will not offer you much support, for they don't want the opponent to show that you are against the Elderly, Vets who Support the Troops.

      "The point of public relations slogans like "Support Our Troops" is that they don't mean anything...that's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody is going to be against and I suppose everybody will be for, because nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. But its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something, do you support our policy? And that's the one you're not allowed to talk about." -Noam Chomsky

    20. Re:Well that's okay by Tore+S+B · · Score: 2

      You know, the Soviet Union - worried about Islamic fundamentalism - actually invested massive foreign aid causing the beginnings of a fairly extensive education and health system in place in Afghanistan - but during the Soviet intervention after a fundamentalist-based coup, the US and allies massively funded the Mujahideen to run a proxy war... so it's going to be pretty difficult to claim the moral high ground in a historical perspective.

      And do ask J. Random Iraqi what they think about the US invasion - whether they felt safer before or after. Hell, ask J. Random American...

      --
      toresbe
    21. Re:Well that's okay by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      Group A - Currently in power, kills 100 kids per day, will continue doing so indefinitely.

      Group B - Kills 0 kids per day. Can take Group A out, but might kill 1000 kids in the process.

      So, you're saying Group B should sit on their hands? At day 10 of either scenario, 1000 kids have died; 1100 on day 11 if Group B doesn't act, still just 1000 if they do. Fuck you, get Group B off their asses.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    22. Re:Well that's okay by SkimTony · · Score: 2

      It's true! I actually had a really interesting conversation with a guy I ran into outside a library on campus when we were both studying for Java finals.Only, mine was in the CS department, and his was in Linguistics. IIRC, Javanese has something like nine levels of formality (as compared to the three in Japanese, for example).

    23. Re:Well that's okay by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't answer the question.

      It's a loaded question with false assumptions.

      Is it OK? Is it justifiable?

      Even if done intentionally, sometimes the answer is "yes." If the goal is justifiable and there are no practical alternatives in which one can avoid the act, then yes, the action is justifiable. Col. Paul Tibbetts flew the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb. He killed a shitload of children that day. That said, his actions helped hasten the end of WWII, thus saving a lot more lives than were lost that day (an estimated five million). He slept like a baby from that day all the way until he died of old age. There were hundreds, if not thousands of GIs who shot and killed Hitler Youth (we're talking kids as young as 12 here), because the alternative was to be killed by them.

      But then, that sort of shatters the whole sophomoric postulate in the first place, doesn't it?

      Is it a decent price to pay for your own comfort?

      Nice strawman, but it needs more stuffing to be believable. Maybe if the original question was along the lines of "Do our goals in Iraq and Afghanistan justify the intentional targeting and killing of children?" It would have been shown for the intellectually dishonest question it was, as it was exactly what you gents were asking in the first place. Funny thing is, the answer to that one is usually (depending on circumstance) "no" (now if the kid was walking towards me with explosives strapped to his chest, all bets are off).

      Funny thing is, many people see the goals in Iraq and Afghanistan differently. Some see it as liberation from oppressors. Others see it as a grab for power/oil/whatever. The answer to the specific question of children (whether killed intentionally or incidentally) will either be written off as the cost of war, or as a horror to be stopped at all costs.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    24. Re:Well that's okay by rotorbudd · · Score: 2

      Understandable mistake.
      The Javanese kinda look like the Japanese.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    25. Re:Well that's okay by end15 · · Score: 2

      Interesting note, under US sanctions Iraq's water supply became poisoned and killed many more children than your Taliban citation. Who knew right?

      http://www.emro.who.int/publications/emhj/0604/20.htm

      --
      All glory to the Hypnotoad!
    26. Re:Well that's okay by Tore+S+B · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I daresay I have a wider sample size than that, but it doesn't mean much since I'm a Norwegian politician, and those I've talked to are people I've come into contact with in that context. Maybe you too, presumably being American, have a sample bias? The plural of anecdote is not fact. In this case, it's probably best to google around for some polls. Much to my dismay, most polls returned by Google and Wikipedia deal with US popular opinion on the invasion rather than Iraqi popular opinion, but I did find one.

      Overall, 59% of those questioned think Britain's role is negative, 22% positive; 64% say the US is negative, 18% positive; 68% view Iran negatively, 12% positively. Also, 56% think the 2003 invasion was wrong (up 6%), while 42% say it was right (down 7%).

      Source: BBC

      --
      toresbe
    27. Re:Well that's okay by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Informative

      If if if.... wars are fought for politicians careers, and contractors shareholders. All the lofty ideals are just the lies they use to dupe 18 year old poor kids into signing up to die.

      and from that BS, I would be happy to have clean hands.

      My Fucking grandfather fought in Korea. He sat in a half track with machine guns gunning down DPRK soldiers for the "lofty goals" of fighting communism and keeping "South Korea" free... in a conflict that officially has outlived him. To "keep free" a country which, still to this day, arrests political dissidents who insult the government.

      Lofty ideals my ass. We are allied with the Saudis....the people who only decided, after very public international pressure was applies, that maybe they shouldn't stone a woman to death who was seen in public with a man who wasn't her husband...oh yah...and gang raped by the group of men who saw her in public without said man. Yah.... tell me more about your lofty ideals.

      Given who we are really talking about being in charge, and what wars are really fought for...I will take clean hands any day of the fucking week.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    28. Re:Well that's okay by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      They're not babies. Nobody's "OK" with it, but it's better than the alternatives: the actual children they'd become who'd have birth defects, rapist fathers, or just a family that was financially, emotionally or otherwise unable to give an actual child a life.

      How many have you adopted? Since you've adopted none, you're just running your mouth pretending to a high ground that doesn't exist.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    29. Re:Well that's okay by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2

      It wasn't about free oil for the country. It was about oil drilling for the companies that the president liked. Free oil would have reduced their profits.

