MPAA Blames BitTorrent for Star Wars Distribution 1196
AI Playground writes "Slyck News reports on
the MPAA's press release (.doc) blaming the BitTorrent protocol for the leak of Episode III. MPAA President and CEO Dan Glickman: 'There is no better example of how theft dims the magic of the movies for everyone than this report today regarding BitTorrent providing users with illegal copies of Revenge of the Sith. The unfortunate fact is this type of theft happens on a regular basis on peer to peer networks all over the world.'"
And this is news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, BitTorrent is responsible. The author of this un-American software should be arrested immediately and pay a fine of 400 million to the starving author of Star Wars.
You, sir, are most correct! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You, sir, are most correct! (Score:5, Insightful)
2. I don't recall anybody but my friends/family worrying after I got robbed/stolen from (it happened few times... even after I got kicked multiple times in the head they told me to wait patiently at the hospital for several hours before any doctor spoke to me). Why in the world would we give a shit about people that aren't even "neutral strangers", but people we honestly dislike (MPAA)? I didn't go outdoors to find that guy and smash his head. And that's exactly what MPAA and other fatties are doing. Here's one recent example [slashdot.org]. They do a lot of nasty things, which are immoral to people that are far less strict than I am. 3. Stealing $100 from me means I'm losing $100. Downloading illegal movies means they are not getting extra $xx. Little difference, but still, a difference.
4. I personally believe that it's morally worse (yes, I'm a relativist) to be a fat guy that chases little ones than to be a little guy and steal intellectual property from fat guys.
Re:You, sir, are most correct! (Score:4, Interesting)
> movies means they are not getting extra $xx. Little difference, but
> still, a difference.
This argument has been played out, but can't ever been proven. It's been used by software "pirates" for years. The regular argument is, "I'll use it if it's free, but if I have to pay, I'm not interested."
I'm sure there are more than a fair share of Linux users out there, who used the older versions of Windows, and now that it's more difficult (but not impossible) to acquire a free copy, they find it easier to use the free solution.
That's not to say Linux users are theives. I'm a Linux user and administrator, with over 150 boxes. I use it because it's better (IMHO).
Back to the question at hand.. Do the people downloading this movie intend to watch it at the theater? Maybe, maybe not. I didn't pre-buy my ticket. I didn't wait in long lines. I didn't see it, and have no intention to kill myself doing it. Now, if someone handed me a DVD with a pirated copy burned on it, and I watched that, did it make a financial difference to MPAA, or the Star Wars enterprise? Nope, not in the freakin' least. **BUT** they'll scream piracy if they found out.
I'd be more than willing to say, a good number of the people (Errr, immoral bastards, in MPAA terms) who are downloading it, not only already spent the money on a ticket and watched it in the theater, but they're the big fans. They have VHS, DVD, and Laser Disc copies of every Star Wars movie ever released. They have an action figure collection dating back to when they were 5 years old. They can say "Luke, I'm your father", with a straight face.
But yes, it's still stealing. Even if it doesn't apply to you, the fact that this commercial product (yes, Star Wars is a commercial product), because they are only offering it as a *PAY* product, it is only a pay product, and it is not up to the general public to make the decisions for them.
Lets twist this for you. Think sexuality.
People like having sex. Most people love having sex.
Some people charge for having sex.
If a woman charges $200/hr to have sex with her. This is her commercial product.
If you see this same woman, is not working at a particular moment, due to not having a paying client, should you be allowed to take a free romp? Sure, why not, that's what she does, and she's just sitting there.
I think the same of Ferarri's. I go down to a dealership twice a week, and when I see a Ferarri just sitting there, all lonely, with no owner, I steal the car, and drive it around. It wants to be driven, right?
So, the movie wants to be watched, right? No. You want to watch it, and if you're going to watch it, you're going to pay for the product, just like you would with the whore, or you would in buying the Fererri.
Myself, I'm happy without having a whore, without having a Fererri, and without seeing this particular episode of Star Wars. I may have one of each someday, I won't make any decisions quite yet.
