Slashdot Mirror


MPAA Seeks Stronger Actions To Fight Streaming Video Piracy (streamingmedia.com)

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is stepping into the online video piracy debate and calling for criminal charges against violators, as well as strong coordination between a broad range of online service providers. From a report: The association's recommendations came in response to a call from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) call for comments regarding internet policy concerns. On July 17, the MPAA issued a 40-page document advocating a modernization of online policies in response to rampant illicit activity. While a range of commercial offerings help studios and sports leagues battle online piracy, anyone who has a friend with a Kodi box knows that unrestricted access to popular shows and movies is only a few taps away. The MPAA notes that 6.5 million homes in North America are equipped with a Kodi box, and the North American piracy ecosystem generates $840 million per year.

110 comments

  1. Just hire their own swat team by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

    buy some black helicopters, hire some goons and break into pirates' homes and break some kneecaps

    1. Re:Just hire their own swat team by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should the MPAA do this when they can get one of their wholly owned subsidiaries (eg, the US Government) to do it for them?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Just hire their own swat team by MisterMoney · · Score: 1

      Goons? Hired goons?

    3. Re:Just hire their own swat team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweden and UK pretty much doing that. Government that's supposed to protect its citizens from negative foreign influence instead incarcerating and bullying its own citizens in the name of foreigners who are not the ones who will protect those citizens in war or support them with funding the local economy (instead taking out of it).
      Anyone connected to the MPAA, RIAA, and ESA, whether financially or otherwise, should be charged with treason in any country outside of USA, and politicians buckling to these companies should be tried for colluding with foreign interests in subverting the local justice system and the very subjects they are supposed to protect against the same.

    4. Re:Just hire their own swat team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets start by restricting copyright terms (currently 70 years after creator's death). I wonder how many voters find this acceptable once they find out!

    5. Re:Just hire their own swat team by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 4, Informative

      They hired the New Zealand police to do that to Kim Dotcom. I gather there was nothing in the way of censure dished out to those police by our courts when it was deemed to be "unlawful" so chances are they could hire them again at a very competitive rate and, if they throw in airplane tickets, they'd probably even do the job in other countries if asked nicely.

    6. Re: Just hire their own swat team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did that. See: Kim Dotcom

    7. Re:Just hire their own swat team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter. The common voter doesn't vote on true issues or even factual information. They vote on the hype and mania de jeur.

    8. Re:Just hire their own swat team by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What? Why? That costs money! It's way cheaper to let the people who you want arrested pay for it, too, and let their government do the dirty work for you.

      Privatize profits, socialize costs. That's how you get rich.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Just hire their own swat team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should the MPAA do this when they can get one of their wholly owned subsidiaries (eg, the US Government) to do it for them?

      Trump isn't returning their phone calls. He's at war with the MPAA and the Hollywood Left, remember? The MPAA won't get shit as long as Trump is in charge.

  2. That's a lot of money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    $850 million a year compared to the filmed entertainment industry's revenue of what, $300 billion +/- per year? I know that doesn't justify people pirating shit, but I'm getting real fucking sick of the "Won't someone please think of the millionaires and billionaires?!" argument.

    1. Re:That's a lot of money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't forget that it has been proven time and time again through studies and practical application (Incompetech being just one example) that any artist with actual talent and quality product(s) will benefit more from utilizing piracy than warring against it.
      Some using piracy as a marketing tool, some eve put their stuff on torrents and make the news among the pirate scene for it which translates into a loyal consumerbase of people who chip in money too (and a loyal base is always better than generic sales since it translates to guaranteed revenue), and even the fact that the majority of pirates also have the biggest Steam libraries due to the fact that they tend to respect quality product more than the average consumer due to the quantity of products they go through thanks to piracy to weed out the shit from the gold.

      The industry, whether gaming or music or movie, are over-saturated.
      So over-saturated that it's impossible to give even a 1/10th of each of those industry's artists the chance to be sampled if we had to pay for each and every one.

      The over-saturation argument is probably the main and biggest argument going for piracy, especially now that even demos and samples are being corrupted and turned into scam methods for trying products.

    2. Re:That's a lot of money! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We've known these things for decades now:

      1) Downloading is not "piracy". Piracy is a specific crime related to making and distributing copies, generally for personal gain. Somebody who sells copies of someone else's personal DVD and sells them is a pirate. An uploader might be considered a "pirate", but a downloader is not, because a downloader is not distributing. **

      2) Downloading is a copyright violation, not a crime. In scope, it is akin to making a personal copy of a videotape.

      3) In most cases, downloading is done when there would not have been an original sale (e.g., movie ticket or DVD) anyway. So the copyright owner didn't "lose" anything.

      4) Even if there hypothetically might have been a sale, copyright violation is not "theft". See # 3. It is a completely different area of law.

      5) And even if there would have been a sale, all the copyright owner "loses" is the potential profit, which is a tiny fraction of the retail price.

      6) Penalties for copyright violation are already unreasonably harsh.

    3. Re:That's a lot of money! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

      ** I almost forgot my footnote.

      Many torrent programs force you to upload as you download, but not all of them.

      If you aren't uploading as you download, you are not "distributing". So you can't be a pirate.

      The lesson there is to make sure you have torrent software that can be set to not simultaneously upload.

      Transmission for the Mac is one such example. It can be set (with some care) to not upload at all.

    4. Re:That's a lot of money! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      And I almost forgot to add one other thing.

      One way the industry has tried to catch downloaders (but mainly uploaders) in the past has been to set up a "honeypot" of videos or music to download.

      But a court found that the security companies doing that, on behalf of the copyright holders, did not themselves possess any copyright.