    30. Re:Well that's okay by Genda · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are equally qualified historical references that strongly suggest that the military had spent a billion dollars (back when that meant something) and they were damned if they weren't going to see their new toy go BOOM!!! Moreover, we were already looking down the barrel of what we saw as Soviet competition/expansion, and we needed to scare the Schist out of them. There were a lot of politically expedient reasons to drop the bomb, on a friggin Catholic Church (near ground zero), but don't for a minute suggest it was to save American lives or hasten the end of WWII. That simply doesn't wash. In fact, in the early days of nukes there was talk of turning China and Russia into matching blue glass ashtrays, and the Army Corp of Engineers had grand plans for using nukes to build huge new canals all over the planet.

      By the way, if the First bomb was necessary? Why the Second one? Why did we test the effects on nukes on our own soldiers? Why did we hide the fact that fall-out from nuke testing had seriously impacted people in eastern Nevada and south-western Utah? Why have we never talked about the mishandling of radioactive wastes from bombs or their transport through heavily populated towns and cities? The entire fiasco that has been the arms race from poison mine tailings killing innocent native Americans, to lack of a sane plan to decommission our weapons is incredibly well documented.

      The whole MADD thing was mad from the start and has continued being mad to this very day. Vaporizing, incinerating and irradiating people was, is and forever will be an unconscionable act.

    31. Re:Well that's okay by Genda · · Score: 2

      Actually there is strong correlation between the availability of abortion and the reduction of violent crime in the United State over the last 40 years (and I mean like scary close tracking.) I'm not suggesting causation here... just something to think about.

      In a world with 7,000,000,000 people, I'm not at all certain everyone should have the right to procreate. That said, I have neither the wisdom, nor the comprehension to determine a way of fairly choosing who should and who shouldn't, and I'm deeply concerned about those with the hubris to claim that they do.

    32. Re:Well that's okay by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 2
      I'm assuming your question about why to drop multiple bombs as being sincere, so I'll answer. The strategic answer to your question was to show that we had the capability to drop multiple nuclear bombs. If you drop just one, the strategic implication is that you only have one. If you use multiple, it takes nearly any doubt out of the enemies mind that you have the capability to drop more. Deterrence only works if your enemy believes you have the capability. In this case, it would be hard to argue this was not effective from a military strategic point of view.

      Again, assuming the question is sincere, the reason the military did so much testing was to observe countermeasure effectiveness. Because of the testing, the military has more effective sheilding and even created communications systems that will transmit through the resulting EMP/etc (e.g. MILSTAR). In retrospect, they did impact more people than anticipated, but that's because on a few occasions the yield was higher than expected.

    33. Re:Well that's okay by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 2

      Well, seems we agree you're sorry. Sorry is the state of being that you don't stand for anything and hence, fall for anything. The world is not black and white. What's moral to you is the same as asking what's your favorite flavor of ice cream. The child with the AK-47 has been taught his whole life to hate others because they don't believe in the same imaginary friend or even within the same religion. Sunnis and Shia, both Muslim, each think the other is wrong in HOW they believe. Being wrong (to them) makes you an infidel, and hence, bullet fodder. The child will 100% believe he's moral as he puts the 7.62mm projectile through your skull for being: Jewish, Pakistani, Sunni, or even just "Western Influenced." So you can be moral all you want but you'll either be dead or be safe because someone like me stops them from killing you, by following Rules of Engagement for dealing with a military threat while serving their country in the profession of arms.

      Thankfully, most people realize the duty, honor, and courage service to your country entails and respect it.

    34. Re:Well that's okay by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 2

      60 years later it's always easier to play devil's advocate. I can logically counter your first question by saying, "Do you not think the Japanese had quality intel?" A nuclear blast, as well as several nuclear events, is not exactly a huge secret even in pre-space surveillance days (nowadays, we know exactly when, where, how, and how big in nanoseconds due to AFTAC sensors worldwide and in space). So, to take this point to the next level, the Japanese can very likely have known about our nuclear intent and capability. Afterall, their comrades the Germans, are where we stole the scientists to get our capability faster. I'm sure at some point an Intel Chief from Germany gave a phone call to the Japanese Intel division and said something to the effect, "Hey heads up, the Americans have one of our scientists who will give them the capability within X months (weeks?)." The Japanese are said to have been apprehensive attacking us at all because of the known capabilities we bring to any fight, even back then. However, I'd say hundreds of sunken ships and fallen planes throughuot the Pacific region would be emperical evidence they thought the rewards were worth the risks. This is why we're playing very conservative with near-nuclear states today. We know the potential downsides to attacking a crazy dictator with one operational nuke with an ICBM, or MRBM capability.

      Your second paragraph I've already partially addressed. Nuclear technology was very unpredictable at the time. How do you measure the released energy of an atom being split when you've barely done it? My careerfield is Space and Missiles, so if you can be specific about whatever test, then I can have a more educated response. I've read thousands of pages on nuclear testing, etc, but again, if you can cite a spcific test you find insane, unethical or whathaveyou, I can repond.

    35. Re:Well that's okay by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Modern westerner's consider anyone under 16-18 as a child and those under ~12 as an 'innocent' child, it's no good arguing whether it's true or not, "think of the children" is just as much a societal meme as "respect the troops" and most people (including me) generally abide by those moral axioms. However not a small number of 'soldiers' in the troubled parts of Africa are kidnapped and brainwashed 8-12yo's with AK-47's. Parts of the middle east are like medieval europe, in that you can inherit the political position of warlord before you hit puberty.

      We refer to these places as 'backwards' because we've been there and done that centuries ago. From a 'liberation from oppresion" POV if you take out the evil dictator in a society that routinely creates evil dictators, then the problem becomes who fills the power vacum? Stevie Wonder sang about "freedom coming to Zimbawae" when Mugabee's jungle army took over, I've seen a similar thing recently, it's called the "Arab spring" but it could just as easily be their autum.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    36. Re:Well that's okay by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Yes there are lot of questions and the answer will always be; it ended the war in the Pacific. Unless you lived thru WW2 I don't think you have the personal experience to be judge and jury on the question of how that generation chose to defend itself. Which is not to say that we can't take advise from history.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    37. Re:Well that's okay by cmarkn · · Score: 2

      We didn't exactly steal nuclear scientists from the Germans, they ran them out of the country because they prayed on the wrong day. The Nazis were not afraid of these untermenschen, and they believed that an atomic bomb would take far too long to develop for it to be a threat.