Rape = download? Who modded this guy insightful? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow...Just, wow.
I know multiple women who have been raped (and, if you check out the anonymous survey statistics, chances are you do as well) and I'd like to see you try to tell them that their being raped is comparable in any way to downloading a movie without permission.
I know what you were trying to say (trying to paint copyright as an absolute moral right--an idea so historically rejected and antithetical to the original conceptions of copyright in the US that that in and of itself deserves to get you kicked out of the room), but if you can't see how watching a movie without permission and raping a woman might -- just might -- be too incongruous subjects for analogy, then there isn't much more to say.
Re:You, sir, are most correct! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You, sir, are most correct! (Score:4, Insightful)
I would have recognised it as a method of slashing my manufacture and distribution overheads and therefore a way of increasing profits.
Just as the RI/MPAA have manifestly failed to.
Re:You, sir, are most correct! (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, the excitement around the movie was probably heightened by early reviews that came out from folks who had seen it illegally. I know I was in a theater auditorium live on a MUD (on my Blackberry, yes I'm a geek) and someone said they had already seen it 12 hours ago but were going again that day. They had also already encouraged others to go see it.
Hollywood seems to believe that everyone is out to rob them. The truth is that when a movie is good, folks WANT to see it on the big screen and folks WANT to reward Hollywood for a job well done.
Where BitTorrent might have an impact would be on a BAD movie -- and that is what I think Hollywood is really worried about. Did you see the backlash against cell phones and SMS after The Hulk came out? It's dissapointing start was largely blamed on early messages floating around telling folks how bad it was, causing them to cancel plans to see it.
I, for one, think Hollywood should embrace technology more. I have a 1-year old child, and seeing the midnight debut of Ep III was a MAJOR hassle. Had they provided me with a legal way to see it in high quality, I would gladly have paid more than a theater price for the convenience.
Re:You, sir, are most correct! (Score:5, Insightful)
When it's what you do all day it's difficult not to expect it from others.
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot that BitTorrent hides alien contact in Area 51, and that it also stole WMD's from Iraq just as we were going in. Also, it made me sterile just by watching a downloaded movie.
Sera
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Funny)
Every time you leech from BitTorrent, God kills a kitten.
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Funny)
Also I heard that the RIAA is suing FTP for the lack luster sales of Ashlee Simpson's CD.
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Funny)
Actually its probably the MPAAs fault, if there were no movies there'd be no piracy...
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I'm simply passing on to you the tip not to bother trying that one.
the blame game (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the blame game (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the blame game (Score:5, Informative)
Not only BitTorrent (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, BitTorrent is responsible.
No, no, no! Not only that! I got mine via FTP, so FTP is responsible as well! And I found the FTP-link by the web, so I guess that makes HTTP responsible as well.
Oh.. and they all use IP. Which would make IP the one mainly responsible for the IP-theft! Yup. Sounds like double-A logic to me.
MPAA's at fault (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not only BitTorrent (Score:5, Informative)
Its funny... the fact that the newsgroups never make it on the news.
"on the newsgroups first." (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not only BitTorrent (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I'm 100% in favour of the MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, for a few nasty moments there I thought it was the shitty dialogue, the obscene toy commercialism, and the crude racial sterotyping that was doing it, but now I know it is BitTorrent, so I can uninstall Azereus and get my childhood back...
I still remember my Dad deciding I should go and see Star Wars despite the pain in
my bad leg, and I still love him so much for it, and it's good to know that a easy to uninstall protocol is what tried (and failed!) to piss on that memory.
What makes it a really noble announcement by the MPAA is the fact that, since I have bought DVDs of every single non-shite film I ever downloaded via Bittorrent, removing Azereus will decrease MPAA member revenue.
You have to salute people who are willing to make a stand for what they belive in!
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's all it is. Nothing magic, evil, or anything.
