Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Round Two for MPAA Lawsuits 525

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
An anonymous reader writes "CNET is reporting that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has filed a second round of lawsuits against individuals trading movie files. This follows the lobby's legal attacks on BitTorrent servers a few weeks back. A couple of commentaries on this latest legal barrage can already be found here and here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Round Two for MPAA Lawsuits More

Round Two for MPAA Lawsuits

Comments Filter:

  • For parents? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Coneasfast ( 690509 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:08PM (#11495088)
    The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) also made available a new free software tool so parents can scan their computers for file-swapping programs and for movie or music files which may be copyrighted.

    "Son, come over here and show me how to run this thing."

    • Re:For parents? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:10PM (#11495117) Journal
      Don't worry this software is purely to help parents ensure their little kids are not growing up to be criminals...it won't be used by the MPAA at all to track those computers and send the info to the MPAA.

      Between that and the fact the parents may not know how to utilize the software I am sure it will be great SuckCess.

      I am waiting for the time comes when i purchase a movie, place it in my dvd player (flash upgrade) or in my computer and it will auto-install tracking software.

      • Re:For parents? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        But, on the bright side, if we're never buying DVD's this will never become a problem.

        -Steve G.
      • I am waiting for the time comes when i purchase a movie, place it in my dvd player (flash upgrade) or in my computer and it will auto-install tracking software.

        Yeah, except it won't be called "auto-install tracking software", it will be called "The Movie Fun Feature Expansion Pack", or something ridiculous like that. And people will accept it, because it will say that it's providing access to special websites for behind the scenes information.

    • Re:For parents? (Score:2, Informative)

      by EmperorKagato ( 689705 ) *
      I just used the Parent Search tool and it can't discover eXeem Lite. Also, they think suprnova.org is down.

    • Re:For parents? (Score:5, Funny)

      by malcomvetter ( 851474 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:33PM (#11495387)
      "Son, what is all this crap that program found? ... You mean you can download entire movies? Pull up a chair and show your father how to do that."

      • Re:For parents? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Oliver Wendell Jones ( 158103 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:36PM (#11496058)
        When my brother got arrested for identity fraud (this was way back in 1989, before it was called that) and was being transported from the police station to the county jail, the two sherrifs in the front of the car were asking him what he was arrested for.

        When he explained that he was using his computer (a C-64) to look at random strangers credit reports so he could use their credit card info to buy stuff, the driver said something to the effect of "whoo-ee, you need to show us how to do that - it costs us $20 every time we run a credit report to try and find someone"...

  • Will downloaders of Gigli... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:08PM (#11495096)
    ...be able to sue the MPAA?

  • "Legally" or "illegally" acquired content? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mopslik ( 688435 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:13PM (#11495146)

    [MPAA software Parent File Scan] searches for and identifies virtually any audio or video file, including popular formats like MP3, Microsoft's Windows Media, the AAC files that Apple Computer's iTunes software often uses, or MPEG video. The software makes no distinction between legally acquired or illegally downloaded files, however.

    During the Napster era, wasn't one of the arguments made by the RIAA that Napster should be able to easily distinguish RIAA-copyrighted material and, subsequentailly, block access to it? If it's so trivial, shouldn't the MPAA be able to do the same? Or did they realize it's not so easy and are just labelling everything they can find?

    • It's far easier to check the validity of content on a farm of servers that contain the hashes of so many files... doing so on a client machine would be... insane. Just imagine the bandwidth requirements for having thousands and thousands of home PC's send in the hash of every single potentially infringing file to have it verified against the master DB.
    • Meh...

      They are not worried about legality of files here. The software is simply a catch-all because in their view it is better to error on the side of caution.

      I don't know of an open format that allows for marking of files as copyrighted and non-copyrighted, were the file cannot be easily modified to show the opposite. (Does one exist?)