      The Japanese militants were not apprehensive about attacking us, because they believed that white people aren't capable of the devotion to their cause that the Japanese people, exclusively, were. All they had to do was act ruthlessly and everyone would agree to terms that left them holding most of their conquests. There were people like Admiral Yamamoto and General Kuribayashi who had lived in the US and knew what was coming, but they were not part of the militarist factions that ran the government. The same militarist faction, by the way, that attempted to overthrow the Emperor for ordering the surrender after the second atomic attack.

      --
      People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
  2. The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troops. by BagOBones · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nice to see the studios have been keeping up with the times.

    --
    EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
  3. Reel-to-Reel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are they talkies at least?

    1. Re:Reel-to-Reel? by sjames · · Score: 2

      I believe just last week, the only copy of "The Moon is Blue" was finally sent to Afghanistan from Korea.

    2. Re:Reel-to-Reel? by rockout · · Score: 2

      Off-topic, but I do love Slashdot, even if only for the scattered jokes about topics like this. I read this story this morning on the NYT website, and you should see the comments there. Mostly idiots that say "Well, he's stealing so it's no different than stealing a car and giving it to troops overseas!"

      Despite how much people like to dump on this site, the commenters are still dozens of IQ points, on average, ahead of the web-at-large.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  4. That by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is the most beautiful thing I've ever heard.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:That by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What the troops REALLY want is to end the killing of innocents & come back home to defend THIS country.

      Is that true? It's not like they didn't know what they were getting into when they signed up. I would love to see the data you use to back this statement.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:That by Githaron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I support Ron Paul. I do realize he is a little extreme on some policies but in the end he doesn't align perfectly with either party and he is only one man. If he became president, some of his more extreme policies would become more mellowed by the other politicians. The end result would be smaller government and more freedom. Most of the other politicians seem to want the opposite.

    3. Re:That by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Seriously? That's incredibly sad if it is true.

      No, it's not true. It also made me smile to see the responses from overly-literal people like you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:That by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      What the troops REALLY want is to end the killing of innocents & come back home to defend THIS country. And there's only one candidate who is willing to do that. If we really cared about the troops, we would honor their wish.

      Look, if you want fantasy presidents, at least pick somebody like Milla Jovovich. She hasn't a chance in hell of getting elected but I'd rather watch her campaign than Mr. Crazy. You really have to admit that her dialog makes more sense than Ron Paul's. Besides, if you polled the troops and asked who they would vote for Paul or Jovovich - who do you think would win?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:That by scubamage · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lilu Dallas Multiprez!

    6. Re:That by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      75% of the republican donations from active military goes to Ron Paul.

      Even Obama doesn't get as many donations as Paul does (it's about 40% to 60%). If you don't believe me, use your advanced engineering skills & google it. ;-)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    7. Re:That by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      >>>It's not like they didn't know what they were getting into when they signed up

      Well to quote one of the military guy who gave a speech at the Capitol building: "We were told that this War on Terrorism was necessary to defend our country. But we learned the HARD way that our only mission was to terrorize & brutalize arab civilians, and we no longer want to be a part of it! We should be at home defending OUR borders, and our constitution, as we swore an oath to do." (crowd of soldiers cheer)

      You can see that and other similar videos on youtube. Like the one where soldiers lined-up in front of the white house, and then proceeded to turn their back on the president. It was their way of saying they no longer consider him their commander-in-chief.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    8. Re:That by SilentStaid · · Score: 2

      use your advanced engineering skills & google it. ;-)

      Maybe you should try that yourself:

      http://www.military.com/news/article/obama-gains-edge-in-military-campaign-donations.html

      For you lazy ones: From January 2011 until March, servicemembers who gave more than $200 contributed about $333,134 to Paul's campaign, as compared to about $184,505 for Obama and just $45,738 to Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, according to an analysis by the center.

      "But in March, Obama and Paul switched places," Choma wrote. "Members of the military sent $36,448 to Obama and just $17,733 to Paul. Even though Romney solidified his position as the presumptive Republican nominee, military donations to his campaign remained anemic -- only $8,630."

    9. Re:That by Tarsir · · Score: 2

      Who the hell is Gabe and why do you have such a hard-on for him?

    10. Re:That by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the troops REALLY want is to end the killing of innocents & come back home to defend THIS country.

      Is that true? It's not like they didn't know what they were getting into when they signed up. I would love to see the data you use to back this statement.

      Yes, most soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines know what they're signing up for. That doesn't mean they actually like the killing or injuring, or being away from home. People enlist out of a sense of duty, or to gain job skills, or because there are non-combat positions that appeal to them, or because it's the only decent option open to them. The notion that people join the military because they're bloodthirsty savages is completely out of touch with reality.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    11. Re:That by turtledawn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      GP was referring to number of donations, not to value. People (and their votes) are not dollars.

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    12. Re:That by Americano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope when either President Obama or Romney start rounding-up Americans (anyone who speaks-out against the Iran War will be labeled a "terrorist") that you care one of the first to land in jail w/o right to trial. You deserve to get what you have voted for.

      Please understand that I say this as someone whose politics lean fairly 'libertarian' on the whole. But:

      Stop that. Seriously. Just stop it.

      You're doing your cause no good by pretending it's even remotely likely that we're going to suddenly see Soviet-style gulags implemented by either Obama or Romney. You may not like their policies, but it's possible to disagree with them without needing them to be Joseph Stalin reincarnated. When you spout this stuff, you come across like a hapless conspiracy-theorist-slash-nutjob, which allows people to handily dismiss ANY valid points Ron Paul and his supporters make because you have included so many absolutely-fucking-crazy exaggerations and distortions along with the legitimate points.

      CS Lewis offered some advice on writing that's relevant to everyone:

      5. Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.