The only reason the MPAA doesn't like it is because it happens to be prohibitively expensive for someone who isn't making money off of it to distribute lots of content in the old days. The MPAA makes lots of money from licensing their content, so they don't care if it's expensive for a content producer to distribute data. P2P simply happens to reduce cost to content producers (good for individuals who can produce worthwhile content, like open source authors or Red vs Blue artists) below the point where individuals without scads of money can infringe on copyrights held on very large files like movies.
The attacks the MPAA is making against P2P are attacks against inexpensive content distribution, and all those that rely on it and those that benefit from it.
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Interesting)
"The only reason the MPAA doesn't like it is because it happens to be prohibitively expensive for someone who isn't making money off of it to distribute lots of content in the old days."
More to the point, the MPAA doesn't like piracy because they see piracy as lost sales. They exist to support their members, who are for-profit companies that rely on sales to stay in business.
"The attacks the MPAA is making against P2P are attacks against inexpensive content distribution, and all those that rely on it and those that benefit from it."
On the contrary, I think the MPAA has done a pretty good job so far (compared to the RIAA, at least) of understanding the difference between the distinct concepts of "P2P" and "using P2P for piracy." Case in point, the MPAA has been going after tracker sites that specialize in pirated content, yet ignoring the (alas, far less popular) sites that distribute only permission-based content.
Ironically, when we make statements to the effect of "The MPAA is attacking P2P" (and I've seen your sentiment expressed a lot around here), it is we who are blurring the lines between the concept of P2P and the specific act of using P2P in a way that violates others' rights.
If we want the content-neutral concept of P2P as a distribution mechanism to survive, we must first drop this "an attack on piracy is an attack on P2P" nonsense and the other silly straw men like "the MPAA hates technology" in place of "the MPAA is attempting to protect its economic interests." Otherwise, we may get exactly what we deserve.
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And this is news? (Score:3, Funny)
;-)
Re:And this is news? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Informative)
You are off by about an order of magnitude.
Cheapest highly-functional system:
$ 700 - 800x600, ~800 lumen projector
$ 200 - 92" wide da-lite high-power screen
$ 60 - Cheap phillips play-everything progressive DVD player
$ 500 - Any of 10 or so decent Home theater in a box combos.
--------
$1460 Total
Reasonably priced, "sweet-spot" priced system:
$1200 - 1024x768 ~2300 lumen projector (brighter than a plasma -)
$ 200 - 92" wide da-lite high-power screen (110 ft/lamberts)
$ 300 - Avel Linkplayer2 plays-everything plus high-def DVD player
$ 400 - Pioneer 49tx receiver
$ 800 - Any of 5 or so different, good-quality 5.1 speaker/sub sets
---------
$2900 Total
Those are the kind of price-points it takes to get a really big screen experience at home. Those numbers tend to look surprisingly low to people like yourself who have never seriously thought about getting a projection system.
More people ought to be looking, front-projectors beat out "regular" tv's at just about every price-point over ~$500. Once you've watched 8-foot-wide HDTV, you'll never be able to turn on a regular tv set again.
they need to be stopped (Score:5, Informative)
The Supreme Court agrees (Score:5, Informative)
Terminology is chosen to generate emotions (Score:5, Insightful)
You're splitting hairs to justify doing something that is clearly ethically wrong, that is pirating movies, music, and software.
It's more than splitting hairs. Piracy is not a synonym for copyright infringement. Piracy and theft are charged words designed to generate a strong emotional response. Unconsciously, the word 'piracy' conjures up images of barbarians who murder and rape without remorse. 'Theft' is used to dig at the fear that everyone has of having their material items stolen from their house. Yes, consciously, we know that a 13-year old 'pirate' is not a raping, murdering, theiving monster but the MPAA wants to generate fear, anger, and other emotions in the public. Using 'copyright infringement' -- the correct term -- just won't do that for them. So they continue to use incorrect terminology. We're not being grammar nazis by insisting that they use less-neutral terms. Yes, copyright infringement is wrong. But it's a different class of wrong from the actions of pirates and thieves.
