MPAA Boss Admits SOPA and PIPA Are Dead, Not Coming Back

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPAA Boss Admits SOPA and PIPA Are Dead, Not Coming Back

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday October 3, 2012 @07:56AM from the time-to-schedule-the-victory-lap dept.

concealment points out comments from MPAA CEO Chris Dodd, who has acknowledged that SOPA and PIPA were soundly — and perhaps permanently — defeated. Quoting Ars Technica: "Dodd sounded chastened, with a tone that was a far cry from the rhetoric the MPAA was putting out in January. 'When SOPA-PIPA blew up, it was a transformative event,' said Dodd. 'There were eight million e-mails [to elected representatives] in two days.' That caused senators to run away from the legislation. 'People were dropping their names as co-sponsors within minutes, not hours,' he said. 'These bills are dead, they're not coming back,' said Dodd. 'And they shouldn't.' He said the MPAA isn't focused on getting similar legislation passed in the future, at the moment. 'I think we're better served by sitting down [with the tech sector and SOPA opponents] and seeing what we agree on.' Still, Dodd did say that some of the reaction to SOPA and PIPA was 'over the top' — specifically, the allegations of censorship, implied by the black bar over Google search logo or the complete shutdown of Wikipedia. 'DNS filtering goes on every day on the Internet,' said Dodd. 'Obviously it needs to be done very carefully. But five million pages were taken off Google last year [for IP violations]. To Google's great credit, it recently changed its algorithm to a point where, when there are enough complaints about a site, it moves that site down on their page — which I applaud.'"

58 of 186 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Exactly as they want you to think by 54mc · 2012-10-03 07:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Make you think it's dead, that way when they bring it back under another name, you won't notice.

--
Joy! Beautiful spark of the gods!
1. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 08:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Its dead until the elections are over, then don't be surprised if it comes back.
2. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by EmperorOfCanada · 2012-10-03 08:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  These bozos don't realize that they have lost control of information. Once you put information out it and people want it the information will go everywhere. Before they could release a movie and they controlled the flow of the physical film, then they released the video cassette and again they could mostly control this (some piracy) but now the only control they have is mostly at the film editing level. In the past they abused this control by releasing the films slowly around the world. People in Canada thought it sucked as we got the films after the US but people in Britain really thought it sucked as they got them long after us and much of the world had to wait for video. Places in Africa had theaters that showed video-taped films on big screens.
  
  But now the film companies have put up so many barriers to my seeing their stuff that piracy is logical. I go to the theater for a 9:15 film arriving say 9:05. For those 10 minutes the theater blasts cell phone and car commercials at me. Then at 9:15 they start showing trailers and around 9:30 the film begins but not really it is advertizements for the various levels of production company and more advertisements for the actors and directors so maybe around 9:32 I am seeing a movie that I payed $13 for nearly 30 minutes earlier. Renting a movie is much the same except that I don't know where to rent movies anymore. But if you do get a blue ray most players won't let you skip past the various warnings and even sometimes the trailers.
  
  Now compare that to pirating a movie. Download time 5-10 minutes, cost almost nothing, restrictions: none. So you set the download, get the download and fast forward to the exact moment the real movie starts.
  
  But the one restriction is that it is slightly hard to do. Most people will have difficulty getting a movie onto their computer, finding the file, sending it to a large TV somehow, and then controlling the movie. And this is where the movie industry has a chance. They could make it really easy for most people to use any box (game consoles, apple TV, roku) like netflix and just get the movie for a reasonable price. If the theater charges me $13 don't think you can either charge me more (for my convenience) or anything even close; I know that if you are distributing it directly to me that you have a huge savings so at $2 per movie I will happily watch a zillion movies; at $9.99 a movie I'll find a better use for my money.
  
  This brings me to another point. In this modern age people are finding better uses for their money so don't blame all your dropping revenues on piracy. A blockbuster video game can make billions, that money is coming out of people's entertainment budget which once went to movies and music.
3. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by spikestabber · 2012-10-03 08:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You mean just like the TPPA is doing? Its already back, and its as bad/worse as ACTA. They simply shifted their tide to secret trade agreements again.
4. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by viperidaenz · 2012-10-03 08:28 · Score: 2
  
  But why would they want to sell you a movie for $2 that you can invite the whole neighbourhood over to watch as many times as you like when they currently charge $13 per person for a one-time viewing and then 6 months later charge you $20 for the DRM protected dvd/bluray full of advertisements?
5. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by Applekid · 2012-10-03 08:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Its dead until the elections are over, then don't be surprised if it comes back.
  Only if one party controls the legislative branch and the executive and it can get rubber stamped through.
  Otherwise, there was enough negative publicity about the effort that I think either side would jump at the opportunity to claim that they are the true defenders of the internet by blocking bad legislation.
  