      Stop turning "I don't agree with Romney's and Obama's policy proposals," into "therefore they're going to send me to a Siberian salt mine!" This is nothing but idiotic marketing sloganeering, and has NO BUSINESS in a political discussion, unless your goal is to perpetuate the issues already afflicting our political process. In other words: don't bemoan the bumper-sticker-ization of politics on a fucking bumper sticker.

    13. Re:That by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry but I have no pity for the MPAA or RIAA (I'm guessing that your comment was sarcasm so you don't either.). Actually I'm glad this guy did what he did and put them in to that position.

      From the Article: "The MPAA sends reel to reel movies and projectors to the troops." Which does how much good when you are on 30-60 sweeps with only your squad to chat with? Compared to the DVD these guys picked up from the Chaplain that they can later watch on the computers in the HumV or Abrams.

      I have a lot of respect for the amount of celebrities that go entertain the troops, honestly I do. They risk their lives to go (even though the risk is not very high) and make sure out troops have some sense of normalcy. The MPAAs first concern is not for the troops fighting to keep them to be able to remain free, but for "OMG the troops may violate our rules."

      The continuing cry from the MPAA really is nonsense, especially with the alleged hypothetical loss of revenue. If this guy did not do what he did, these troops would not have gone and purchased DVDs. There is no ability to do so in the remote locations these people are sent to. And on a Soldiers pay you are not going to purchase much any way.

      Yes, I am a US Army Veteran.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    14. Re:That by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Obama wanted to send me to a Siberian salt mine, what legal obstacles would he face? There are men imprisoned today who will be imprisoned for the rest of their lives without ever receiving due process. If it can happen to them, why can't it happen to me? Is there anything stopping it besides Obama's good will? How long will that last?

      Whether Obama wants to exercise his indefinite authority is irrelevant. The fact that he has it indicates that we've moved from the rule of law to the rule of man. That's vastly more dangerous than most people seem to understand.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:That by s.petry · · Score: 2

      I get your point, but don't also. If the MPAA wanted to do this, they could have made it a charity where people donated equipment, time, money etc.. and it would never cost them a dime. Shoot, look what Big Hy did out of pocket because the MPAA did nothing for an example. They could have even paid a fat lazy executive to collect a check to oversee the operation.

      This in turn would help business down the road. Doing things like this gains loyalty and sells your products for years. Those guys come back, get nicer and nicer jobs and remember the industry that helped them. They buy movies, and visit theaters, and defend their honor when people talk bad about the MPAA on /.

      Instead, we have a bunch of people that like some guy named Big Hy, and remember how this guy broke the law to help them get through some very tough times. They will also remember if Big Hy gets sued or prosecuted, and would never be advocates or good customers to the MPAA.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    16. Re:That by tibman · · Score: 2

      Except they decide what the value of their products are?

      "We sent them the $100 Director's Cut Ultimate Pro version."

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  5. War criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sending a bunch of crappy bootleg cams to the troops should be considered a war crime.

    Get this geezer a copy of vlc and some Matroskas stat.

    1. Re:War criminal by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Get this geezer a copy of vlc and some Matroskas stat.

      Given the fact that this is in the New York Times, what do you think the chances are that some savvy NY geeks will try to hook this guy up with a better system? They could spend only a few hundred or couple thousand of their own pooled bucks and get this guy a system to really crank it out. Set him up with an autoloader so it can burn while he sleeps, and a friendly GUI to pick what to burn. A small group of geeks pooling their resources and donating a little of their time could have a huge impact on a lot of deployed soldiers. And it would be nice to let this guy know that he's got friends other than the soldiers he's sending these to. You just need to do it without generating any publicity.

      Get to it!

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  6. The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by devilsdean · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Howard Gantman, a spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, said he did not believe its member studios were aware of Mr. Strachman’s operation. His sole comment dripped with the difficulty of going after a 92-year-old widower supporting the troops. “We are grateful that the entertainment we produce can bring some enjoyment to them while they are away from home,” Mr. Gantman said.

    1. Re:The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

      The opposition has never had thermonuclear weapons.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they seriously went after this guy it would be such an awful PR nightmare that even owning the media and news corporations wouldn't help them. Even the Republicans would turn on them.

    3. Re:The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by joebagodonuts · · Score: 3, Interesting
      They still got their dig in, it was just subtle:

      Although the most costly piracy now takes place online through file-sharing Web sites,...

      ORLY?

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    4. Re:The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by Monoman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they don't go after him doesn't it show some kind of prejudice? :-)

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    5. Re:The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Haw they would rather face the nukes than the public opinion on this one.
      Let's see who we can go after.
      The 92 year old widower WWII Vet that spent 30,000 of his own money to send DVDs to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?
      Or the Chaplins that distributed them to the troops?

      So do you want to take on an old man that risked his live in WWII fighting Hitler or the Japanese and that spent his own money to help the troops?
      Or do you go after the Chaplins?
      In an election year where it would be easy for people running for office to want to take on the rich cocain drunk godless heathens in Hollywood for Good and country?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

      That's the beauty in this: it's like the "Won't someone please think of the children?!" bullshit fallacies got turned right back around and used for good. If they want to pursue this (which I doubt), they have to go after a 92 year old vet that's spent $30,000 out of pocket sending DVDs to our troops. In what universe could that possibly have a positive result for them?

    7. Re:The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I'd love to see the MPAA go up against the AARP!

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    8. Re:The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by Rolgar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unlikely considering Dan Glickman and Chris Dodd are both Democrats, Senators even, and were the last two CEOs of the MPAA.

      I also seem to recall the SOPA debate, large numbers of each party were on each side of the issue, so it wasn't really a partisan issue.

    9. Re:The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by Viewsonic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This will make it really hard for them to go after anyone at this point. You can't just dismiss people like this without looking like you're carrying a personal vendetta/grudge/race/sexual orientation/religious whatever against one person and another. The next person that gets dragged to court will ask why their client is being targeted while this other man is not.

    10. Re:The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      Lobbying from the Movie/TV/Music industry overwhelming favors Democrats by nearly a 3:1 margin. There's a tendency for people to interpret politics as "D = good, R = bad" or vice versa depending on your political affiliation. It is never that simple.