      You can check out the software here [respectcopyrights.org]
    • In the Napster case you had some fairly significant differences:
      1. There were no agreements allowing RIAA copyrighted music to be transfered over Napster
      2. All the traffic at one time or another went through Napsters central servers
      3. You could safely say that all traffic of copyrighted materials whoes owners had not given permission on Napster was unlawful

      However, in this case you have other differences:

      1. There are now agreements allowing copyrighted material to be downloaded from certain digital music stor

      • So, you end up with a situation where you can identify the files, but you cant determine whether they are illegal or not. In Napsters case, it was quite easy - if it was being transfered over or on the Napster network, it was there unlawfully.

        While this scenario is true, it's only one scenario. Napster argued that scanning through all of the files being transmitted through its servers was not at all trivial, because:

        1. "Legal" files were also being transferred, often with no copyright information associa
    • What about the whole realm of fair use?

      I am a big bit torrent user myself. I like to download Star Trek. But nothing I'm downloading isn't being broadcasted on the cable TV I pay for. Is it still illegal?

      It's not illegal if I record it with a TiVo... same quality (and in many cases better), only the source has changed.

      The way I see it, I've paid my dues. I'm legally paying for this content. The **AA shouldn't have a right to tell me exactly how I consume the said content. They're getting paid either way,

  • Round Two! Fight! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mitaphane ( 96828 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:14PM (#11495152) Homepage
    Until the MPAA starts cracking down people actually selling their wares instead of people downloading them for free they will not get a tear of sympathy from me. Seriously, I don't understand it. When I was NYC, street vendors make no attempt to hide the fact they are selling pirated goods. Why isn't the MPAA cracking down on them instead of college kids that have nothing better to do with their bandwidth than download DiVX ripped movies?

    • Re:Round Two! Fight! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by saddino ( 183491 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:22PM (#11495253)
      Why isn't the MPAA cracking down on them instead of college kids that have nothing better to do with their bandwidth than download DiVX ripped movies?

      Because:

      1) The number of people who buy videos from street vendors is likely miniscule compared to the number of people who are already downloading ripped movies; and

      2) The quality of videos from street vendors is notoriously unwatchable; and

      3) The "college kids" that are downloading ripped movies are precisely the demographic that the movie industry depends on for generating theater revenue. If it becomes as popular as MP3 sharing, they're going to lose $, hence sue now before it becomes a major problem.

      • Re:Round Two! Fight! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Eskimore_ ( 842733 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:01PM (#11495680)
        The "college kids" that are downloading ripped movies are precisely the demographic that the movie industry depends on for generating theater revenue. If it becomes as popular as MP3 sharing, they're going to lose $, hence sue now before it becomes a major problem.

        I disagree with that. Although it is logical it isn't what is actually happening. In actuality the revenue streams of the music industry are not suffering. As proof I offer this article [bbc.co.uk] that shows that even though piracy is increasing SO ARE LEGIT CD SALES.

        It's not the actuall loss of sales that is affecting the content industry. It's the threat of lost control.

        You have to realize that it's not the artists that are freaking out here, it's the content distribution companies, who by the way keep the bulk of the profits made from sales. You see, before the Internet they had a lot of control over the end user experience. Now that control is slipping away. In fact, I would say that the internet will almost completely dissolve the RIAA/MPAA business model in the next few decades.

        But they want YOU to think the issue is lost revenue due to pirating. But it's not. It's potential future revenue loss for the distribution companies who, by the way, have reisited every major technological change in the history of the industrial revolution, even though time and again those changes made them richer. They're just plain short sighted.

      • Re:Round Two! Fight! (Score:4, Funny)

        by Snaller ( 147050 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:45PM (#11496153) Journal
        The quality of videos from street vendors is notoriously unwatchable;

        Well, it is Hollywood films after all!

      • Re:Round Two! Fight! (Score:3, Informative)

        by Kethinov ( 636034 )

        3) The "college kids" that are downloading ripped movies are precisely the demographic that the movie industry depends on for generating theater revenue. If it becomes as popular as MP3 sharing, they're going to lose $, hence sue now before it becomes a major problem.