  --
  More Twoson than Cupertino
6. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by rtfa-troll · 2012-10-03 08:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Its dead until the elections are over, then don't be surprised if it comes back.
  Oh so innocent; thinks he's so cynical. This is a thing that big media agrees with small (commercial) media agrees with commercial interests. The arms industry doesn't want you getting your information independently; the consumer industries want you to read their ads; the media doesn't want you to compete with them.
  At this very moment the Intellectual property provisions of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership are being negotiated in secret. This is yet another treaty negotiated by the type of people that brought you the WIPO. Their aim is to basically to make it so that SOPA / PIPA is forced upon all nations without any chance of a democratic debate.
  This will not be reported on unless people have actually already succeeded in stopping it. The election doesn't matter since nobody will hear about it even if it is going on.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
7. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by dubbreak · 2012-10-03 08:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because of price elasticity. Price it lower more people (will potentially) buy. I think with how things are going with theatres and media sales it's a pretty safe bet.
  
  E.g. Make crappy movies I'd never go to in the theatre or purchase on any medium $0.99 and I might decide it's decent popcorn fodder. Blockbuster that's just out? I'd be willing to pay more. But as long as I don't have advertisements etc shoved down my throat before getting to watch the film.
  
  I think any worries about inviting the neighbourhood over or sending the file to someone else (if it's drm free) are just that, worries (with no basis in reality). Make it cheap enough and it's not worth someone's time or hassle to save a few bucks. I have a big TV, good sound system, comfortable seating, I can drink booze if I want to (cheaply at that), better popcorn (imho), I can order any type of food I want.. etc etc. The theatre has no draw to me. Why would I want to sit around with a bunch of strangers that talk and text during the movie?
  
  The market has been ready for direct from studio downloads for almost a decade. The studios just have to get with it.
  
  --
  "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
8. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by SternisheFan · 2012-10-03 08:54 · Score: 2
  
  You said you don't know where to rent movies, I borrow dvd's from my library. Not that this helps you if you want to see a new movie asap. If you don't mind waiting a few weeks+, libraries are a great alternative, assuming yours has a decent selection. I've been able to catch up with all the films I deem worthwhile this way, at no cost to me.
9. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by gmuslera · 2012-10-03 09:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  2 parties, 1 set of bosses. No matter which one of the 2 options you pick, both have the same set of people giving orders behind, at the very least in this particular topic. US constitution should be edited putting "We the lobbyist" at the start of it to describe reality.
10. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 09:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  *deep, deep sigh* Look, MPAA, listen. You people were the ones who deluged our pop culture with movies written with shitty stories where the big evil shadowy overlord admits defeat, only to walk into some shadowy back room with other shady people and laugh about how "those fools" have let their guards down and now Plan B will kick in whenever the sequel gets made. You with me here? We've seen this movie a billion times. And you wrote it!
  At what point did you expect this plan to work? Are you seriously just as shallow and predictable as the B-movie horse shit you made for us? Or has your entire existence been making movies of what you actually, honestly think is a legitimate reflection of how actual, real people behave?
11. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by c0lo · 2012-10-03 09:22 · Score: 2
  
  Make you think it's dead, that way when they bring it back under another name, you won't notice.
  But some do notice
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
12. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by cdrguru · 2012-10-03 09:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The biggest problem with a worldwide release of a movie is the big question - what do you allow in?
  In the US a pair of tits will get you an R rating instantly - which is fine, if that is the audience you are shooting for. If you want a PG-13 movie for the US audience, you have to cut the tits. Or, in a R movie in the US you can show female pubic hair - except if you want to release the movie in Japan that would instantly have it blocked. There are other rules for EU countries as well.
  And then there are the other markets. Have a scene where someone is holding a Bible in a courtroom? Such a movie cannot be distributed in an Islamic country, or at least most of them. Want a movie where the hero is wearing a turban? Good luck
  It gets absurd. They thought they could capture this in eight bits with DVD region coding, but that wasn't really sufficient. What it means today is pretty much anything outside the US gets stuck with everything being cut that could possibly be objectionable to anyone, anywhere. Maybe the US version is less chopped but think about a movie made for an adult EU audience - they are going to have to cut it for the US!
  The fact that the entertainment industry at all levels has to deal with this is silly and it throws a lot of extra costs into it. I am pretty sure it is filtering into games today as well. Certainly music has had some run-ins with this sort of issue. The problem is there is no worldwide standard and there isn't going to be any time soon - certainly not until someone like SPECTRE takes over the planet and declares themselves to be Dictator for Life.
13. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by innocent_white_lamb · 2012-10-03 09:52 · Score: 2
  