    11. Re:The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by gman003 · · Score: 2

      Unless someone brought Charlie back from the dead and cloned him a couple dozen times, I think you mean Chaplains.

    12. Re:The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by dissy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice..

      Indeed, I am quite confused too.

      They didn't mind the bad press over suing a 12 year old child OR a 80 year old grandfather for only 'several' movies, so we know it's not the age part that did it.
      (source)

      They also don't mind sending threatening letters to the military asking them to crack down on their own troops for them, so it isn't the American troops away from home part that did it either.
      (source)

      They didn't mind suing people for downloading movies for personal use and no profits involved, so we know that isn't what did it either.
      (source)

      This is a complete reversal of past policy on all counts!

      My personal guess is that the lawsuit is already in the works, and they requested the court seal the details so the press doesn't get word of it. Then they release this announcement to try and look like they are being good guys. There can't be any other possibility. The Grinchs heart growing 3 sizes only happens in the movies.

    13. Re:The MPAA Lawyers have never played this nice.. by digitig · · Score: 2

      That's the beauty in this: it's like the "Won't someone please think of the children?!" bullshit fallacies got turned right back around and used for good. If they want to pursue this (which I doubt), they have to go after a 92 year old vet that's spent $30,000 out of pocket sending DVDs to our troops. In what universe could that possibly have a positive result for them?

      Presumably one in which the Taliban wins the war and takes over the USA. Granted, that's not the most likely of scenarios...

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  7. Will they go after the post office now? by boaworm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given that they go after ISPs for downloading, should they not go after the post office to be consistently persistent?

    Would be a lovely case to see go to court! They could sentence him to community service...

    --
    Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
    Aristotele
  8. Quote from article by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative
    It was completely willful:

    “It’s not the right thing to do, but I did it,” Mr. Strachman said, acknowledging that his actions violated copyright law. “If I were younger,” he added, “maybe I’d be spending time in the hoosegow.”

    The guy spent $30,000 of his own money to do it. Maybe the MPAA could sue him for a portion of the 'profits'. The best part is he was continuing to make copies, right there, while they were interviewing him. It's brought joy back to his life.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Quote from article by snl2587 · · Score: 2

      I don't quite understand the level of hate against the MPAA.

      I understand the hate against the RIAA, because the only real cost in producing a record is equipment, which is normally handled by the small recording studios anyway (which typically get paid at the point of recording). In the age of digital distribution, the RIAA seems pointless, since it does little to protect artists but seems to only benefit outdated middle men.

      But at the moment, bankrolling a Hollywood-quality movie is no small undertaking; if the movie studios have no way of knowing that they'll recoup expenses, how can they shell out the money? (As an aside: we're already seeing some of this manifested as an aversion to financing risk-taking movies. Hence the endless sequels, remakes, and formulaic movies.). While I'll concede that the MPAA members have taken a very long time to make it easy to legally download movies (feeding piracy in the meantime), we're not at the point where high-quality movies can be made without the middle men surviving and taking in profits.

      In the future, I'm sure the MPAA will become just as useless and antiquated as the RIAA. But for now, they serve a useful purpose.

    2. Re:Quote from article by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Both the RIAA and MPAA spend huge amounts of money lobbying for abusive legislation designed to curtail our freedom and privacy, even if you're not a "pirate".

      Whether they're pointless or not is irrelevant.

    3. Re:Quote from article by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 2

      According to a movie buff friend of mine, Hollywood have a historical cycle, and have gone through it a number of times (and I'm repeating this from memory): They start producing original stuff on low budgets. People are happy with this, and goes to the movies. Then, as time goes by, they increase the budgets, and try for more and more "safe" content, so lots more sequels. People get less happy, and overall goes to the movies less. Hollywood sees the market shrink, and starts trying to go even safer - more sequels, more "safe" formula, less broad investment, but more expensive sequels. People get really bored with movies, goes much less - and Hollywood gives up making money on the safe productions, and try a few experimental low budget movies. Some of these make money, so Hollywood plays a bit more - and the amount of people going to the movies go up again, and the cycle has started anew.

      When I talked to my friend about this, we were hitting the tail end of that cycle (ie, lots of followups, few original movies, lower sales) when the movie studios were complaining most about piracy hurting them, a few years ago.

      I don't know if this is true - I'm not that much of a movie buff, I can't really look at how things change from year to year and correlate that to profits - but it seems reasonable.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    4. Re:Quote from article by sjames · · Score: 3

      There's plenty of reason to hate them. They gave us such wonders as DVDCSS, region coding which we get to pay for every time we buy a DVD drive even if we don't watch movies. They gave us HDCP so even connecting one's own video camera and computer up to a TV is a pain. They gave us all the crap protection on BluRay as well. We get to pay for that too. Don't even start on the crazy content protection and de-resing on a Windows machine, even for content you produce yourself. They tried to get the VCR banned. They are why so many PVRs are locked down.

      Lets not forget all the under the table money to get copyright law perverted to their cause and to use the publicaly funded FBI as their own private copyright cops. In turn, that brings us things like the whole Megaupload situation (crushing rule of law and due process on two continents).

      All of that affects people whether they ever watch movies or not.

      Meanwhile, since they are so adamant about strict honesty and propriety, they must be paragons of ethical virtue, right? (OK,OK, you can stop laughing now, you're going to break a rib that way!).

      They moved out west in the first place so they could freely 'pirate' Edison's patents. Their shady accounting practices are so legendary that they're named for them. According to their official figures, no movie in recent memory has ever made a single penny in profit. One wonders how they keep going decade after decade losing money like that!

      But yeah, other than that, they're fine, upstanding coke snorting narcissists. What's not to like?

  9. The movie companies can't complain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This guy was doing it for free, the iraqi's sell *tons* of dvds to the troops, for a decent profit, if they didn't have it in stock, they'd have it the next day.

    Why don't the MPAA go after these iraqi's selling movies and stop supporting terrorism... :)

  10. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

    back to the future: where hawkeye and hotlips were still current characters...

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  11. One 92 year old man by future+assassin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    did what corporations couldn't or wouldn't because of few measly lost dollars, which would have brought in millions worth of good will.