      So the "honeypots" were guilty of the same violations as the people they were trying to catch.

    5. Re:That's a lot of money! by youngone · · Score: 4, Funny

      You wouldn't steal a handbag.
      You wouldn't steal a car.
      You wouldn't steal a baby.
      You wouldn't shoot a policeman. And then steal his helmet.
      You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet.
      And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow.
      And then steal it again!
      Downloading films is stealing. If you do it, you will face the consequences.

    6. Re:That's a lot of money! by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 1

      Fuck off... I've got a drawer full of stolen handbags and drive a stolen ride every day.

      These people don't know me!!! :-)

    7. Re:That's a lot of money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Referring to copyright infringement as stealing is a punishable offense in court and in contempt of the Supreme Court ruling since the Dowling v. United States case. Therefore in implying downloading is stealing you are breaking the law as set by the very nation which is at the forefront of copyright related issues. Just so you know.

    8. Re:That's a lot of money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop this "piracy is a copyright violation, and not a crime" speech. It doesn't help. Copyright violation IS a crime. The FBI can come after you. You can be sued into oblivion. You can go to jail. There is no practical difference between copyright violation and ANY OTHER CRIME. Corporations can practically write laws now, since any contractual agreement is backed up by law, and any violation can send the police/FBI/whatever law enforcement after you. Please cut the idealistic crap. It's nonsense. There is no difference between civil and criminal law now, as long as a corporation is involved, other than the fact that it is easier to be a criminal against the state than it is to be a violator of corporate policy.

    9. Re:That's a lot of money! by dragon-file · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't steal a baby.

      Of course I wouldn't steal a baby! Those things are annoying and needy. Why would someone want to steel one? And downloading isn't exactly steeling. Steeling implies you no longer have it because I took it from you. If I could clone a Ferrari in the same time it takes me to download a movie, you bet your ass I would.

      --
      Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
    10. Re:That's a lot of money! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      ...you forgot RAPIST millionaires and billionaires. I know they are all not, but it sure seems to be common in the industry. Casting couch anyone?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    11. Re:That's a lot of money! by youngone · · Score: 1

      So what I'm getting from your post is that you would go to the toilet in a policeman's helmet.

    12. Re:That's a lot of money! by dragon-file · · Score: 1

      So what I'm getting from your post is that you would go to the toilet in a policeman's helmet.

      Maybe. Depends on the situation. However I would definitely make a copy of a policeman's helmet if suddenly had the desire to.

      --
      Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
    13. Re:That's a lot of money! by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1
      One small nitpic: As far as I know, the only bittorrent clients that allow pure leeching are BitComet and its derivative BitLord (there's bitthief, but that is a research project). And as far as I know, many of the major torrent sites actively block those clients because they are leechers. (in addition to any criticisms about mishandling DHT and useless file padding). All of the sites where membership is required maintain sharing ratios and block or throttle downloads by members whose share ratio gets too far out of balance. Enforced share ratios benefit everybody in the swarm, not just the hosting sites reputation. Strict leeching only benefits an individual user and only to avoid legal complications. (an iffy proposition depending on your local laws). A healthy swarm can survive a certain percentage of leechers, but past a certain point it becomes self defeating since it ends up taking a lot longer to get your file(s) because there just isn't that many uploaders and they all likely have their clients set to only upload a certain percentage of their download rate. (in fact that is default behaviour in most clients)

      Private trackers where share ratios are enforced actually sometimes end up with the opposite problem. Torrents can get "overseeded", where uploaders struggle to meet share ratios because there are so many uploaders compared to the number of downloaders.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    14. Re:That's a lot of money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Depends on your country doesnt it? Here, we dont allow corporations to bully citizens and write their own laws.

      want another copywrite extension? pay off a gvt official
      wan harsher penalties (but not for the studios who have also been caught).. pay off a gv official...

    15. Re:That's a lot of money! by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      I'm getting real fucking sick of the "Won't someone please think of the millionaires and billionaires?!" argument.

      Who said that?

      It's a fallacy to think money loses value as it you get more of it. $850M is always $850M which is a shitload of money, to anyone and everyone, even to an industry with a revenue of 300x that (also, revenue != profit). It just doesn't work like that. Regardless, that's the industry, which is composed of thousands (or more) individuals and companies. It's not some gigantic hegemony all under one roof.

      Anyway, this sort of thinking is dangerous because it can be used to rationalize all manner of crime. Is it less of a crime to slip a steak into your shorts at the local grocery? They have a revenue of tens of millions of dollars a year, and that steak is only work $12. Is it less of a crime to break into your neighbor's home if that person makes 10x your wages? 5x? 2x? They have a nicer car than yours?

    16. Re:That's a lot of money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since this is hollywood we're talking about. Their new motto is 'won't someone think of the pedophiles!'.

    17. Re:That's a lot of money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree if we're talking about old-fashioned "piracy" such as torrenting, but online streaming is something else altogether. For movies, it really has the capacity to get people away from the movie theatres, and the potential to become truly devastating for overseas sales.

      For example, people in peripheral countries like mine (in South America) hear about a soon-to-released movie, and they can't wait to see it. So they watch it online, often in crappy quality but they don't care or they can't tell the difference. When the movie hits the local theatres some weeks or months later, they won't go watch it again.

      I don't think old-school "piracy" really ate into the profit margins of producers since it was never a mass phenomenon anyway (too steep a learning curve I guess) but this "click and you can watch it online" can be a true catastrophe even for the majors, who often reap most of their benefits from overseas territories -- and not to mention art-house theatre owners or distributors, many of whom are already struggling as it is.