  I own and operate a single-screen movie theatre in a small town.
  I try to start my show within five minutes of the advertised start time (depending on how many people are still in the lobby getting their popcorn and whatnot), and I play between zero and three trailers before the start of the actual movie.
  
  --
  If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
14. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by jxander · 2012-10-03 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  In the US a pair of tits will get you an R rating instantly
  Unless the movie is directed by James Cameron, and the tits are a spectacular pair, such as Kate Winslet's.
  Then you'll get away with PG-13
  
  --
  This signature is false.
15. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by noc007 · 2012-10-03 11:15 · Score: 2
  
  I'll repeat a quote I heard in regards to when we get a new President: "Same bullshit; different asshole".
16. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by Jason+Levine · 2012-10-03 12:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This (piracy beating movie theaters on convenience) is why services like Netflix are so important. Netflix is easier than piracy which tips the scales back into the studios favor. Except the studios see Netflix as a pseudo-pirate robbing them of DVD sales (instead of an ally turning would-be pirates into paying customers). Therefore, they restrict what content Netflix has access to and wind up cutting off their own nose to spite their face. Other services, like Amazon VOD, are good, but more expensive. (The Avengers is $3.99 for a 48 hour rental. For just the price of 2 Amazon VOD movie rentals, you can get a month of Netflix streaming.)
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
17. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by TubeSteak · 2012-10-03 13:00 · Score: 2
  
  Its dead until the elections are over, then don't be surprised if it comes back.
  It's dead.
  But this article sucks. It only obliquely touches on what Dodd has said is their new plan:
  Quietly engage private industry to crack down on copyright infringement.
  Their new plan is more or less the same as the old plan, but it will be done in corporate board rooms instead of behind closed doors in Congress.
  Arguably, their new strategy is even worse for the public, since we will have almost no ability to influence the conversation at any point.
  Google will silently tweak their search results, Facebook will quietly ban certain websites from being linked, banks will stop processing payments for certain companies, etc.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
18. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by Trogre · 2012-10-03 13:09 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, but when Democracy of government fails (which it has in the US), then resort to Democracy of capitalism. Your wallet. Vote with it. Starting now.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
19. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by EdIII · 2012-10-03 15:08 · Score: 2
  
  I love the Japanese. A little pubic hair and a flash of vagina? No No No No No. You pixelate that shit right now.
  A bunch of tentacle monsters hanging little schoolgirls in the air while they are violated in every orifice? Yep. Totally Okay. Let's distribute it everywhere.
20. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by Brannoncyll · 2012-10-03 15:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Downloads cost them servers and bandwidth. If you take away the cinemas, you lose the profits from the over priced food. If you lower the price of your product, you lower the perceived value If your customers are accustomed to a particular price point, selling below that point will lose you more profit than you'll recover by increased sales.
  Mod poster Funny?
  "Downloads cost them servers and bandwidth." - meanwhile everyone and their dogs are downloading their movies over bit-torrent at no additional cost to either them or the movie makers.
  "If you lower the price of your product, you lower the perceived value" - for the last 10 years untold millions of people have been downloading their films for free. I think they're long past the point of having to worry about the 'perceived value' of their product!
  "If your customers are accustomed to a particular price point, selling below that point will lose you more profit than you'll recover by increased sales." - addendum: If your customers are leaving you in droves and you refuse to change your pricing strategy, and instead try your very hardest to piss off the people who you should be trying to woo, then you deserve everything you get.
  No sympathy from me.
21. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by Trogre · 2012-10-03 18:21 · Score: 2
  