GMD
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Kjella
Re:Of course (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Terminology is chosen to generate emotions (Score:5, Interesting)
True enough, but the emotional tug only works in the short term, then people rapidly become jaded.
Besides, it works the other way too. I wanted to get a copy of Buster Keaton's The Navigator a few weeks ago, spent an hour on the phone tracking down a video store that had a VHS copy (I'd have preferred DVD), only to find they wanted $39.95 for a video containing the film I wanted, plus two additional shorts. I called them gougers, which made them strongly emotional.
The end result though, was that I hung up, found a bittorrent, downloaded the movie, watched it, then deleted it. In other words, while I broke the law to avoid being ripped off, I still knowingly chose to break the law.
The *AA have made it impossible for me to purchase a 20 minute film made by artists now long dead at a reasonable price. Films like those have long since amortised their costs, but we are still being charged prices which equate to more dollars per minute than a current-run movie. The law supports the *AA, but that says more about the current law makers than about justice.
Re:Let's please get our heads on straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
But what about "rape" and "murder"? When you copy a movie, you are metaphorically raping the director by taking something he considers precious, without consent, for your own pleasure. And you are metaphorically murdering his chance of making a profit out of you.
In fact, I think people who rape kids' movies should be charged with sex crimes. Those pedos are some sick people. I heard about this guy who even copied an old "Bambi" VHS tape! Pedophilic rape and bestiality in one. The sicko tried to say it was okay because the copy was for his granddaughter. That's just twisted.
Or maybe we could, you know, use words which are actually descriptive of the real crimes being committed?
"Copyright infringement" should be reserved for cases such as when I make a video game that stars Mario or Pokemon, infringing upon Nintendo's copyright.
No, it shouldn't - because that would be a case of trademark infringement, not copyright infringement, unless you used Nintendo's actual artwork or level layouts.
Of course, it's not your fault you don't know the difference. You've been confused by everyone using words wrongly. If everyone used "theft" to mean theft and "copyright infringement" to mean copyright infringement and "trademark infringement" to mean trademark infringement, then there would be no confusion. When you start using "theft" to mean copyright infringement, it's hardly surprising that you then get confused and use "copyright infringement" to mean trademark infringement.
And yes, the difference is important. Copyright infringement can be a criminal offense in some circumstances; I don't think trademark infringement can. That's a pretty big difference.
Re:By all means... (Score:5, Informative)
There's no license required to use/enjoy/read/view/etc. anyone's work that's publically available. Have you borrowed a CD from a friend? Bought a book from a used book store? Did you have to obtain a separate "license" from the associated publishers to use or enjoy the content? No, because there is no license required to use copyrighted works as long as you don't violate the copyright law.
There's no such privilege associated with copyright law. Copyright law applies to copying and redistribution, not to "enjoyment" as you are using the term. In other words, you don't need an "enjoyment license" from the publisher to read their books.
Sure, you could define the word "stealing" as "copyright infringement" and then turn around and offer your definition as a proof that copyright infringement is indeed stealing. But that's not what the law says because the underlying concepts for those 2 terms are significantly different, and you haven't even considered differences between the associated laws, cases of violations both criminal and civil, consequences and punishments, etc..
Re:Terminology is chosen to generate emotions (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not that old. The word 'piracy' does not conjure up images in my brain of barbarians raping and murdering without remorse.
I guess I'm older because it does carry connotations of rape, pillage, and murder for me, and I'm the same generation as most of the legislators in the Congress. Guess which generation has many members with little computer knowledge but are making these misguided laws. It's not just age or familiarity either. The politicians are in the pocket of big business, and a bit of hyperbole from the privateers (MPAA, RIAA) makes for a good, self-righteous speech on Capitol Hill while pocketing the campaign contributions and sponsoring the legislation.
I keep trying to vote these glad-handing, carpetbaggers out. Where is the younger generation?
Re:they need to be stopped (Score:5, Insightful)
for example, no matter whether I'm for or against the right to have an abortion I don't want people describing the doctors as "baby murderers". it is incorrect.
and anyone who needs to make incorrect statements to make their argument sound strong should always be regarded as suspicious.
Re:they need to be stopped (Score:5, Interesting)
an industry whose purpose is the distribution of media recordings has been obsolete since the late 1990's. it is now cheaper and easier for people to do it themselves. by sticking blindly to their business model, the MPAA is simply refusing to accept changes that they have no control over.
Re:they need to be stopped (Score:5, Insightful)
The MPAA is in no position to give me, or anyone else, ethics lessons.
Re:they need to be stopped (Score:5, Informative)
Did you forget that the MPAA fought the very idea of videos tooth and nail when VCRs were introduced?
If they hadn't been smacked down by the US supreme court, they would never have been able to benefit from the fruits of the purchase and rental of videos.
Since they didn't seem to want this revenue stream in the first place, why should anyone care about how the Internet impacts it now?
Re:they need to be stopped (Score:5, Interesting)
And if it weren't for people like you being so blatantly selfish, the rest of us wouldn't now have to put up with it.
Region coding had nothing to do with >cough copyright infringement. Where you get off on this tanget I don't know. The truth is, they would have done region coding anyway. They concieved of region coding as a way to put up a technological barrier to being able to see movies earlier in your own market than they were released, if they happened to be released already in another market segment. It was nothing to do with not paying for the movie. They simply thought that they could maximize profits by staggering theater and DVD releases in different markets.
The other truth is, DRM would have come anyway. Macrovision was setup before VHS copyright infringement was ever a big deal, and it (just like every method before it) was quickly circumvented and tools were available *before* its introduction to do so. (Your pre-198X VCR didn't have the feature and wouldn't recognize it.
Ethics indeed. Companies have long sought ways to make you pay for things again & again. I don't see the movie industry as that much different from G.E. making lightbulbs that were designed to last less than half the length advertised. You would have to go buy it again. Or appliance makers designing a product to fail after a certain period (common house fans are a good case in point).
In the same way, DVDs are made on a material with a shorter than advertised life, they wont replace the media if it goes bad, and they have made it illegal for you to make a backup of your media that you paid for. They are advertised as "OWN IT ON DVD", but you don't own it. Maybe your version of ethics is different from mine, but I consider (and so do many state attorney generals) the tactics of G.E. to be unethical and illegal. It's no stretch to say that the movie industry is just as unethical and had performed the exact same kind of fraud as G.E., but they went 10 steps further with their fraud an unethical behavior. They tried to circumvent your rights to the material even while the media is working.
If these same extended tactics were applied to lightbulbs, no one in the right mind would buy them if they were advertised as such. This would be a lightbulb that doesn't turn on when you tell it to, it only comes on when G.E. allows it to, it doesn't turn off when you tell it to so you can't save the bulbs life - it only turns off when G.E. tells it to, it wont work when you try to do things that G.E. doesn't like you having light for, or if you travel with it it wont work in certain locations, and even though it fails in less than half of the time advertised they wont replace it. You have to buy another one. It would also code your socket so you couldn't use a different light bulb, and if you modified your light socket to work with other bulbs or to make the lightbulb behave like all light bulbs should knowingly behave (despite it still having a reduced life), they would sue you and have you thrown in jail.
People who copy movies may be copyright infringers, but the MPAA are pirates.
Re:they need to be stopped (Score:5, Interesting)
But we're well beyond a universal system of ethics aren't we? I can imagine a number of arguments that could be used to by people who have no ethical problem with copyright infringement.
For one, copyright is a contract between the government and authors on their people's behalf. Since it's made without the individual's say-so, he might not consider himself bound by it.
For another, copyright has only existed for a few centuries. The great ethical minds of the past never had a problem with appropriating the intellectual property of others.
Another argument that could be used is that modern copyright terms have been manipulated by big business into lengths of time that violate their intended purpose. Therefore the law is unjust and should be disobeyed.