    18. Re:That's a lot of money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Downloading films is stealing.

      Downloading music is worse (in the USA):
      http://libcom.org/files/downloading-communism.png

    19. Re:That's a lot of money! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Got to share that classic funny video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    20. Re:That's a lot of money! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Steel? :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    21. Re:That's a lot of money! by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you aren't uploading as you download, you are not "distributing". So you can't be a pirate.

      Interesting thought: if your upload is non-contiguous and your ratio is less than 1, maybe you were distributing material used under fair use?

    22. Re:That's a lot of money! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't download a car! Fuck you, you don't know me!

    23. Re:That's a lot of money! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Sidenote, I have actually pirated a physical object before. I needed a stead verticle cut in a piece of wood. The options were: a) buy a piece of plastic from Dremel for $50, b) download the piece of plastic from thingverse and have a friend print it for $2.50.

      Arrrrrr.

    24. Re:That's a lot of money! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Transmission will allow you to download without uploading. But one must be very careful of the settings. And sites don't block it, because the default settings are pretty common.

      Ratios are usually maintained almost entirely by the BitTorrent software. Few sites I've seen enforce ratios. In fact I don't even recall seeing one. Not that I have looked very much.

      Regardless, I was talking about the law, not "what everybody does".

    25. Re:That's a lot of money! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That has occurred to me, but I don't know of it yet being used as a defense in court.

      I'm not sure why it hasn't been, because it seems like a plausible argument. But I think it would have to be a lot less than 1.

  3. Only for provable loss of sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly, apply criminal charges for piracy... as long as, in such prosecutions, the MPAA proves, beyond doubt, rather than simply a preponderance of evidence (as required under criminal law) that each download or stream represents an actual lost sale to an MPAA member, rather than just a presumption of a lost sale, and that the value of such download or stream be capped at the value of the work in media available for purchase. I.e., if someone downloads a copy of a movie that could be purchased on DVD for $19.99, the MPAA has to prove that the downloader would have bought the DVD if the download were not available, and the value of the loss to the MPAA cannot exceed $19.99.

    1. Re:Only for provable loss of sales by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      also IP address are a poor match if you are going on ISP logs and the costs of the ISP's to do all of needed paper work.

    2. Re:Only for provable loss of sales by bobbied · · Score: 2

      I like how you think, but I seriously doubt that the MPPA would fund any politician that supported this idea so it isn't going to happen.

      Also, Criminal prosecution is one thing, and I think that those who make something distributing copyrighted works, if it be money, advertising revenue or something else of value should be subject to criminal charges should the local DA where the person was when the distribution took place decide it's worth it. But Civil suits are quite another. I like your idea that a downloader should only be liable for the fair market value of the material at the same resolution as determined by the retail value of the same general material.

      Also, if the material is NOT available for purchase because it's not yet been released at a retail price, the value of the settlement must be capped to the same rate collected per verified viewer as the distributor would have collected from the theaters at the time of viewing. So your first run bootleg copy of the latest blockbuster you show to 3 people would cost you no more than theater tickets would have.

      However, if the material is not available for retail sale, being out of print and not available for viewing in theaters, damages are limited to the average cost of a first release offered for retail sale in the last year.

      Also, MPPA should offer a "get legal" license, where you can buy a license for downloaded material for personal home use. This would allow you to keep the material you like and give the MPPA a way to get downloaders to "come clean" when they find them and if the MPPA offered rewards for disclosing the source of your download, could really generate some nice revenues and give them a way to issue DCA notices quicker to slow down the flood of material.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Only for provable loss of sales by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Certainly, apply criminal charges for piracy... as long as, in such prosecutions, the MPAA proves, beyond doubt, rather than simply a preponderance of evidence (as required under criminal law) that each download or stream represents an actual lost sale to an MPAA member, rather than just a presumption of a lost sale

      And (2): The punishment should be proportional to the crime. What's the punishment if I steal a DVD from a store? It should be less than that because I didn't actually deprive anybody of anything.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Only for provable loss of sales by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

      As Jane Q. Public pointed out above, the loss to Association members is a fraction of the profit, which is a fraction of the sale price. If the MPAA proves I would have purchased the DVD, and if I have Amazon Prime membership, then does part of the settlement go to Amazon? What if I have Netflix, too? What if I get all my DVDs at RedBox and the public library? Now I'm falling into the silliness...

    5. Re:Only for provable loss of sales by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Also, MPPA should offer a "get legal" license, where you can buy a license for downloaded material for personal home use. This would allow you to keep the material you like and give the MPPA a way to get downloaders to "come clean" when they find them

      "Hi, we noticed you shared out first run movie hundreds of times. Give us $9.99 and we'll call it even."

      Good luck with that.

    6. Re: Only for provable loss of sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My seed ratio has never been in the hundreds for anything let alone movies. Clearly I could not have shared anything hundreds of times. I will gladly pay double if it hits 2:1 though.

    7. Re:Only for provable loss of sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, MPPA should offer a "get legal" license, where you can buy a license for downloaded material for personal home use. This would allow you to keep the material you like and give the MPPA a way to get downloaders to "come clean" when they find them

      Actually that may work, I seem to recall them declaring that a "blank media tax" in certain countries.

      Of course, that's really just a burden for them, they'd much rather have the right to deduct from everyone's wages before taxes. Remember we're *all* dirty pirates to them.

    8. Re:Only for provable loss of sales by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Nope, they got their cake and got to eat it too. You have to pay the blank media extortion fee (on anything that could remotely contain something copyrighted, including hard drives, ssds and USB sticks... I better shut up before they notice that you can use paper to print pictures) while still not being allowed to make any copies.