        When your target demographic is circumventing your distribution methods on a massive scale, it's indicative of a flaw in your business model. Suing your target demographic on an equally grand scale does not make the flaw in your business mode

    • probably because college kids have parents with deeper pockets than crackheads selling pirated DVD's
    • College Kids have deeper wallets than street vendors?

    • Re:Round Two! Fight! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ohm2k ( 262274 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:27PM (#11495315)
      I am very agenst people selling downloaded material. Guy at my local dirt mall sells movies He downloads, burns and prints covers for. I went as far as to call the 1-800-no-copys number to report it. Took 3 weeks before a human picked up the phone. I gave them all the contact information of the dirt mall and titles of movies being sold. 6 months later he's still there making $10 a movie hand over fist.

      Why should we feel sorry for the MPAA when they won't even do anything about people stealing accual sales from them. Even after someone hands them all the information on a silver platter.
    • they are not suing downloaders. these are people who were trading or swapping movies, or hosting them for others to download.

      and as far as i know, RIAA has never sued downloaders. they sue uploaders/distributers.

      these tactics, in their eye, are far more effective in stopping the spread of illegal copies than busing some small street vendors. (and of course, you can't sue downloaders - yet - because they aren't breaking copyright themselves.)

  • I stopped downloading movies.... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    After I saw those emotional segments in the theater about how Joe Camerman, and Jane Stuntwoman suffers from my actions, I really felt bad.

    (btw, mpaa, if you are listening, I never actually downloaded movies. Rent from netflix, rip a copy and save on VCD, that may be a different story.)
    • After I saw those emotional segments in the theater about how Joe Camerman, and Jane Stuntwoman suffers from my actions, I really felt bad.

      Hey dyou know where I can find a torrent of that segment? Those damn camcorder pirates keep editing it out of their files...
  • ..you know the rest. Evidently the MPAA has decided to copy the RIAA 12-Step Plan to Irrelevance completely.

  • biggest quote (Score:4, Insightful)

    by greechneb ( 574646 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:16PM (#11495181) Journal
    <i>If the media industries only took the time in the late 90's to understand and serve this group - I believe they call it marketing - rather than fight against them their revenues would be significantly more. Of all industries that should know this it should be the movie industry.
    <p><p>
    Today, the film industry generates more income from video/DVD sales and rentals than from theater runs. Had they won their case 20 years ago against Sony and the Supreme Court ruled VCR's were illegal (it was a close 5 to 4 decision) the film industry would have less than HALF the revenues it does today.</i>
    <p>
    <p>
    I hardly see movies in theaters anymore anyway. I don't really enjoy them as much, probably since a lot of movies anymore are crap put out for the sole purpose of making money. (which all movies are to an extent)
    <p>
    <p>
    I save the money for video rentals, I get about 4 movies for the same price for my wife and I. We can then watch them whenever, and not pay $3 for a popcorn and $4 for a soda.
    <p>
    <p>
    Much more enjoyable, and no kids around to bother me while I watch.

  • Better than a program to track P2P apps... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hal2814 ( 725639 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:16PM (#11495182)
    ...would be the parents monitor what software little Johnny is installing on the computer and to ask what that software does (with demonstration of course). I know if I see icons pop up on the family computer desktop or start menu, I tend to ask the family who installed it and what it does.

  • LokiTorrent (Score:5, Informative)

    by Eminence ( 225397 ) <akbrandtNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:18PM (#11495197) Homepage
    Let's remember about LokiTorrent [lokitorrent.com]'s law defense fund. They had the guts to stand for their rights and say no to corporate bullying, and they are doing it for the rest of us too. If they win such lawsuits would have to stop.