  I meant to vote out the incumbent lobbyists who effectively "own" the politicians who come and go much more often. These lobbyists have influence because they have money. They have money because of a revenue stream, and that stream comes from people opening wallets to them.
  To vote with your wallet is to choose where you spend your money. If you have disposable income, buy your music from ethical places such as Magnatune instead, or donate to a worthwhile charity such as EFF or FSF.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
22. Re:Exactly as they want you to think by davester666 · 2012-10-03 18:34 · Score: 2
  
  Except they'll switch tactics. Instead of a standalone bill, they'll bury it in other legislation, like say, a bill for authorizing military spending. And they'll change titles and heading to different acronyms, change up the wording a bit and bob's your uncle.
  Then it becomes "You can't vote against this unless you are against our men and women in the Armed Services! You terrorist lover!"
  Same shit is happening here in Canada with Harper's latest idea of democracy, omnibus bills. Just put all the legislation for six months in one bill, have a meaningless debate on it [same time limit as other bills, only it's two orders of magnitude bigger than 'regular' legislation], then pass it on a simple majority.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
I'm paranoid by DaWhilly · 2012-10-03 07:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

SOPA and PIPA were stopped because people found out.. What if this is just misinformation while they prepare something behind the scenes?
1. Re:I'm paranoid by interkin3tic · 2012-10-03 08:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You'd call that paranoia? I'd call that "not being born yesterday."
  
  OF COURSE they're preparing something identical behind the scenes. They haven't STOPPED being greedy, stupid, shortsighted, corrupt assholes. Chris Dodd and everyone else who would rather screw over the public domain for a very small theoretical increase in profits, THEY are not the ones who are dead and never coming back. It's a damn shame too that they don't all slowly and simultaneously die of hemorrhoids.
2. Re:I'm paranoid by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 09:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The behind-the-scenes "thing" that they're hiding is the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement)
  https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
  Read and be informed!!!!!!!!
3. Re:I'm paranoid by c0lo · 2012-10-03 09:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  SOPA and PIPA were stopped because people found out.. What if this is just misinformation while they prepare something behind the scenes?
  If? There is no if
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
I hate to be that guy, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 07:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

I have a bad feeling that something worse is waiting for us down the line...
1. Re:I hate to be that guy, but... by drcln · 2012-10-03 08:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I have a bad feeling that something worse is waiting for us down the line...
  Exactly. That something worse will be the persistent steady erosion of rights and the criminalization of activities with extreme penalties. Bit by bit they will get what they want. Their mistake was grabbing at the powers they wanted too fast.
  In the U.S. they've won on the constitutionality of statutory damages that bear no relation to actual harm. Essentially that is a private criminalization of a commercial tort.
  They're winning on extradition more than they are loosing.
  Megaupload is gone. Everyone else is scared.
  In Japan, downloading a song is now a criminal act that can get you two years in jail.
  And on, and on . . .
  So, do they really need SOPA or PIPA?
  
  --
  your gravity fails and negativity don't pull you through
2. Re:I hate to be that guy, but... by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-10-03 10:05 · Score: 2
  
  Down the line? Try Right Now!
Unintentional honesty by Tackhead · 2012-10-03 08:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Every studio I deal with has a distribution agreement with Google," said Dodd. "We've divided up this discussion in a way that doesn't really get us moving along as a people."
Translation: Dammit, what part of "cartel" have my clients forgotten they once understood?
Conspiracies by H3xx · 2012-10-03 08:03 · Score: 2

That's just what they *want* you to think. O__O

--
"Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me."
Electronic Democracy by jamesl · 2012-10-03 08:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

'There were eight million e-mails [to elected representatives] in two days.' That caused senators to run away from the legislation.
So, now we know what to do to prevent or get rid of Dodd-Frank and other pieces of idiotic legislation.
1. Re:Electronic Democracy by interkin3tic · 2012-10-03 08:58 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, we need to not be apathetic about our rights being eroded. Knowing is different than doing, sadly.
2. Re:Electronic Democracy by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-10-03 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  "So, now we know what to do to prevent or get rid of Dodd-Frank and other pieces of idiotic legislation."
  What really gets me is that it was totally unnecessary. There was absolutely no need for that last-minute "explosion"... people had been telling their Congresscritters all along what they thought of SOPA and PIPA, they just didn't listen.
  