      Essentially, what these con artists got away with was something banks would dream of: A fee they get to cash in on every gun and car because it could be used in a bank robbery, so everyone having and using one must compensate them for the damage done by those that actually use those things in such a fashion.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Only for provable loss of sales by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      At this point, you'd be in less trouble if you shot a clerk at Best Buy to get the actual DVD.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re: Only for provable loss of sales by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      let alone movies

      If you aren't torrenting movies they wouldn't have targeted you in the first place. Who knows what you are even talking about.

    11. Re: Only for provable loss of sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knows what you are even talking about.

      Anyone who knows anything about torrenting. Since you don't understand seed ratios, maybe you go back to the kids' table and let the adults talk.

    12. Re: Only for provable loss of sales by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Anyone who knows anything about torrenting. Since you don't understand seed ratios, maybe you go back to the kids' table and let the adults talk.

      Did you even read TFA or just see "torrent" and since you installed bittorrent you think you're an expert? If you aren't torrenting movies this discussion doesn't concern you. No one that uses bittorrent to download Linux ISOs is being targeted. Did you really think the suggestion was that they should just come to do the door of anyone that uses torrents and try to make them pay for a movie?

    13. Re: Only for provable loss of sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My response was to your comment: "Hi, we noticed you shared out [sic] first run movie hundreds of times". As I said, I don't seed anything "hundreds of times." You clearly know shit about bittorrent. Linux ISOs are frequently shared by torrents. Until recently downloading TAILS without torrenting was difficult in order to improve security verification.

      $150,000 statutory damaged per copyright infringement should be the clue bat upside your head that copyright law is seriously broken. A 1:1 seed ratio is not substantially different than making one complete copy of something and giving it to a friend. It is effectively the same as video taping something off HBO and lending it to your buddy was in the 80s and 90s. The copyright cartels want you to think is isn't.

    14. Re: Only for provable loss of sales by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      As I said, I don't seed anything "hundreds of times."

      Oh I see. When I said "Hi, we noticed..." you thought I was addressing you personally, and felt the need to answer my question telling me you do not personally share movies or seed.

      Linux ISOs are frequently shared by torrents.

      I said: "No one that uses bittorrent to download Linux ISOs is being targeted". Do you understand the difference?

      You clearly know shit about bittorrent

      Maybe. But you lack basic reading comprehension. I'd rather be me.

      Clearly I could not have shared anything hundreds of times.

      Not only do you have no morals around paying for content, you have no morals among pirates either. A leech is a leech. You as an expert in bittorrent should know that if everyone shared 1:1 nothing would be shared. So you rely on other people breaking the law to preserve your 1:1 ratio.

      It is effectively the same as video taping something off HBO and lending it to your buddy was in the 80s and 90s.

      I think if someone had invented a way to instantly copy VHS movies for free, and a way to instantly transfer the copied movies anywhere in the world for free they'd have had a problem with that as well. Just because they didn't run around prosecuting people that copied VHS movies doesn't mean they condoned it.

  4. Dying business model by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    Max Planck famously averred that science advances one funeral at a time. Ditto with this - we just have to wait for the dinosaurs in charge to the content companies to die for legal streaming to blossom.

    1. Re:Dying business model by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      It already has blossomed! See Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, Amazon Prime... next is when the petals fall off some of them and there's some consolidation. "The market" is still trying to figure our how much all of these back catalogs are worth, which is part of why everybody's trying to build up their own before they get into cross-licensing.

    2. Re:Dying business model by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      we just have to wait for the dinosaurs in charge to the content companies to die for legal streaming to blossom

      Streaming is legal. Ever heard of Netflix? Amazon?

  5. MPAA= Malarkey Promulators And Agitators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ZOMG the MPAA is being put out of business by pirates!

    (don't mention that the industry continues to rake in record profits.)

    1. Re:MPAA= Malarkey Promulators And Agitators by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 1

      You must be new to this game. You can't bring facts into an argument where the MPAA or RIAA are concerned, that's against the rules. I'm sorry, you're fired!

  6. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    North American piracy ecosystem generates $840 million per year.

    How is someone giving your shit packaged in candy coating away for free generating revenue?

    Maybe try making some content someone would be willing to pay for. You cut out piracy, it's not going to grow your bottom line like you think. You'll just have a bunch of people looking for something else to entertain them because they're not going to pay for your garbage. Those that are willing to pay for it already do.

    Stop putting up roadblocks, try to cooperate with the people that DO want to purchase your crap, and stop continually trying to bend the consumer over and shove it up their asses while telling them it's for their own good. I feel like the preceding sentence needs to be read and re-read by every corporate entity in the US over and over again until the faintest hint of comprehension begins to dawn on them.

    No hope that will actually happen at this point. Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!

    1. Re:What? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 2
      To be fair, piracy does indeed generate revenue. It's just a) not nearly as much revenue as might be realized by an absolutely enforced licensed distribution system and b) not coming into the coffers of RIAA/MPAA, similar organizations around the world and the member content owners.

      Let me give you some examples:

      1) A bit torrent site, well known for hosting a certain type of content, latest theatrical releases for example, gets a lot of traffic from people who want to download that content. Even though the desired content is effectively given away free and the servers and bandwidth needed to provide that service certainly are not, the site makes a profit through the ad revenue and any marketing data they can harvest and sell. For this case, the content owners should be collaborating on a competitive site where the content is available equally free, of guaranteed quality (encoding, bit rate etc) and legal. Their profits would come from the same sources as the pirate site. The reason they don't do this is because they can't let go of the idea of being able to sell that content, or better yet, rent it to the consumers.