    • Re:LokiTorrent (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SilentChris ( 452960 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:35PM (#11495412) Homepage
      Why would we want these to stop? Seriously. If they were saying "Bittorrent must be completely shut down", I'd be completely against it. But they're only suing people to stop trading pirated movies, which they have every right to do. I would think most of the Slashdot community wouldn't care about that -- if they take away my ability to get a Linux distro, though, that's another story.

      • Re:LokiTorrent (Score:3, Informative)

        by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 )
        Actually, the arguments the industries are making in the Grokster case, which goes to the Supreme Court in a couple months, are pretty much along the lines of that technologies that are used in conjunction with piracy should be banned or crippled so as to make them basically impossible to so use them.

        Cheers.

  • VERY liberal definitions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xThinkx ( 680615 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:18PM (#11495216) Homepage
    Yes, I RTFA, and the software that they've produced doesn't distinguish between legal files and "illegal files" I see this as completely rediculous. How many clueless parents will punish kids now for doing something that's completely legal, moral, and ethical. It even flags iTunes files, and Mirc, I mean, come on here. There should be a libel lawsuit here to deter people from distributing what is in essence a fraud of a "illegal file detecting software"

  • Absurd! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Arcanix ( 140337 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:20PM (#11495228)
    Oh dear, people getting sued for committing illegal acts, how appalling! What is this country coming to?

    • Re:Absurd! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by grumpygrodyguy ( 603716 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:37PM (#11495441)
      What is this country coming to?

      It's coming to citizens having to personally reclaim their rights from corrupt lawmakers.
      • "It's coming to citizens having to personally reclaim their rights from corrupt lawmakers."

        Because if you cant enjoy the fruits of another persons work without their permission the terorists win! Please explain what "right" is being infringed here. Is it the rights of the copyright holders? Better yet, since you dont think other people should be able to make money from their time and efforts, why not tell your boss you'll work for free from no on, eh comrad?

      • The right to steal?

        If you ever wrote a book and hoped to make a living off it, how would you feel if I redistributed a copy of that very book to every single individual who would've otherwise have to purchase it? How would you feel if you started demandinding your hard-earned money after that, only to be told that "information wants to be free"?

      • Re:Absurd! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Tim C ( 15259 )
        What right has been taken away from you?

        • Re:Absurd! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by FirstTimeCaller ( 521493 )

          What right has been taken away from you?

          The ability to use copyrighted works after their copyright has expired. OK, technically this hasn't been taken away -- just the expiration extended (indefinitely). I should by now be able to use the Mickey Mouse likeness without paying Disney a dime. I should be able to repoduce copies of "The Thin Man" movie. But, I can't.

          Copyrights were never intended to provide a monopoly on works forever. See Lawrence Lessig's [free-culture.org] book for a better explaination than I could e

      • Oh yeah, I remember this one: The Right To Download/Distribute other people's copyright work without asking permission.

  • Imagine... (Score:5, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:25PM (#11495283) Homepage Journal
    parents can talk with children about the legalities of peer-to-peer activity

    parents having a "little talk" with their kids about P2P activity:

    Johnnie: Daddy, where do MP3 files come from?

    Daddy: Johnnie, Mom and I are going to have a little talk with you now.

    Johnnie: Okay, Dad.

    Mommy: You know Johnnie, there's something you need to know about MP3 files and P2P clients.

    Daddy: When an MP3 file meets a P2P client, something very beautiful happens.

    Johnnie: What's that Daddy?

    Daddy: It's called File Transfer, son. When a beautiful MP3 file meets a nice, young P2P client, they start exchanging packets and then a new MP3 file is born.

    Mommy: But you have to remember, son...bad things can happen if MP3 files and P2P clients do not take proper precautions during the File Transfer. Then they can get infected with Spyware and Viruses and die.

    Daddy: You'll understand this better when you grow up, but always remember that we're here for you if you need us. And always remember to take proper precautions during File Transfer.

    • Daddy: And if you get caught using MP3s and P2Ps together when you don't have permission, Daddy's going to have to take out a loan on your ass to pay off the music industry, capiche?
    • I think filing lawsuits against comsumers is bad marketing, period.

      The other thing is I'm not sure how this will work out in the long run. Obviously, the parallels between cassette tape, video tape and the consternation that they brought the entertainment industry was vastly overdone and ultimately proved beneficial to the industry. But if it takes virtually no effort to get the song you want, at no cost and right now, then the temptation is too much. It's like the "just say no" campaign against sex and

  • SLANDER! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:28PM (#11495330)
    "Parent File Scan also uses a very liberal definition of file-swapping software. In a test on a CNET News.com computer, the software identified Mirc--a client for the Internet Relay Chat network, where files can be swapped, but where tens of thousands of wholly legal conversations happen every day--and Mercora, a streaming Web radio service that uses peer-to-peer technology but does not allow file swapping."

    Couldn't the companies that produce some of these products now turn around and sue the MPAA for slander?

    I suppose it depends on exactly what they say about the programs, but if that web radio service is run by a company that does not stream MPAA stuff over their service, then telling parents it might be used for piracy is an outright lie.

  • Microsoft Acquires Hollywood (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dylan Thomas ( 853299 ) <dylan@freespirits.org> on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:34PM (#11495406) Homepage Journal

    SEATTLE--In an unexpected move, corporate giant Microsoft has acquired Hollywood in what it refers to as the "logical next step" in content development.

    Microsoft has long been known as an industry leader in providing semifunctional applications for the viewing, development and distribution of digital content and comments that the acquisition of Hollywood will complete the synergy necessary for including the content itself.

    End users, claims Microsoft, will see a remarkable increase in convenience when accessing content. Hollywood products will be available directly from the desktop via their new "Cinema Explorer" application with the guaranteed quality, stability and availability that only a vision-impaired corporate monolith can provide.

    Security is also a top priority, and Microsoft is introducing a new licensing system to aid in the distribution of Hollywood content. Instead of purchasing a copy of the motion picture itself, end users purchase a "License to View" which piggybacks on their highly successful and completely unhackable "Product Activation" architecture introduced with Windows XP. A motion picture is keyed to the unique hardware identification number of the user's computer and can only be "activated" on that computer.

    Some civil rights groups have expressed concerned about corporate profiling based on end user viewing habits. A Microsoft spokesman responds, "Obviously, this is possible, but fortunately, Microsoft is a responsible corporation with a very solid privacy policy. We never have any idea who's using our products. A quick look at our customer support system ought to clearly demonstrate that."

    Microsoft also stated in a press release that recent maneuvers to acquire the RIAA are completely unrelated.

  • Is there really anything new to be said about this that hasn't been repeated a million times before?

    25% of the comments will be "MPAA SUX0R! Information wants to be free!"

    50% of the comments will be "If you do the crime, do the time!!"

    25% of the comments will be offtopic, random garbage.

    This comment, of course, falls in the last category.

  • How much can they really sue for? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by iamhassi ( 659463 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:37PM (#11495436) Journal
    I can understand (sorta) the RIAA charging $15 for each mp3 because you have to pay $15 for each CD the original song would be on and since most people have hundreds or thousands of mp3s that can get expensive very fast, but how much can the MPAA sue someone for when they're typically sharing a dozen movies? 12 x $15 per dvd = $180 total. So what are they doing, sending lawsuits for $180 to these people, or are they not bothering to go after the people only sharing a dozen movies at a time?

    I download movies but don't share that many because of hard drive space, I only share what I'm still downloading. Once it's done I typically burn it to CD and delete it from the PC, so while I have (insert large number) movies all they see is maybe the dozen I'm downloading. How successful will this be?

    • So what are they doing, sending lawsuits for $180 to these people, or are they not bothering to go after the people only sharing a dozen movies at a time?

      There is generally a fine. Obvioulsy it's not about the cost of the movie media. But once you tack on things like 150K for each violation, plus damages, plus this plus that, plus possibly jail time, blah blah, it *can* be significant. That's why the RIAA was succesful in getting basically what amounts to pocket change from their lawsuits. "Either pay us 7

    • Re:How much can they really sue for? (Score:5, Informative)

      by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:55PM (#11495623) Homepage
      The answer to your question is at 17 USC 504, 505.

      In general though, these suits are brought for the maximum amount of statutory damages. That means $150,000 per work infringed upon. So for a person who rips and scans a CD and puts it on their server, and the CD has, let's say 10 tracks, we could easily see 22 infringements -- the CD as a compilation, each song, each recording of each song, and the artwork. (This is a worst case sort of thing -- it could all be one big work just as easily)

      So that's 22 x $150,000 = $3.3 million.

      I remember a few years ago that some college students were being sued for billions of dollars.

      Of course, the damage award could be lower, but it's still going to be pretty significant most of the time (the least you can normally expect is $700 per work) and the mere amount of the award doesn't mean you can pay it.

      Since there's no point in trying to get blood from a stone, and since the cases are slam dunks as a rule, the RIAA and MPAA generally are very kind in agreeing to settle for a mere few thousand dollars.

      I download movies but don't share that many because of hard drive space, I only share what I'm still downloading. Once it's done I typically burn it to CD and delete it from the PC, so while I have (insert large number) movies all they see is maybe the dozen I'm downloading. How successful will this be?

      Because they watch you get each one, and have evidence of that. And they sue you, and have a discovery request requiring you to tell them and to produce the copies and your equipment so they can inspect it. And because they get a court order to impound the copies you made and go to your house with federal marshalls and take them away.

      These suits are not being brought to make money. People don't have enough money to make this worthwhile.

      It's just to scare people into not pirating.
    • Don't forget that they sue for the value of the DVD for each time it was downloaded, up to a certain maximum. Since they basically assume everyone wants a copy of any crap that the sharer may have had, they go for the maximum. That's where you get the supposed billions of dollars in losses caused by file sharing.

  • NOW's the time! (Score:3, Funny)

    by potus98 ( 741836 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:37PM (#11495439) Journal

    See, this is why I'm not a early adopter. Let the shake-out happen a little is what I say. Now that this new round of lawsuits against individuals have been filed, the data collection period is over for now! The sabre-rattling lawsuits tell me that NOW is the time to start downloading the movies I want!

    It's like slowing down on a country road when you see a cop with someone pulled over. Silly! That's the time to speed people!

    [/sarcasm] -so don't preach to me about IP theft or endangering officers' lives.

  • P2P Software is illegal now?? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:40PM (#11495475)
    According to RespectCopyrights.org, they're touting, and I quote:

    "...Peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that encourage piracy, such as eDonkey, Gnutella and KaZaA, might seem simple and harmless, but running them puts your computer at great risk, IN ADDITION TO BEING UNLAWFUL." (my emphasis)

    What the hell??!?!?

    You could take them to court for that ;) its just a blatant lie!

    Its amazing how quickly they've started to deliberately spread misinformation. Theres no way they could say they were stating it 'could' be illegal - its just plainly 'these programs are illegal'!

  • I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by accad ( 517141 )
    I just don't get it, do they really think that they will shut down all P2P networks by suing users? How long have the software companies been trying to shut down warez sites? Did they succeed? No.
    As far as I'm concerned, file sharing is here to stay, it is impossible to kill a technology once its out there, they tried to kill VHS and failed, and right now they are making billions from something that they once tried to eliminate, they are better off stopping wasting resources trying to stop file sharing and

  • Yeah, but... (Score:2, Funny)

    by bicho ( 144895 )
    [MPAA software Parent File Scan] searches for and identifies virtually any audio or video file, including popular formats like MP3, Microsoft's Windows Media, the AAC files that Apple Computer's iTunes software often uses, or MPEG video.

    Yeah, but does it support oggs?

    wooops! err... nevermind that...

