Movie Industry to sue File Sharers

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."

Not so long ago, the EFF suggested just this.

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.

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.

Re:Not so long ago, the EFF suggested just this.

... I currently use Kazaa to share out a handful of audio sermons from my church's pastor ...

You're tricking a bit the kazaa credit system, eeh? Cool way of having a gig of mp3 available that you know nobody is gonna download.

Now that we have proven...

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...

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?

Politics and Business Pendlum analogy works

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...

"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.

Re:Now that we have proven...

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.

Movie-goers Sue Movie Industry

For making nothing but shit, year after year.

Re:what has the world come to

Suing customers [...]

Um, I think the point is that they are NOT paying customers...

Re:what has the world come to

They just want to steal more money from more people.

Fill me in here in case I missed something, but how are the movie theaters stealing money from anyone? I mean, at least you can claim (however implausibly) that stealing music is okay because the companies make rediculous margins and rip off the artists. That doesn't even remotely apply to movie studios though, it's not like actors are underpaid (in fact, I understand they have a very strong union), and the amount they charge customers is far less relatively speaking. I mean, paying a few bucks to see a $200million movie isn't a bad deal.

So to reiterate my question, how are the movie companies stealing your money?

Re:what has the world come to

By charging $13 (in NZ) for a ticket and $3 for a poxy single-scoop ice cream!

Well, if you're going and paying that, you must think it's worth it. If you're not going, well, then you clearly haven't been robbed of anything at all. Besides, $13NZ for movies which can cost tens of millions of times that to produce is hardly unreasonable. Nor is $40NZ for a DVD, and the simple fact it is illegal so complaining "how dare they accuse me of being a criminal" when you pirate the movie is rediculous, since you quite simply are a criminal for it.

I should add the note here that I do have a number of downloaded movies off the internet, so I'm certainly not passing moral judgment on people for doing that, since it'd be simply hypocritical. What pisses me off isn't people who download copyrighted material, it's people who are self-righteous about it, convinced they have a god-given right to do so, and think any copyright owner who dares try to stop them is evil for doing so. If I got busted for piracy, sure I'd be pissed off, but I wouldn't think it unfair, any more than I'd be annoyed at getting a traffic ticket for driving 10kph over the speed limit, it's annoying, but a fair cop.

Re:what has the world come to

No, this is Slashdot.

Nobody takes away the God-given right of a Slashdotter to share music and movies, not to mention watch movies for free. And anybody who makes money out of anything that has anything to do with the movie or music industry is evil, and it is the right of a Slashdotter to rip them off and distribute the spoils among the poor downtrodden geeks of the Slash-wood forest.

On the other hand, when EFF suggests the same thing [com.com], these same people stay quiet and not say a word.

Bloody pirate hypocrites. ARRRRRRRR! x-(

Re:what has the world come to

Let me get this straight, you are violating copyright and watching movies for free and THEY are stealing?

Who modded this interesting? Have I just been trolled?

Re:what has the world come to

I think, the point is, that BECAUSE they are "not paying customers", they represent ZERO lost revenue.

The presumption that the ones who don't buy, WOULD buy if they couldn't download is specious at best.

The total, _ACTUAL_ "lost revenue" to movie snarfing is almost certianly LESS than the cost of one lawyer for one case.

These people should be persuing the people who MINT and SELL full bootlegs. This online trading stuff is literally NOTHING.

It's actually probably even a net gain from word of mouth.

(And I have *NEVER* downloaded a movie via USENET, any p2p application, or similar. I BUY DVDs.)

The people who will buy, buy. The people who won't, don't. The people who *may* don't exist.

Only the industrial bootleggers represent actual lost revenue. The "traders" are only a threat the the CERTIAN DREAMS OF AVERICE of certian ??AA organizations.

So it is STUPID to piss off your customers and splashing them with shit because you are chasing the shadow of a penny you _thought_ you _might_ _have_ seen rolling down a sewer.

Re:what has the world come to

First the RedSox, then Bush. And now this.

So this is what the third horseman looks like ;)

Ahoy, folks. The end is nigh.

Re:what has the world come to

You know if you read revelations it says that the anti christ will be seen as a savior and that the majority of the people will follow him.

Something to think about next time Bush talks about god.

Stargate Atlantis

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

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.

conspiracy theorists rejoice

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

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

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

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

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

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

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.

Re:conspiracy theorists rejoice

Let's make this clear:

The Democrats created the DMCA.


It's traditional to cite such things. It often makes for a stronger argument, assuming the facts support it.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Public Law 105-304) was sponsored in the House by a Howard Coble [loc.gov], a republican (NC-6th). In the senate, it was sponsored by Orrin Hatch, also a Republican (UT).

The Democrats extended copyrights.

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (Public Law 105-298) was also sponsored by Orrin Hatch [loc.gov]. It was named for a Republican congressman. In the House, it was sponsored by, (get this!) Howard Coble of North Carolina.

Yeah yeah, some Democrats are listed as cosponsors. And both bills did garner the votes of both Republicans and Democrats. Details, details.

Please

Shhh.. don't say anything about Usenet

What ?!

NOOOO!!!! I havent finished downloading all the episodes for my "Doctor Who" collection..

May I plug i2hub....

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....

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....

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..

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..

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

'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.