      2) There are numerous streaming sites out there, many of whom are not paying license fees for their content. This is very prominent in the anime and hentai genres because Japanese production and distribution companies seem to be reluctant to do the subs, dubs and editing needed to legal market their content elsewhere. (CrunchyRoll not withstanding) Those sites are also making money on content they didn't pay for.

      3) There is a recent explosion in Android based digital media appliances whose core purpose is to access all of the free content available online, much of it unlicensed of course. RIAA and the MPAA aren't getting any royalties on that hardware and they can't let go of the idea that they should be. (much like the surtax levied on CD-Rs)

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    2. Re:What? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm pretty sure those 840m is WAY more than could be generated by selling licensed content because only a tiny fraction of those copying content would actually even consider paying for it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:What? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, but what I actually said was that they should give away the content at the exact same pricing of torrent sites (namely free, but with perhaps a registered email address and site account). Their competitive advantage would be several-fold: 1) They can guarantee the quality and security of the downloaded content 2) Being legal, they can probably get a high per-click rate from advertisers and would likely have a LOT more traffic than most current torrent sites get. 3) They can readily and fairly easily do tie-ins for merchandise, fan clubs and so on. PirateBay and KickAssTorrents can't offer you t-shirts, boxed sets, autographed pictures and so on.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    4. Re:What? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Or they could do what all the other "free" pages do and demand to know everything about you including your shoe size and dick length. That could really become a gold mine, considering their market demographics is dead centered in the very interesting 14-30 years age bracket, it's near impossible that they go out of fashion with the regrowing kids (like Facebook does, it's considered the social media for old people among kids today) and that market demographics doesn't have anything to offer anyway in large quantity but their marketable details and lots of time, and the willingness to jump through any hoops you present to be the first to hear the new song from pop star idol du jour.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Just another case .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of wishful thinking .. pulling nice big numbers out of the air without any substantiation. Not every pirate will convert and not every paying customer will pay every time.

    Its the little things. Like not assuming that every family can afford $100 a weekend for movies. Not producing crap and charging extra because it has 7.2 vs 5.1 sound or is also available in 3-D. Or not making remakes of movies that were crappy originally ( Gone in 60 seconds, being the only notable exception).

    I haven't been to a theater in over a decade. And most of the time, I won't buy a DVD/BD until it is $5 or less and forget TV shows at $2 an episode .. I can usually by the DVD/BD for less than $1.50 an episode.

    Easy solution .. quit cooking the books, and only pay the actors based on file performance and if they don't like that find new talent.

  8. Trade you ... by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... stronger anti-piracy measures for a hard 25 year limit on copyright term. We can't have our law enforcement people chase down every copy of Steamboat Willie.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Trade you ... by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      ... stronger anti-piracy measures for a hard 25 year limit on copyright term. We can't have our law enforcement people chase down every copy of Steamboat Willie.

      They created the problem and now have the audacity to bitch about it. So fuck 'em I don't care how long copyright terms are. 7 years, 25 years, 10 billion years - I'm still not in compliance.

  9. Only if there was technology by future+assassin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that the industry could use to stream an archive of all old and new movies and shows to a persons home through the internet for a nice affordable price. Maybe one day someone will invent it.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Only if there was technology by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could put them all on one service. Some place on the InterNET where all the FLIX are available. They could call it FLIXNET!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Only if there was technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One service sounds like shit; I wouldn't use something like that. But I do insist on one user interface; a single unified client. (This role is currently played by my file manager and mpv, primarily used to show me pirated files I downloaded).

      What they need, in order to compete with piracy, is one standard API for my frontend. While I'm still not very excited about streaming (face it, it will never be as good as download + playback from local storage) it would probably be good enough. It just needs a standard API and many, many, many competing players. So many players that there's no way they would have to license anything; the API would have to be actually standardized, so that anyone can implement it.

      That would be a good TV. Almost as good as my pirate TV. And way better than what people who don't pirate, have to put up with. It just might be enough that piracy's numbers would eventually level off, or possibly even decline.

      Therefore, the MPAA will never do it, because they only lobby for things that increase piracy.

    3. Re:Only if there was technology by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      You mean the same Netflix that currently has about 5000 titles available for streaming? That sounds like a lot less than "an archive of all old and new movies and shows".

    4. Re:Only if there was technology by suutar · · Score: 1

      they _could_ put them all on netflix. They haven't, because they still think they can extract more money in other ways.

    5. Re:Only if there was technology by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The problem with Netflix is, if they have a movie and it achieves more than 7 on imdb (in other words, it is good) you have probably already seen it years ago.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Only if there was technology by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      No they can't. They've reduced their streaming catalog by half over the past ten years due to licensing fees. They always knew this would happen, which is why they put so much money into original content. The likelihood of a specific movie you enjoyed in the past being currently available for streaming is very small.

    7. Re:Only if there was technology by luther349 · · Score: 1

      they did that with netflicks then shit all over it with all the me to services.

    8. Re:Only if there was technology by luther349 · · Score: 1

      as more and more company's pull there movies from netflicks because they are pulling the me to garbage there libary is starting to be mostly originals and old seasons of tv shows. they dont get cord cutters are not going to subscribe to 7 different services paying the same thing they did for cable in the end. the jacked up pricing is why they cut the tv out.

    9. Re:Only if there was technology by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      That's partly because the media companies were threatened by Netflix's size. They saw how the music companies gave Apple their content and then Apple grew large enough to dictate the terms. The media companies want to prevent that and are actively working to knock Netflix down. Part of this process is to starve Netflix of content either by not renewing licenses or by raising the price of licences so that Netflix won't renew. They don't really care that this might drive people to piracy, in fact they're convinced that it'll make people flock to theaters and buy DVD/Blu-Ray discs. (It won't.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    10. Re:Only if there was technology by suutar · · Score: 1

      I apologize; I was unclear. By "they" I meant the rightsholders. Netflix would love to have a bigger catalog, I'm sure.

  10. Overreach by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

    Missing from the summary is:

    Angling for tougher measures to fight that activity, the MPAA calls for "civil and criminal actions against creators of pirate add-on software and the repository web sites that host them, against distributors of the preloaded devices, and against the entities streaming the content." [...] The MPAA wants to see stronger charges against a broader range of infringing organizations.

    I was trying to figure out their angle because the MPAA already has pretty sharp teeth to prosecute pirates IF they can get to them. I support the idea of being able to shut down these add-on's that are solely used for piracy but I worry that it opens the door to other things that are used for piracy but have legitimate uses as well.

    In the end it will always come down to this. If it can be seen or heard it WILL be pirated. The best way to minimize piracy is to make the content easily available at an affordable rate. This has happened for a lot of content.

    1. Re:Overreach by aitikin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I support the idea of being able to shut down these add-on's that are solely used for piracy but I worry that it opens the door to other things that are used for piracy but have legitimate uses as well.

      But what is solely used for piracy? I know a lot of people who have Plex servers filled with stuff they actually own and ripped and share their servers with friends. I know a lot of people with Plex servers that they obtained everything on it and share it with their friends. I also own lots of movies that are on my friend's server, but I don't feel like finding the disc for them (probably still in a moving box) so I stream it from said server...does that mean that I'm pirating it? If I had a Kodi box and did the same thing, would that mean I pirated it? I have yet to find a piece of tech that is solely used for piracy.

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    2. Re:Overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I support the idea of being able to shut down these add-on's that are solely used for piracy but I worry that it opens the door to other things that are used for piracy but have legitimate uses as well.

      Seriously, writing a python script to search YouTube, NicoNico, et al should put you in jail. I guess we should throw the creator of web scrapers in jail as well for helping piracy since that's 99% of what the add-ons are.

  11. Legitimate Kodi user tells MPAA to eff off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use multiple Kodi boxes to stream within my own home content from my DVR and my NAS.

    Every household in the country and the world could have a Kodi box assuming they have a device that can support Kodi software - just about anything from a 10 year old computer to 7 year old smartphone and various appliances.

    There may be plugins that allow me to pirate content I have not paid for... to me it's not even worth bothering with I do not have the time to watch all the content I've already got. Moreover, I would only access such "pirate" content were the means to obtain it legally more difficult than using the pirate system.

    They need to stop grubbing for every last penny; it will only backfire against them and further reduce their revenues from negative publicity.

    1. Re:Legitimate Kodi user tells MPAA to eff off by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      How did you get that content into your NAS.. There are very fer places in the world where you can rip a DVD or Blu-Ray and not be a 'pirate' already just for doing that.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  12. Copyright Wall of Shame reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Link sources/citations provided within:
    https://thisguy1337s-place.000webhostapp.com/#wall

    The Copyright Wall-Of-Shame
    Reminder for all that 9 out of 10 times, the people who make a shitstorm about morality and ethics are the same people who don't abide by them and actually do worse things. This number increases to 10/10 with anti-pirate collectives as they have been observed and proven in these past few years of:

    88. Adobe failing to pay licensing fees on the sales of Adobe products that contained Dolby technology by refusing to provide the agreed upon sales audits for multiple years over. Demonstrating that the largest and most wealthiest of copyright enthusiasts will also happily ignore copyright conditions when it suits their own agenda.

    87. Copyright enthusiast David Lowery casting criticism at professor Michael Geist over the importance of copyright acknowledgement all while failing to obtain the proper license on an image shared in the Blog post.

    86. FlightSimLabs planting SecurityXploded.Com's ChromePasswordDump v5.5 to successfully capture the stored Google Chrome passwords of users who are allegedly using product keys that are found on file-sharing sites.

    85. The company behind the 2015 drama film Fathers & Daughters having their copyright infringement case being dismissed due to the company's exclusive rights to the movie being sold to a company called Vertical Entertainment who were not part of the lawsuit. (orig)

    84. Youtube allowing multiple RIAA members to claim & monetize an uploaded video that contained nothing but white static noise. Illustrating that copyright is fundamentally broken and is only suitable to benefit a very select privileged few.

    83. Music copyright advocates using the DMCA and domain seizures to cause irreparable harm to mash up sites like Sowndhaus & Spinrilla by taking action of litigation without ever notifying the website owners of the claim of infringement.

    82. Epic Games' taking aggressive judicial action against a 14 year old "Fortnite" cheater over the usage of an online game cheat and multiple free accounts registered with fake email addresses. Demonstrating that copyright litigation is often the action of choice with little consideration of who may be targeted.

    81. ABC, AOL, CBS Broadcasting, NBCUniversal, NPR, Time, Viacom, Warner Bros, Yahoo and Ziff Davi settling with numerous photographers due to infringing use of their photographs found throughout their News & Blog articles. In which CBS later counter sue due to a Gunsmoke screen shot being posted on social media in an attempt to reduce their damage settlement. Demonstrating that not even those who actively litigate copyright law don't bare any respect for it.

    80. New Zealand's ruling National Party being forced to pay $600k for infringing the copyrights of Eminem's track "Lose Yourself" due to using a derivative song with a similar melody for their campaign ad demonstrating that even when obtaining proper licenses will not prevent a copyright related lawsuit.

    79. Four officials of the Russian site-blocking body Rozcomnadzor, (including spokesman, top lawyer, and Anastasiya Zvyagintseva) being charged with fraud and stand accused of having 'employed' ghost staff whose salaries were actually paid to existing employees, on top of their own money all while being allowed to block 4,000 sites on copyright grounds with an additional 41,000 innocent websites blocked as collateral damage demonstrating that copyright law often leaves a trail of harm rather than any potential good.

    78. Game developer Atlus targeting the Patreon page of the RPCS3 (Playstation 3) emulator with a DMCA takedown notice due to a comment which sta

    1. Re:Copyright Wall of Shame reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's quite a list. But I didn't see the one where Sony got a non-exclusive license and then killed the copyright holders upload on youtube

    2. Re:Copyright Wall of Shame reminder by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hmm? The funniest one didn't even make the list, where UBIsoft infringed on the copyright of RELOADED?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Markets by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

    and the North American piracy ecosystem generates $840 million per year

    I thought the MPAA members never showed a profit? That's what I hear about a lot of movies. (Must be accounting errors -- stupid beancounters, can't even count*.)

    GooGEL says: Modern film industry. The worldwide theatrical market had a box office of US$38.6 billion in 2016.

    And: Their lack of profitability, in fact, is typical. Over 80% of Hollywood movies fail to turn a profit. ... For each new film, a movie "is set up as its own corporation, the entire point of which is to lose money" by paying fees to the studio producing the movie.

    While 2Q7: Sony has recorded a full-year net profit of $655M, a 50% fall from the previous year, while its Pictures division posted a loss of $719M year-on-year, driven by box office underperformance.

    Maybe this is pointing the way to a new market where they CAN make a profit. Or am I missing the point?

    -------

    * link
    There once was a business owner who was interviewing people for a division manager position. He decided to select the individual that could answer the question "how much is 2+2?"

    The engineer pulled out his slide rule and shuffled it back and forth, and finally announced, "It lies between 3.98 and 4.02".
    The mathematician said, "In two hours I can demonstrate it equals 4 with the following short proof."
    The physicist declared, "It's in the magnitude of 1x10^1."
    The logician paused for a long while and then said, "This problem is solvable."
    The social worker said, "I don't know the answer, but I a glad that we discussed this important question.
    The attorney stated, "In the case of Svenson vs. the State, 2+2 was declared to be 4."
    The trader asked, "Are you buying or selling?"
    The accountant looked at the business owner, then got out of his chair, went to see if anyone was listening at the door and pulled the drapes. Then he returned to the business owner, leaned across the desk and said in a low voice, "What would you like it to be?"

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    1. Re:Markets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I spotted his mistake. With that interview question, the best he could get would be an addition manager.

  14. Kodi box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have a box with Kodi on it. All content in my library is ripped from media purchased legally and I don't use any illegal streaming services.

    Would pay money for legal standard IPTV streams I could aggregate into my TVH server yet no such thing exists. There are many services that cost money and appear to be legit... many people use them without realizing their true nature.

    What I won't pay for are separate spy sticks and spy boxes, that require HDMI ports I don't have and nonstandard streaming services that only work from "apps". If it won't run from Kodi and appear in a single unified interface it might as well not exist because I'm not interested. I refuse to waste my time screwing around with changing sources and running different apps because the industry is too busy playing games and fragmenting everything and can't get it's shit together.

    The industry could either give users what they want at reasonable cost or they can live with the consequences. The MPAA as a lobby isn't powerful enough to do jack shit.

  15. 2nd Act of the FOSTA/SESTA play by Wisp · · Score: 1

    Now that we have an precedent set on making exemptions from the CDA, I expect they are going to push for another to really give this teeth.... and all they need is some compliant legislators.

      the MPAA calls for "civil and criminal actions against creators of pirate add-on software and the repository web sites that host them, against distributors of the preloaded devices, and against the entities streaming the content."

  16. Who will advocate in the opposite direction? by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The MPAA has money to send a 40-page writeup when comments are being solicited.

    What organization can we donate to that will make 40-page writeups in the OPPOSITE direction when comments are being solicited? And advocate for reducing overaggressive enforcement, loosening the stranglehold on the public domain, and promote expansion of fair use, and insisting some piracy be accepted as long as companies can still make a fair profit AND alternate solutions (when there is a real problem to be solved --- other than companies earnestly trying to squeeze out 5% more profit or something by promiting fascist regulations and enforcement) and less severe penalties against individuals?

    If us individual consumers and americans aren't represented in these kinds of solicitations for comments, then what will happen is only the MPAA will have the ears of our representatives, and they'll get one-sided laws passed whatever they want.

    1. Re:Who will advocate in the opposite direction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EFF. "The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation."

    2. Re:Who will advocate in the opposite direction? by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      advocate for reducing overaggressive enforcement, loosening the stranglehold on the public domain, and promote expansion of fair use

      That won't work; it'd be going the other way -- the MPAA (and RIAA) is a ratchet racket.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    3. Re:Who will advocate in the opposite direction? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 2

      That would be the Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    4. Re:Who will advocate in the opposite direction? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Really? Where is the EFF's submission to National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) call for comments regarding internet policy concerns. ? It seems like the EFF are asleep at the switch then, how much do they do anyways?; It's clear from these kinds of outputs that the corporates are far more Up on their game and aggressive in their lobbying....

  17. Fair is fair by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Go after the people actually making money off piracy, not the naive kids trying to watch a free movie!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  18. I also want criminal charges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...brought up against anyone who dares to threaten *my* business model.

    (Then, when it comes time to pay taxes, the MPAA members... oh, lookee! a flying elephant!).