    Here's an idea maybe we should have a send the troops a bootleg campaign. Imagine 1 million bootleg dvd's being sent out lol..... The MPAA cry would be heard in every corner of the world Khaaaaaaaaaaa....

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:One 92 year old man by Almandine · · Score: 2

      It varies by the base, but the MWR of each base does provide that. A larger base might have a large DVD library (that can be lent), a decent number of Internet connected PCs (only seem to be Windows), Xbox360s (football & FPS games are popular), PS3s, TVs, novels, pool tables, etc. I haven't seen any ereaders but movie players were being sold at some of the commisionaries to watch DVDs (both legit and pirated).
      Still, if you have your own movie player, it is much more convenient to have your own DVDs to watch in your tent or while waiting for something.

  12. How American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the place where a mother can go bankrupt in the trial for download a cartoon for their kids, and a man can make whatever he wants because he took a job when he was 16, 70 years ago... and we applauded... awesome...

    1. Re:How American... by scubamage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some of us applaud the mother as well, we just weren't on the jury.

  13. Re:I hope they sue him. by beschra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Which, of course, is why they won't go after him. But I wonder if inaction in this case would work against them in future cases?

    --
    It is unwise to ascribe motive
  14. Seriously? by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 5, Funny

    The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troops.

    Did you send them vinyl records too?
    Maybe a few laserdiscs?

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  15. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by BackwardPawn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its probably so they can be paid anytime a soldier watches a film. If they sent them DVDs, they'd get distributed among the troops. The film snob in me wants to say film is a chemical process that even the best digital projection couldn't match and the MPAA wants our troops to have the best...but I know that has nothing to do with it.

  16. I just got back from a deployment to Afghanistan.. by IDtheTarget · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just got back from a deployment to Afghanistan, and I can tell you that sometimes the only way to get to sleep is by watching something that will get your mind off of what's really going on. My favorite was light comedies and sitcoms.

    I didn't know about this guy. We got most of our movies over there from local vendors who would sell pirated copies (that's legal in Afghanistan). The MPAA is getting the Customs Service and DoD to crack down, though. We used to be able to buy whatever we wanted from the locals and bring them home. Then when I came home from Iraq in 2008, we were allowed to bring one copy of each movie/TV show, and that was fine as well. This time when we were coming home we were told that we could only bring one item, period. Which was fine, again, because now we're ripping the movies to our hard-drives, anyway. I wonder how long it'll be until the MPAA gets the Customs Service to look at all of the content of our laptop hard drives on re-deploying back to the U.S....

    If you were lucky enough to be stationed at Bagram Air Field, then you had a PX where you could by legit movies for full price, but for most of us stuck out at various FOBs scattered across the country, the local guy was all we had. Hopefully the Pentagon Pukes don't listen to the MPAA and take that away from us, or we'll be in a world of hurt over there. This deployment sucked pretty bad. Not sure what'll happen if the next one is even worse due to those greedy MoFo's in the MPAA...

  17. The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troops. by mrbill1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troops"

    As if this were not proof enough that the studios and the MPAA are out of touch with reality.

  18. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by BagOBones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know what you are saying, however from a practical aspect film is an awful choice for any war environment since it degrades so easily... Hell film gets scratched and fades in air-conditioned theaters with a trained projectionist running them. I wonder how long reel to reel film lasts in a tent in the desert (dust, sand, heat)?

    --
    EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
  19. Re:LightScribe those DVD's by Megane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The thing is, he didn't download anything! He actually bought street bootlegs (of cams and leaks) and copied those. While I am not happy about money being given to the bootleg scum, I think it's funny that CSS was completely useless here.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  20. "Reel-to-reel" for real by markg11cdn · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I thought for sure the 'reel-to-reel' in the summary was a joke, but here's a quote from TFA :

    And while Mr. Strachmans movies were given to soldiers as a form of charity, studios do send military bases reel-to-reel films, which are much harder to copy, and projectors for the troops overseas.

  21. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're not sending the films out with patrols. They're showing them at base theaters which have more technical support and equipment than anything Main St. can rustle up. Of course, DVDs can be used to entertain small groups or individuals but that would give people more options than what is good for them.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  22. Lost Revenues by VorpalRodent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, based on the MPAA model for determining damages, doesn't 300K bootleg DVDs represent something approaching the GDP of many small nations? I mean, I haven't done the math, but 300K, times $10 on the shelf at Walmart, means that these companies lost somewhere over $200B.

    Considering he received flags, which have a monetary value, he was getting revenue from this operation. This is a criminal enterprise of epic proportions.

    This 92 year old man, a patriot, who supported hundreds of thousands of troops who were serving their country...must be the absolute scum of the earth.

    But seriously - as long as I can make it patriotic and for a great cause, I can get away with something that has quite clearly crossed the line into "This has got to be illegal, no matter how you cut it"? Doesn't that suggest something is wrong with the law in the first place? What if I was making bootlegs for crippled orphans?

    --
    Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
  23. Re:Nice by mark-t · · Score: 2

    Do you seriously think that the general public would actually stop their precious movie-going habits just because the MPAA does something unpopular?

  24. Re:Stealing is bad by robot256 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They'll probably try to write off all those "lost sales" as "donations" on their taxes and get a nice fat donation themselves from the taxpayers.

  25. Re:I just got back from a deployment to Afghanista by berashith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    thank you for what you have done, and I am glad you are safe enough to type this

  26. Wow. by Cosgrach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This man is a hero.

    --
    Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
  27. When gramps is doing it, the battle is over by istartedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When old guys who tend to be "conservative" are doing things like this, the battle is over. I'm picturing an Iwo Jima like flag planted over the smoking, bombed-out corpse-strewn wastelands of the **AA orgs.

    The old guys are relaxing and smoking a J when that flag is properly planted too. You google around, you see plenty of people with gray hair smoking pot. Same deal. The DEA and the **AAs just haven't got the memo yet, so watch out; but they are dead, Dead, DEAD. As soon as a Gen-Ys get into power, so fucking DEAD.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:When gramps is doing it, the battle is over by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 2

      One old guy did this. It ain't a movement yet.

      That said, I've always wondered why there aren't more people with nothing to lose out there righting the world's wrongs. Always chalked it up to, when you get that old, you just don't have the energy care anymore.

      As for Gen-Y killing the **AA--hah. Good luck. You realize that when Gen-Y is in power, they'll be in power in the **AA too, and won't want to give that up, right?

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  28. The DMCA fines are thus: (Dr. Evil finger here) by Steve1952 · · Score: 2

    Let's see: According to the DMCA, at $150,000 per offense, times 300,000 DVD's, this would be $4.5 x 10 to the 10th dollars, or roughly a $45 billion dollar penalty. Did I do my math right? Can he take it out of his social security check at $40 per month for roughly the next 100 million years or so?

  29. I used to record TV shows by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 3, Informative

    and send them to my son when he was in Iraq. He said they got passed around a lot. They liked the latest TV stuff even more than movies.

  30. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by sunderland56 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, it's a joke, but it's also awfully revealing about how behind-the-times Hollywood's business practices really are.

    Hollywood distributes movies both digitally and on film. Not all theatres have converted - in fact only a small portion of them are fully digital. So this is a matter of Hollywood serving their customers - if they stopped film distribution, then most cinemas would close their doors.

    Now that Kodak is bankrupt, and the future supply of film stock is uncertain, converting cinemas to digital may speed up - but it is still a very expensive process, and most local theatres don't have the cash to do it.

  31. What TFA is missing... by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is how we can contribute to his effort.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  32. Re:LightScribe those DVD's by scubamage · · Score: 2

    I think it's funny that CSS was completely useless here.

    Only here? :)

  33. This is the most freaking brilliant thing... by tekrat · · Score: 2

    ...I have ever heard in my life.

    People, we need to take a lesson from this great American. Not only has he figured out how to stick to the MPAA, he figured out how to do it while looking like a fucking HERO. No jury in America would convict this dude.

    Bravo!

    It brings a tear to my eye. It's so beautiful in its utter simplicity. Why the hell didn't *I* think of this?

    Soldiers of freedom: We must follow his example. I want the troops FLOODED with bootleg DVDs. They must never be without the latest movie or TV show.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:This is the most freaking brilliant thing... by Elbart · · Score: 2

      No.

  34. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

    Hollywood distributes movies both digitally

    I think you'll find the cost & throughput ratio that comes with mailing DVDs to Iraq and Afghanistan to be pretty good, compared with the digital delivery alternatives. Latency's a bitch, though.

  35. The copyright law has been broken. by SpzToid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And the US Military is guilty of receiving 300,000 counterfeit disks. It isn't as if the guy had an address book of a lot of soldiers to distribute disks to directly.

    And if the military accepts reel-to-reels from Hollywood when DVDs or better-yet downloads will do, that's gotta be another crime right committed there. And thus a quandary to consider.

    But if I was the judge, Mr. Strachman wouldn't even get a slap on the wrist from me because those soldiers deserve everything we can give them; while reel-to-reel is idiotic in 2012, in a war zone. But those chaplains, oh they'll have Hell to pay for distributing discs with IP far and wide.

    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  36. This made me feel better about... everything. by sdguero · · Score: 2

    Almost as soothing as a south park episode. :)

  37. Re:"I am only doing it for the troops" defense by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

    So - ACTUALLY do it for the troops!

    For every digital work, if you send a copy to a Troop, with the postal receipt to prove it, what happens? Does he only escape because of some combination of being A, a Vet, B, 92, or C, having spent so much?

    Suppose it's like a buck to mail a DVD in a compact mailer - is that a new copyright loophole? Or without those statuses above do you get crushed in flames?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  38. Unanimous consent by tepples · · Score: 2

    Let me stack two of your D's on top of each other to make a B as in Both, and B as in Bipartisan. The Sonny Bono Act and the DMCA were passed in both houses through unanimous consent procedures.

  39. Re:I just got back from a deployment to Afghanista by jesseck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I noticed the same in 2005 and 2007 returning from Iraq... in 2005, a light, cursory search by a couple Marines. Nothing invasive. In 2007, we had to travel to Kuwait to have some pogue sea-bees strip search our shit, like we were criminals. We had to go through explosive detectors (we were in combat 2 weeks prior, carrying explosives) and empty out our pockets- as if one of us, after surviving Fallujah, would want to bring down a plane on our way home. That pissed me off. We couldn't bring any ripped movies back with us, and were threatened with laptop searches.

  40. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by idontgno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're not sending the films out with patrols. They're showing them at base theaters

    Well, that's great, then. Any of those troops out there at some God-forsaken FOB can just catch a ride back to the main base for their movie nights out. They don't need entertainment in their little tent camps. They have the Taliban for that.

    BTW, I'm not picking on you. It's not your idea, and I'm sure you're right about how it really works. I'm a retired Air Force guy, and if I understand correctly, most of us in-country are still pretty much base-bound. If so, this cartoon characterizes the inequities of campaign life: The REMFs get all the good stuff, the guys at the pointy end pretty much get the shaft. And the guy who was the subject of TFA did what it takes to fix this one little inequity. I hope he doesn't catch the shaft himself, since 300,000 counts of willful copyright infringement probably exposes him to something like 300 death sentences.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  41. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by nabsltd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Digital distribution" from Hollywood to movie theaters isn't over the internet -- they're sent on hard drives. (Remember, the movies you see in theaters are much higher resolution than the ones you see at home.)

    Not really. If the digital projector is only 2K, then it's basically the same as Blu-Ray (2048x1080 vs. 1920x1080). If the projector is 4K, then you can get more resolution on the screen. That said, the original (either film or digital) likely does have at least 4K resolution regardless of the projection system.

    And, the reason the movies are shipped on hard drives is because they are just a series of JPEG 2000 images, one for each frame. This is essentially like using MPEG-4 and specifying that every frame is an I-frame, which bloats the file size for very little gain in quality.