Another argument could be that copyright itself is a bad idea that stifles creation. In music, for example, the case could be made the copyright has killed live performance. Therefore the law is wrong and just be disobeyed.
So on and so forth.
I can imagine arguments in the other direction as well. But the point is that there is no universal morality on the subject.
Re:they need to be stopped (Score:5, Insightful)
This is obviously wrong and misleading. It is akin to saying the axe murdered the person, or it was the car that hit the guy in the crosswalk. That is simply not the case: it is the PEOPLE behind the tools that make the decision about how to use them.
This rampant demonization of peer to peer software is absurd. The fact that we have to have a case go to the supreme court to decide whether or not peer to peer software should be legal is absurd. They have to decide in the HIGHEST COURT of the land whether or not people who own computers can share data between the computers?
Again, we (as a society) love to blame the tools, rather than take personal responsibility for our actions. I, for one, grow tired of it.
Re:they need to be stopped (Score:5, Informative)
Less than a year later, a woman made it onto the evening news by refusing to pay the fine, and her lawyer contesting the law. Turns out minicipal ities don't have the authority to criminalize overdue books.
Re:they need to be stopped (Score:5, Insightful)
There are people who would tell you eating pork is clearly unethical. You say the grandparent poster is splitting hairs, I say you're being too general.
Oh, come on. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pirate movies are bad, but I would not call them ethically wrong. International Talking Like a Pirate Day, however is pretty much immoral.
Oh wait, you are telling me that copyright law is ethical. I dissagree. Copyright "protection" exists to enrich the public domain and encourage the arts and science. "Protection" that lasts longer than the life of the media fails most of it's public obligation. Firms that take your talent and call it their own then keep all of their films in a vault until they rot are robbing all of us of our cultural heritage. A great example of this is the Disney film, "Song of the South". It's owners are embarrassed of it and refuse to release it. Every bit of talent that went into that film is doomed to oblivion and you won't ever see it outside of a "pirated" version.
Note that no ships were stolen and no sailors were killed to bring you these bits or those of those of the leaked copy of ROTS. The only pirates are those idiots trying to shut down the internet because it threatens their 100 year old business model.
Re:FCC will control the Internet.... (Score:5, Interesting)
No matter how much control, how many laws, how many overbearing policies are slapped on the Internet, there will always be an underground.
The only people these new laws and forms of control will stop are folks like my dad. It is no different than using software protection to help stop piracy; only average joes are affected.
Re:FCC will control the Internet.... (Score:3, Informative)
All it takes is one uncontrolled connection and the whole thing works again. This is possible through tunneling without major headaches, there will always be an underground.
Re:Please get over it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it does. English also has a lot of speakers who care if you call a limerick a haiku or if you call a dolphin a fish or if you call copyright infringement theft or if you call a nationality a race. These people will correct you if you get it wrong.
Get over it!
You might want to consider taking your own advice.
Re:Please get over it. (Score:3, Insightful)
So we're all going to be transhumans (male-to-female or female-to-male) talking machine code? Somehow, I don't think so ...
Yes, english has a certain ambiguity to it. However, if you're going to hide behind that excuse when you make a lame argument, don't be surprised when people make fun of what you say. And no, the whole people-into-machine thing won'
Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Copyright (Score:3, Informative)
United States Code Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 106 [gpo.gov]
Re:Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Its mentioned in the very first 2 lines of the law you quoted:
so, what do they say there?Section 108:Section 109:Remember how the music industry got all upset about people selling their used CDs? Fuck 'em, its legal.Section 110:
Section 111 - rebroadcasting:There's more, but I think I've made my point. There is no such thing as "exclusive".Once again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Once again... (Score:5, Insightful)
BitTorrent maybe the catalyst but it's certainly not the reason the movie got leaked...how about the person who actually ACQUIRED the film in the first place?
Good lord!
Re:Once again... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Once again... (Score:4, Funny)
Baby with the bathwater... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing (Score:5, Funny)
Tragic (Score:5, Funny)
BitTorrent's fault? (Score:5, Informative)
I could have swore it was leaked by there own employees. But it's BitTorrent's fault, you say?
Re:BitTorrent's fault? (Score:5, Interesting)
I blame.. (Score:5, Funny)
Tinfoil hat time! Did the MPAA leak it purposely? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting to note that the copy making rounds on the p2p networks is a workprint and not a cam-copy, suggesting an inside job. Given that everyone knew how high-profile ROTS was going to be, it doesn't seem too improbable that the MPAA purposely leaked the print just so they could make a big deal about it. I mean, ROTS is pretty much review-proof and p2p-proof; anyone who was interested in the film was going to the theater to see it anyhow. So there really wouldn't be a big loss by leaking this copy and it gives them a perfect opportunity to bang on the drum again. If ever they were going to leak a blockbuster, ROTS would be the one to do it for.
GMD
Re:Tinfoil hat time! Did the MPAA leak it purposel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tinfoil hat time! Did the MPAA leak it purposel (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, it's very improbable. The slight benefit they'd gain from having the ROTS leak as lobbying ammo would be minute, and far outweighed by the damage that would occur if they were caught doing it.
These guys are basically corporate types. They tend not to care about the issue as much as all you reading this do. They do their job, then they go home. It just wouldn't be worth the hassle for them to come up with convoluted plans like that.
P2P and guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Repeat after me.
Technology doesn't pirate IP, people pirate IP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re:P2P and guns (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, I think I mixed things up a little there, didn't I.
Re:P2P and guns (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom isn't earned through how many deaths you can inflict on the enemy but how many deaths you are willing to risk.
sorry for going offtopic...
Well, last I checked... (Score:5, Insightful)
Their real problem is that there's no specific purpose. If you were building a large enough arsenal to start WWIII, well chances are pretty good that's what you're planning. If I build a means to quickly distribute large amounts of information, it doesn't imply anything at all. Sending streams of 0s and 1s is as general-purpose as you can get.
To pull a real geeky analogy, it is as if we invented the Star Trek replicator, and it was banned because it could replicate anything, even weapons and controlled substances. Or the holodeck was banned because it can simulate anything, and then someone could simulate their pedo fantasy in there.
Trying to turn the attention towards people is pointless, because anyone who isn't completely blind can see that people don't care about IP. It's like saying the same about guns when everyone is going around slaughtering eachother. If you want a better analogy, copyright is the "modern prohibition" and piracy the massive moonshine production. Banning P2P is like banning grain and potatoes to stop moonshine liqour.
Kjella
And yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Magic of Movies (Score:5, Insightful)
many thanks for telling me where to get it (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks to the MPAA announcing the availibility of Episode III on bittorrent, I know now which client to start and search for it. Great service.
Georges
Everyone I know (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was some drama or romantic comedy, then no, they wouldn't go to the theatre, but this is a special efx movie and is best seen either at the theatre, OR on a crazy home system if you have the DVD or DVD-like quality.
Dim the magic? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the best example for "dimming the magic"? You've got to be kidding me. I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. How does providing users with illegal copies dim their magic, much less anyone else's? When I'm watching the movie tomorrow night, I certainly won't care if somebody downloaded it off the net.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah. (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks a lot Bittorrent, you killed Star Wars!
Re:Yeah. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, Bittorrent was at fault, and the economic impact was so huge, that Star Wars didn't make a single penny this weekend. And George Lucas is broke! John Williams is selling pencils on the street corner! Hayden Christensen... well let's not even talk about what he's doing to make ends meet!
I'd rather talk about what Nathalie Portman is doing to make ends meet! :)
GMD
He's absolutely right (Score:5, Insightful)
No, wait, it didn't. The simple fact is, those who were going to see it in theatre did, and those who never were (or who were just going to borrow the DVD from a friend when it came out) didn't. Nothing new here.
That's it! (Score:5, Funny)
No longer will Ebert be able to safely sit there sending salvo after salvo at the movie industry, safe behind ill-concieved first ammendment rights!
Please, help save the magic of the movies from dimming, think of the children!
Re:That's it! (Score:5, Funny)
>[...] federal felony to "Dim the magic of the movies, with intention or accidentally, through the distribution of any electronic media."
But wouldn't that put George Lucas in jail?
Oh. Oh, I see.
Funny, it doesn't work for me (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Funny, it doesn't work for me (Score:4, Funny)
not enough magic? (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
and now, from a syndicated article in the Herald Sun (among MANY other papers): I guess the most revenue ever just isn't enough magic for Glickman.... he really does care about us after all!It's unfortunate alright (Score:3, Insightful)
It's even more unfortunate that the industry can't seem to face the fact that its business model is evaporating in the face of modern distribution technology. Their grip on the channels that distribute entertainment is slipping. What they should do is accept the fact that their business model is becoming obsolete.
OT: Penguins vs The Sith. (Score:5, Funny)
Quote of the hour:
Much more disturbing is the business aspects.. (Score:3, Insightful)
This was in addition to the statement that the average movie takes $98 MILLION dollars to make. Wow, so what they are saying is "We intentionally give people more money knowing full well that there is a better than half chance we won't EVER get enough back to recoup costs"
I'd be much more concerned that they need to hire a good economist to show them that 'if you spend more than you make, you are in trouble in business'...
And yet they continue to drive this witch-hunt in the hope that someone will take pity on them and eliminate the pesky "Internet" once and for all..
BitTorrent is higly efficient distribution (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a part of your experience. So are 200-300 other people sweating, eating smelly foods, taking their smelly shoes of, eating candy out of noisy plastic bags, having their mobile phones ringing, etc.. All that for $10 pr. seat.
The distribution is both expensive and the movie theatre experience does not please the modern consumer, who would like to enjoy the magic of movies without getting p*ssed off.
Bittorrent delivers right to the computer in your living room through an established network. It's fast and cheap and gives you home cinema system something to do. You can even pause the movie and go get a snack or a cop of coffee. Now, that's magic.
All people believing in capitalism should hail the BT for it's efficiency and low costs. The old and rusty movie distribution system can not compete with the smooth functionality of the modern computer networks and comfort of home cinema (even if it's just a 28'' TV).
MPAA should start to think about improving their product. If I could download a legal copy of Star Wars today, I would do it.
At this moment the only competition to the distribution monopoly of movie theatres are the P2P networks.
Magic? (Score:4, Funny)
Fortunetly, the magic was restored eleven fold by granting R2D2 the ability to fly, emit oil slicks, light said oil slicks on fire, catch communicators thrown at him, jump 3 feet out of space ships, and leave audiances baffled as to why these superpowers aren't used in the next movies.
And he makes fries in seconds!
Theft? (Score:4, Funny)
GIVE ME WHAT I WANT AND I WILL *PAY YOU MONEY* ! (Score:4, Interesting)
You're forcing me to take your goods in a way that is inconvenient to me, and then complaining "my poor lost revenue" because I don't want your goods in the single way you're distributing them.
You've married yourself to the movie theater with your exclusive distribution deals. Well, here is the result. You customers don't like your exclusive deals and they work around it. Don't complain to us about it.
Want to fix it? I don't care what your method of delivery is. Video over IP to my cable company's DVR. Pay Per View. Firewire from PC to TV. PC download and viewing. A high def Akimbo type box. Picking up a DVD rental.
Give us a freaking choice that works for us, and we'll give you the money.
Re:It's clear the damage that this has caused! (Score:5, Funny)
You misspelled "younglings"
Re:Shh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's already clearly demonstrated that the market's there and has a price point higher than zero for music. It's only a matter of time before someone (Tivo maybe?) figures out how to do that for movies. The more the *AA people stand in the way, the longer that's going to take. That's what I'm on about.