  19. cattle barons by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    US Law enforcement has always been in the pockets of the Plutocracy to enforce profits. From Land Barons, Intellectual Property tactics haven't changed.

  20. Hey MPAA, why not make some money yourselves? by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 1

    People are switching to streaming (VOD) services at a surprising rate (as they did with music) but it seems that the MPAA still isn't happy.

    If they wan't to kill piracy, why not set up their own dropbox service and write their own plugin for Kodi and effectively out-pirate the pirates.

    Hell, if they did that (thus legitimizing this activity) I'd gladly pay $100 a year for access. Now let's see, $850m divided by 100 -- gosh, they'd only need 8.5 million subscribers to completely wipe out their current (alleged) losses.

    Sounds do-able to me.

    But then again, we all know that some people (and organizations) aren't happy unless they're complaining about something and if there was no piracy, the MPAA would be very sad indeed.

    1. Re:Hey MPAA, why not make some money yourselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That business model cuts out the profits of all the middlemen... Lawyers, ISPs, Cableco's, Lawyers, Attorneys, Paralegals, and Lawyers. Without them movies would only cost $2 at the box office and cable TV would only cost $15/month.

  21. um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    proving people know about this will lead to arbitray enforcement. I can't support locking up people for "pirating" movies

  22. People dying of starvation and ... pirates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes I get really sick of how people are starving, banking assholes that ruin the economy get off, the world is dying from pollution, drug addiction is becoming worse across the planet, corruption runs whole countries... and we have to stop everything to help these rich fucks and their war on poor people that like entertainment.

    1. Re:People dying of starvation and ... pirates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I get really sick of how people are starving, banking assholes that ruin the economy get off, the world is dying from pollution, drug addiction is becoming worse across the planet, corruption runs whole countries... and we have to stop everything to help these rich fucks and their war on poor people that like entertainment.

      This is the result of the end of the cold war and the successful defeat of left wing politics by the right - aka total war on everyone who is not rich. Class war writ large without any counter force because of stupidity and ignorance of the average citizen.

  23. Pirates have a better service. by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

    They really need to offer a service that is as good as or better than the pirate site.
    The pirate sites are better designed and faster than Netflix, Hulu, and the like.
    I get actual files and not some stream
    A lot more content.
    That is the biggest one. Even if you had a sub for all the major streaming services, I would be willing to bet that the pirates have 95% on the content vs the 80% the totality of the streaming sites would have.

    --
    The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    1. Re:Pirates have a better service. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They really need to offer a service that is as good as or better than the pirate site.

      Here's a reason why it's not possible. Stolen property can be chosen for all the products available, while legal products can only be chosen from a set that is available on current market and what you can afford to buy. This is why you'd steal a BMW, but legal entities would buy a FIAT, even though it's not as good quality than brand new BMW. Thus pirates can always provide better quality product. The difference between BMW and FIAT is that BMW takes alot more effort to create and thus the price is higher. Criminals don't need to think about issues like that.

  24. What's good for the goose... by Solandri · · Score: 1

    The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is stepping into the online video piracy debate and calling for criminal charges against violators

    I'm OK with that, if we also make it a crime to falsely claim a violation of your copyright when clearly no such violation exists. If some copyright association entity gets your YouTube video pulled because their automated algorithm mistakes the cadence of birds singing in the background for a copyrighted song, someone at that association has to go to jail.

  25. They donâ(TM)t want to get rid of piracy by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    If they did, whom would the MPAA / RIAA sue ?

    Litigation is a spectacular money maker. Not one they plan on abandoning anytime soon.

    Even if they have to seed the torrents themselves.

  26. Footnote by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    The folks who are calculating their âoe losses âoe due to piracy are the very same people who claim, through magic math, that $movie ( which made a Billion in sales worldwide ) wasnâ(TM)t profitable.

    All so they donâ(TM)t have to pay those very same people theyâ(TM)re claiming to be protecting from the evil pirates :|

  27. Movies from HollyWood out the door please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why bother watching movies from Holly Wood? There is other things to watch.
    Like, B rated movies, Documented movies online for free, International Movies, short movies, etc.
    Some movies I watched from Holly Wood is soo crappy that Holly Wood owes me money for watching that crappy movie wasting my time.
    I am worth $300 dollars per hour.

  28. Wasted resources for rich hollywood by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    We won’t help gamgam and pawpaw who got conned out of thousands trying to get their grandson jimmy out of jail, but he was never under arrest in the first place. Won’t chase down the guys selling credit cards. Or the dudes phishing for social security numbers and bank logins.

    But we will sure as hell throw a college student in prison and fine him the value of a nice car or house for fucking bootlegging a shifty film like the hurt locker.

    Bullshit. It’s not because we can’t catch the fraudsters, it’s because we won’t because gamgam and paw paw don’t have as much money as Hollywood.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  29. No point in trying to sugar coat it. by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    The MPAA is (one of) the enemy of a free and open internet.

    Anything you can do to hurt them is good.

  30. Trump is at War with Hollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the rest of the entertainment business too. Robert de Niro and his "F-bomb Trump" at this years Tony Awards is just the latest proof of the ongoing feud. The MPAA will get exactly nothing in Washington for their lobbying dollars as long as Trump is in power. The liberal Hollywood left could never bring themselves to "kneel before Zod" and beg Trump's forgiveness, so they will continue to get nothing until 2020 and maybe until 2024 if Trump wins a second term.

  31. Full comments available by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Not mentioned in the article, the comments are Here

    Shoot... Verizon is even there with a comment on how the NTIA should focus on reducing public use of radio spectrum and making more spectrum to be licensed to commercial telecom carriers.