  42. Re:I just got back from a deployment to Afghanista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I doubt they were worried that you would bring down a plane just for kicks, but it hasn't been terribly uncommon for troops to return home with a few "keepsakes", like live grenades, that Uncle Sam might not want you to keep on your nightstand. It's nothing personal, and you can blame the troops who came before you if you really take issue with it; they're the ones who kept pushing the envelope until somebody with stars decided that having you searched was the only way to ensure operational security.

  43. Re:I just got back from a deployment to Afghanista by Sir.Cracked · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was a Comm troop deployed to an airbase in Pakistan in 2004. While there, the OIC for the Comm flight (Officer in Charge of all communications) thought it would be a brilliant idea to order the "morale" servers shut down. These were essentially just file servers that people had dumped music and movies to as they cycled through, and were pretty much the only access to entertainment we had at a rather isolated base. He was on a kick for going to JAG or IA, and figured shutting down some copyright infringement would be a good point for his transfer and for his oak leaves. What actually happened was even the base commander was pissed, and at a commander's call a couple days later, (aka an official, in uniform, at attention kind of meeting), when he got up to speak, he was booed. Thinking back on it still shocks me to this day. If a single airman ever booed an officer in a commanders call, there'd be UCMJ action, no question. But an entire base of airmen spontaneously and unanimously booed him. It would be akin to the CIO getting booed at a shareholder meeting or press conference, where the board can legally imprison any attendee they care to.

    (In the end he stood up and promised a "legal" solution to the problem would be deployed within 24 hours. Myself and my co-server types looked at each other, decided he was talking out of his ass, and just turned the regular servers back on at the appointed time).

    --
    Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
  44. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    He's going to find out he just doubled our national debt. Intentional copyright infringement = more than statutory damages.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  45. Re:I just got back from a deployment to Afghanista by berashith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they served in fucking afghanistan!

    the "got back from a deployment" part is the main thing. The details that occured are probably something that i dont agree with, but the signing up to serve the country, and do what your told by superiors during this deployment are things that, even if you or I dont see it directly, have an effect on our daily lives. The people that are out there doing this actually are doing a great thing for the rest of us that are sitting comfortably in our air conditioned cubes. Thanking someone for their service, regardless of their personal reasons for signing up, is just something that I do. I do this in airports, and I also do this for firemen and police officers who are directing traffic. Maybe it makes no difference, but maybe someone who is putting up with a lot of shit that is actually making my life easier can feel a bit better, or less shitty, about what they are having to put up with.

    please, with all the heart felt sincerity that you dont believe possible from my first thanks to the soldier, take all of your judgement and cynicism, and shove them deep up your ass while shutting the fuck up! and have a nice day

  46. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by X0563511 · · Score: 2

    Much better rendition of that comic, that I found somewhere.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  47. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I challenge the MPAA to file suit against him. He sent 300,000 DVDs which were probably watched by several times that many people, and it's all verifiable. Contrast that to file sharing suits where an individual user might be sued for making a few movies available to be downloaded a relatively few times from which MPAA has claimed huge losses from each individual user.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  48. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by cavePrisoner · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm an army guy, so I have a different perspective. EVERYONE needs some entertainment/escape, but nobody's catching a ride to somewhere else for a friggin movie. That's why reel to reel doesn't make sense. The soldiers most in need don't have access to it. Soldiers usually have laptops. In Afghanistan, there are no copyright laws anyway. You can buy pirated movies through local shops by the truckload. They'll even let you bring back your pirated movies through customs as long as they are for personal use. ie, you can't have a bunch of copies of the same movie.

    If you really want make a soldier happy, you have remember that they might be at a tiny outpost with a platoon of young men all deployment. They might not have seen a female for months. Yes, send porn.

  49. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by LongearedBat · · Score: 2

    They don't need entertainment in their little tent camps. They have the Taliban for that.

    That gave me a mental image of taliban dancing cabaret...

  50. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by cerberusss · · Score: 2

    I'm sorry for being a complete and utter tool in this regard, but aren't there prostitutes around? Perhaps not at the tiniest post, but I could imagine some entertaining local girl catering to the crowd?

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  51. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by cavePrisoner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It isn't Vietnam. The culture is different. And you wouldn't want to touch a local if you had the chance. Most of locals don't exactly live up to our hygiene standards to say the least. Most prostitution is of our own soldiers. It depends on the level of discipline in the unit whether that will happen. But combat units usually don't have females. My company did have a few females that were medics and other odd jobs, but transferred them out to avoid problems. Definitely the right call.

  52. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by ne0n · · Score: 2

    Sounds about right. Each imaginary ticket sold (ie, person who watches a movie) is a donation to the war effort. Tax write-offs galore. The celluloid reels and fixed seating capacities of whatever auditorium is used merely provide proof of the magnitude of this donation. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

    --
    $ :(){ :|:& };:
  53. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by rockout · · Score: 3, Informative

    base theaters which have more technical support and equipment than anything Main St. can rustle up.

    Not that this is very important to the topic at hand, but as a former member of our military that spent 5 years overseas, I can tell you that the base theaters pretty much all suck, the sound is awful and the projection is worse, and we went off-base wherever it was possible to watch movies instead. Of course, it's not possible to do that in Iraq or Afghanistan. Just don't tell me about "technical support and equipment" - even if we had it, it sure didn't go into making our base theater any better. Those places blow.

    --
    I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  54. Re:The studios send reel-to-reel films to the troo by bkmoore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No offense taken, it's a legitimate question. I was in Iraq for two tours. When we left the FOB (Forward Operating Base), we were in enemy territory. I could not imagine a Marine or Soldier going off to get his jollies in his down time. The chance of being abducted and getting your head cut off on video was too great, not to mention the inevitable IEDs. But all this aside, almost all the locals had exotic parasites. Our medical staff were constantly treating them. Again, I have known plenty of dumb Marines in my day, but I cannot imagine anyone dumb enough to go out, risk his life and come back with worms or worse. But I do remember in about 2008, they busted some female Sailors or Air Persons for running a brothel on the base. They got caught trying to take a seabag full of cash back home and couldn't explain where it came from.