  It took a BIG, and rather firm, kick in the ass to get them to pay attention. But that's not the way government is supposed to work. We aren't supposed to have to whip them to get them to actually work for us.
They should be happy. by ZorinLynx · 2012-10-03 08:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

These people are making money hands-over-fist. Billions of dollars flowing into their pockets.
Why do they feel they "need" to do anything about piracy? The vast majority of people will pay for their content. Even I, who used to pirate things like crazy when I was a teenager (due to complete lack of funds) now pay for my stuff since I can afford it.
They should instead find ways to make it easier for customers to buy their media. Look what they did for music; it's DRM free now and so convenient to buy from numerous places, and it all plays on pretty much every device out there. They should do the same thing for video content. Make it so when I pay $10 to download a movie, that it's truly MINE, and I'll gladly buy more movies online.
It's not hard. Yet they are stubborn jackasses and continue with this war of theirs. Reminds me of the equally pointless "war on drugs".
1. Re:They should be happy. by cheekyjohnson · 2012-10-03 08:13 · Score: 2
  
  Reminds me of the equally pointless "war on drugs".
  In terms of pointlessness, I'd say it's even worse. They're trying to stop people from copying data, and it's nearly impossible to catch anyone to begin with.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
2. Re:They should be happy. by SirGarlon · 2012-10-03 08:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Make it so when I pay $10 to download a movie, that it's truly MINE, and I'll gladly buy more movies online.
  But that is what the RIAA and MPAA really want to prevent. "Piracy" is just a pretext that gets the politicians on their side. Their real goal is to revoke the idea of owning a copy of a book or movie, and "monetize" all digital "content;" that is, lock you in to paying them every time you want to review/view/listen to anything.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
3. Re:They should be happy. by amRadioHed · 2012-10-03 08:53 · Score: 2
  
  Nothing is worse than the war on drugs. How many people a year are killed due to the war on piracy? How many people are imprisoned for mere possession of pirated materials?
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
4. Re:They should be happy. by Type44Q · 2012-10-03 08:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Their real goal is to revoke the idea of owning a copy of a book or movie
  Their real real goal is to get rid of "The Printing Press, Second Edition," aka the Internet, at least as we know it.
5. Re:They should be happy. by Nursie · 2012-10-03 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  Those single vehicle collisions are probably drunk people.
  The war on drugs causes -
  1. Money to be funnelled to cartels
  2. Devloping countries to be in permanent states of civil war
  3. Users' lives to be wrecked for a crime that harms only them
  4. Users to die from impurites, unknown substances and unknown strengths
  5. Billions of dollars that could go toward actual harm reduction to be spent on militarising the police
  6. People with no relation to the drug war to get shot by those police
  7. A myriad of other negative effects
  'keep your head down, don't take the piss' is a great way to perpetuate injustice and murder. Just because it's not happning in your back yard doesn't mean much.
  I'm not saying legalise everything with no restrictions, but there's got to be a better way than the way we're doing it now.
6. Re:They should be happy. by CanHasDIY · 2012-10-03 10:06 · Score: 2
  
  Reminds me of the equally pointless "war on drugs".
  The purpose of the "war on drugs/personal freedom" is to provide three-letter-agencies with an essentially fool-proof way to launder untold amounts of money for their other, off-the-books ventures, such as black ops and wetwork.
  
  Still stupid, still bad, but far from pointless.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
7. Re:They should be happy. by cdrguru · 2012-10-03 10:21 · Score: 2
  