  • Over-zealous (Score:4, Interesting)

    by oberondarksoul ( 723118 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:31PM (#11495996) Homepage
    What worries me the most about the "Parent File Scan" is that is makes no attempt to determine whether a file has been downloaded, ripped, or even included with other software. Case in point - when running the scan as a test on my machine, it picked up every sound file from Civilization III. What are non-technical users (parents in particular) going to think when they see hundreds of files picked up, with the strong implication that they are illigal?

  • In other HUGE copyright news... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EvilStein ( 414640 ) <spam@BALDWINpbp.net minus author> on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:56PM (#11496257)
    (I submitted this yesterday, but it was rejected and instead dupes and other schlop were posted)

    The Copyright Office is inviting comments on the current situation with copyrights and "orphaned works" (ie, abandonware, etc) - they have realized that copyrights are holding back innovation, especially when the copyright holders cannot be located.

    I think that this is a really major thing. The article is mirrored in its entirety here [pbp.net]

  • What everyone fails to accept (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zip In The Wire ( 701259 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @04:18PM (#11496621)
    Is that copyrights are finished.

    This is not something I'm promoting, or something I desire. It just is.

    How can you expect to control a world, to enforce the "right to copy" when anyone can make 100 copies a second of virtually any data only work?

    In India, before Ghandi G. came along, it was illegal to make salt. People near the ocean were surrounded by billions of tons of salt but weren't allowed to extract it from the ocean. The british mandated this by law to protect their salt industry.

    This is the exact same scenario that is happening with copyright. Some laws were passed 200 years or so ago to make it a civil wrong to do something that is very easy to do nowdays. These laws are unenforceable unless you want to assign the death penalty for possession of a xerox machine, a printing press, a tape recorder, a CD burner or especially a computer.

    It's over people.

    The current think going around is "how can we make these expensive movies if we can't profit from the copyrights?". My answer is, lower your expenses. The first thing you can do is dump expensive actors whose cost is sometimes 70% of a film.

    My response to bad media, movies and music is not to participate. To not contribute to it. I don't think it is a moral justification to infringe copyright to claim that the material sucks anyway. That's really degenerate thinking. Tell it to the judge and see how far you get with that.

    I'm not trying to justify my vision. It's just a fact that copyrights are finished. I'm offerring solutions. While the facts may offend some people, all their ranting, lawsuits and legal maneuvers won't change those facts.

    The facts are technological. The march of progress is currently consuming another hapless victim. I would suggest not getting in the way of the thrashing beast in its death throes. Wounded animals are the most dangerous of all.

  • How about lowering prices (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bloodomen13 ( 853961 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @04:38PM (#11496895)
    **I do not download music or movies... but this whole thing frustrates me to no end** The **AA goes after all these college students and kids... what's something they usually have in common? A lack of funds. How about if the going rate for a movie ticket wasn't $8.00 (in my area). I remember when you could see an evening movie for $3.00 and that wasn't too terribly long ago. You could take a freaking date to the movies and get a soda for $8.00 Now, it's $20.00 Lower prices to a reasonable level and maybe people won't resort to downloading to see that movie they've been waiting for. There is absolutely no reason for consumers to have to endure such prices. The theatre that I frequent raised their prices to $8.00 last year from $7.50. Why? There was no noticable change to the theatre or the films in general to justify the price increase. Now they're talking of raising them yet again to $8.50. Oh, wait... forgot that we have to pay those "modest" $20 million dollar salaries to every actor in Hollywood. Not to mention the millions to the producers and directors and everyone else who's name appears in the credits that isn't hurriedly rushed by in a scroll. The same goes for CDs. Lower the prices and put out better MUSIC, not manufactured Barbie and Ken Dolls. Hollywood had a record breaking year in 2004. So, piracy is leading to the demise of Hollywood? Sorry, but you'll get no sympathy from me when you're still making BILLIONS of dollars while some kid in a dorm room makes $5/hr if he even has a job and would just like some entertainment from time to time.

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close