  The vast majority will not pay for content. I don't know anyone who pays for music any longer - they just grab what they want for free.
  Why are the media companies making money today? Because they are receiving payments in lucrative markets where promotion has value and they have a huge segment of the population either scared to download or incapable of it because of lack of connectivity. Unfortunately, both groups are pretty much confined to 40+ years of age and in many places it is more like 60+. These people will be moving out of purchasing stuff like this fairly soon - when was the last time you saw Granny using the pay-per-view at the rest home?
  Music is a joke today. It has zero value and in most places this is recognized. There are no more "record stores" - about the only place left selling CDs is WalMart and the CD section is biggest in poor areas where people do not have Internet connectivity at home. Sure, if you want to spend money there are many places to do so - but virtually nobody is spending. Everyone points to iTunes as a big success, except they have maybe 2% of the download traffic. Sure, they are doing fine with the service because it fills a need for the folks that can't (or won't) pirate. But do not believe for a second that even Apple expects people to fill a 64GB iPod with paid-for music.
  Movies still take so long for Joe Sixpack to download that even if he had the computer equipment and the Internet connection he would not. So Joe has no choice but to spend money - but the pirates are getting a stronger and stronger foothold which means movies are making it into the $5 bin at WalMart earlier and earlier.
  The prices might fall, but this is going to be a last-ditch desperation move not the introduction of a new nirvana of low, low prices. When the prices start coming down you can expect to see the 20-disc collections being advertised late nite on cable channels. Everyone will see there is no future revenue coming so it will be a huge push to grab what little there is left.
  What happens after that?? Good question. Personally, I think we will see more and more productions like Yentl - Barbra Striesand paid for that because (a) she had the money and (b) she wanted to make it. Nobody else would have cast a 40+ year old woman as a teenager, but she did for herself. OK, it was a good gamble and I believe the movie made money - but the point is she would have done it even if it would have made $0. Who do you think paid for "The Expendibles" - right, Stallone. We are going to see more and more of this because it will be known from the beginning that movies aren't going to be making money.
  Right after the ego productions will be the ad placements where Coke pays for a 90 minute movie showing everyone drinking Coke and dissing Pepsi. You can't imagine what lengths the ad placements will go to and it will be obvious and disgusting to most people. But enough will watch that it will be a whole new genre of ad-supported movies.
  After that? Maybe patronage where some rich guy pays to have a movie made about his wonderful life. Maybe government-sponsored films where we get to see how wonderful life in the military is or how awful your life might turn out if you don't put down that joint RIGHT NOW!!! The point is, the revenue will be gone in a lot less than ten years and maybe less than five. A lot of people - millions - will be out of work because of this and the ripple effects throughout the economy. But the pirates will have won the day and the whole catalog from the last hundred years or so will be online and available for free.
  Just don't expect anything more to come along anytime soon. Least not of any quality. Think Yentl and Reefer Madness and those the are high points.
8. Re:They should be happy. by cheekyjohnson · 2012-10-03 11:08 · Score: 2
  
  How do you know it was because of cannabis? Not only that, but that's just anecdotal evidence.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
9. Re:They should be happy. by cheekyjohnson · 2012-10-03 11:15 · Score: 2
  
  it is a sad waste of life.
  I think one problem is that people are too emotional about the issue. Some people don't seem to want to allow any casualties whatsoever and wish to live in some fantasy land where no one ever dies. It's very likely not possible, and that same attitude is what leads us to 'solutions' like the TSA: security theater at the expense of freedom.
  
  There are probably
  Key word: probably. That's not a sufficient reason to curtail individual freedom in the name of safety, in my opinion. I see it like this: if they use drugs, that's their own fault. No need to say that nobody can use drugs just because some people abuse them and/or because it harms their health. That's very similar to collective punishment and makes whatever nation with those policies seem like a nanny state.
  
  would open legal use of drugs result in more deaths?
  If they can't prove that it would, I do not believe there should be any laws against it. Actually, even if they could, I still don't believe there should be a war on drugs.
  I don't care for how certain people (not necessarily you) use 'safety' as an excuse to curtail certain individual freedoms.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Quack by onyxruby · 2012-10-03 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

To paraphrase a politician (who's name I don't know). "If it quakes like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck."
Censorship is censorship, just because it is done by a corporation doesn't some how magically make it better. The fact that they manipulated Google into doing their censoring for them doesn't somehow make it clean just because the government wasn't the one doing it.
I don't buy that they aren't engaging in censorship just because they don't have the government doing it on their behalf. For the average person, they would be hard pressed to find an alternative that isn't censored.
1. Re:Quack by dkleinsc · 2012-10-03 08:16 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If it quakes like a duck
  I've never met a duck who was capable of even playing Quake, much less having an identifiable style!
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
2. Re:Quack by Raul654 · 2012-10-03 09:17 · Score: 2
  
  Not quite:
  Indiana poet James Whitcomb Riley (1849–1916) may have coined the phrase when he wrote "when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."[1][2] The phrase may also have originated much later with Emil Mazey, secretary-treasurer of the United Auto Workers, at a labor meeting in 1946 accusing a person of being a communist.[3]
  The term was later popularized in the United States by Richard Cunningham Patterson Jr., United States ambassador to Guatemala during the Cold War in 1950, who used the phrase when he accused the Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán government of being Communist. Patterson explained his reasoning as follows:
  Suppose you see a bird walking around in a farm yard. This bird has no label that says 'duck'. But the bird certainly looks like a duck. Also, he goes to the pond and you notice that he swims like a duck. Then he opens his beak and quacks like a duck. Well, by this time you have probably reached the conclusion that the bird is a duck, whether he's wearing a label or not."[4]
  
  --
  
  To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
  --E.C. Stanton
3. Re:Quack by TaoPhoenix · 2012-10-03 12:30 · Score: 2
  
  Tip, if Slashdot is going to improve, the posters need to do a little more work.
  "Indiana poet James Whitcomb Riley (1849â"1916) may have coined the phrase when he wrote "when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."[1][2]"
  
  --
  My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Reading between the lines by ddd0004 · 2012-10-03 08:13 · Score: 2

This is going to require a much less direct approach and a larger bag of money
Wise man once say... by ChinggisK · 2012-10-03 08:18 · Score: 3, Funny

It's a trap!
Dodd should be happy. by TsuruchiBrian · 2012-10-03 08:19 · Score: 2

He is lucky he isn't in jail where he belongs for his role in the financial collapse. This piece of shit was receiving benefits (i.e. bribes) from the mortgage industry in exchange for helping to pass laws to keep a corrupt system going as long as possible at taxpayer expense. It's fitting that he is the head of the MPAA. I am not sure that this organization can be properly administered without a giant douchebag at the helm.
DNS Filtering != Google Takedowns by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 08:34 · Score: 2, Informative

" 'DNS filtering goes on every day on the Internet,' said Dodd. 'Obviously it needs to be done very carefully. But five million pages were taken off Google last year [for IP violations]. "
Google takedowns are not the same as DNS filtering. This just shows basic lack of understanding of Internet architecture from those that are in the legislature and how they confuse (intentionally or non-intentionally) far reaching Internet architecture concepts with company control concepts to further their agenda.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/dns-filtering-absolutely-the-wrong-way-to-defend-copyrights/
They Learned Their Lesson: Avoid Democracy by Chibi+Merrow · 2012-10-03 08:34 · Score: 3, Informative

Yeah, the RIAA/MPAA isn't going to try any more "Stop teh pirates!!!1!" bills anytime soon. They will probably try a few more disguised as cybersecurity legislation, tacking on copyright maximalism onto "think of the children!!!" alarmism. But that's all irrelevant.
The important lesson they learned is this: Accomplish your goals in an arena where there's no pesky democratic process to worry about. Instead, they push ACTA (which still isn't dead), and TPP (which looks to be significantly worse than ACTA). And they label them as "trade agreements" (even though they're obviously treaties), that way they don't have to deal with that pesky Senate that seems to respond better to millions of voters than millions of dollars. Yep, now they can do ALL their business in secret, back-room deals, and skip that entire public review phase.
And then, once the U.S. is signed onto these treaties, Congress gets the easy out: "We have to bring our laws into line with our international agreements!"

--
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Re:can we agree on fair use rights? by jitterman · 2012-10-03 08:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's always been my take on it. Depending on age, one could theoretically have purchased media (let's use music) on each of: vinyl, 8-track, analog tape, CD, digital tape (DAT), MP3 with DRM, then MP3 sans DRM. Probably extreme, but the point here is a sale of the same content, to the same person, could possibly take place seven or so times at retail price each time. I don't now and never have felt this is fair to the consumer.

Especially in the case of vinyl and metallic tape (including video tape), the physical media degrades with time and use; if (as the industry argument goes) I am purchasing the privilege to view/hear the content, then I should only have to purchase it once. If the material breaks down, or a better format emerges, I should be entitled to a copy in that format. I'll grant a small price to cover manufacturing costs if the item is physical, but if it's 100% digital even a small fee is indefensible if I've previously purchased said media rights, and THAT implies that I would be doing nothing wrong in obtaining a copy from alternate sources once I've paid my "right to consume" fee.

--
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
SOPA and PIPA are dead... by wonkey_monkey · 2012-10-03 09:02 · Score: 2

... but you'll love SIPA and POPA!

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Search engine by causality · 2012-10-03 09:55 · Score: 2

I ditched google and am currently using startpage. Is there any alternative that doesn't censor or use googles data set? Information likes to be free, and so do I!
You can use Startpage's sister company ixquick.com. It's just like Startpage except it's their own search engine that is not dependent on what Google does.

It's not quite as high-quality but it's been more than good enough every time I've tried it.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:single-screen movie theatre in a small town. by TaoPhoenix · 2012-10-03 11:29 · Score: 2

And Slashdot wants to know where so we can flashmob you and force you to accept new revenue and boost sales!

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine