Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Movies News

New Round of Lawsuits in Preparation for Oscars 389

Posted by Zonk from the most-people-just-buy-a-new-dress dept.
An anonymous reader wrote to mention CNNMoney's coverage of the latest round of MPAA lawsuits targeting end users. From the article: "The civil suits against unnamed "John Doe" defendants seek up to $150,000 per downloaded digital file and come as the film industry prepares for its annual Oscar telecast in Hollywood where awards for top films and stars are given out."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Round of Lawsuits in Preparation for Oscars More

New Round of Lawsuits in Preparation for Oscars

Comments Filter:

  • 150K per file? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tuxedo Jack ( 648130 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:17AM (#11777211) Homepage
    My god, that's completely insane. Why not just charge twenty bucks plus court costs? That'd prove far more agreeable to the users and pirates - it's the same price as a DVD, and you can claim Fair Use with what you do with it.

    • Re:150K per file? (Score:5, Funny)

      by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:19AM (#11777237)
      Stop thinking rationally!

      This is of course the MPAA we are talking about... you know, the folks slightly more sane than the RIAA, but still both less crazy than your average /.er.

    • Re:150K per file? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DrinkingIllini ( 842502 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:22AM (#11777265)
      Because if you steal something, then get caught, you don't get to just pay for whatever you stole. I can't just shoplift something, and then give them the money for the item if I happen to get caught later. Same deal, you steal the movie, you're taking a risk. You get boned it's your own fault.
      • But no court in the country would award $150,000 in punitive damages from someone who stole a $20 DVD.
      • But theft (where the victim actually loses something) is very different to copyright infringement (where they don't) so that's not a good comparison. Copyright infringement is more like trespassing. You are using somebody elses property without permission, but once you stop they still have everything they had before.

        Before anyone jumps in and talks about lost sales, let me just say I don't believe you. There is _no way_ all the people I know who download this stuff would have bought it if it weren't ava
        • Before anyone jumps in and talks about lost sales, let me just say I don't believe you. There is _no way_ all the people I know who download this stuff would have bought it if it weren't available "for free" They all buy just as much (or just as little) as they did before they got broadband.

          Let's pretend that in one year you illegally download 25 films and watch them, spending 60 hours and no money. If none of those films were available for download, it's true that you wouldn't buy all 25 films. But you

    • Re:150K per file? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Walkiry ( 698192 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:23AM (#11777276) Homepage
      >That'd prove far more agreeable to the users and pirates

      Yeah, but it's not about the users and pirates, it's about the dinosaur trying to survive the meteor impact. And it'll destroy every single small mammal he can to try and perpetuate the species.

      Why try to adapt? Changing your corporate ways is always a risk, it's much better when you can scare everyone into submission with absolutely insane punishment to give example.

      • Re:150K per file? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drsquare ( 530038 )
        Why try to adapt? Changing your corporate ways is always a risk, it's much better when you can scare everyone into submission with absolutely insane punishment to give example.

        Adapt? You can already download legal songs off the Internet, what are you talking about? Anyway it's not your place to force a company to change how it does business, you can either do business with it legally or not at all, those are your choices. If you want to download a film but you can't legally, then it's up to the rights own

    • Re:150K per file? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:30AM (#11777379)
      You're mistaking what the plaintiff is asking for in damages with what the actual damage amount is. It's pretty common in civil cases to ask for a huge amount of damages (whether they can be supported or not) to make a splash. They could just as easily ask for $20 million if they wanted to. There's no requirement that they show any rationale to support the amount of damages at this stage.

      At trial, the plaintiff would need to provide evidence to support their claim of damages. And the actual amount of damages would be determined by a jury. But at this stage, they can ask for however much they want.

      This is a "statement" amount--scare tactics. They want to use the amount to make people think twice. And until and unless one of these cases actually goes to trial and comes back with a jury award, the "$150,000 per file" number will be hanging over everyone's head.
    • My god, that's completely insane. Why not just charge twenty bucks plus court costs? That'd prove far more agreeable to the users and pirates - it's the same price as a DVD, and you can claim Fair Use with what you do with it.

      We're talking about people whose heads are completely in the clouds and don't have the slightest bit of common sense or are in touch with the common person. They don't get it.

      Who was the guy who said "I really feel sorry for the working stiff types. What do they make ... like only
    • For the RIAA, their law team could easily cost 150k for a single trial, so it really could be 20 bucks plus court costs, unfortunately!

  • Article text (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hollywood files more Web lawsuits
    Studios sue traders of illegally copied films traded online, seek up to $150,000 per download.
    February 24, 2005: 6:20 PM EST

    LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Hollywood's major movie studios filed a new round of lawsuits nationwide Thursday against people who trade illegally copied films and TV shows on the Internet.

    The civil suits against unnamed "John Doe" defendants seek up to $1,500,000 per downloaded digital file and come as the film industry prepares for its annual Oscar teleca

  • remember that nauseating grammy speech? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by havaloc ( 50551 ) * on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:21AM (#11777252) Homepage
    I remember seeing/hearing this speech [boycott-riaa.com] by Michael Greene in 2002. I suspect we'll hear the same this year, should you be watching the Oscars.

  • MPAA Check Out (Score:3, Insightful)

    by [cx] ( 181186 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:21AM (#11777256)
    Who in the MPAA actually verifys the files are illegal and not just some homemade porn or some songs from your friends band that he gave you?

    And how do they justify the number ($150,000) per digital file? What if it's an analog file like a printout of the digital file? Is that still $150,000 or maybe just $50,000?

    The MPAA needs more clear guidelines than "If we catch you with a digital file we don't like, it's gonna cost you $150,000"

    Not that they care, they are just there to spoonfeed the rich more money so they get a piece of the cake in return. Just a good example of capitalist scumbags.

    We all know theres a real warm place waiting for the **AA Lawyers when their life is over.

    [cx]

    • Re:MPAA Check Out (Score:4, Insightful)

      by joeljkp ( 254783 ) <joeljkparker@@@gmail...com> on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:30AM (#11777381)
      I would imagine they take reasonable effort to make sure that the people they target were actually trading illegal files. Download a movie on a bittorrent, make sure it's legit, then record all the IPs downloading the same thing, for instance.

      If you get sued for downloading something that wasn't illegal, you don't have to settle. I'm sure if you bring it up in negotiations that the thing you downloaded was actually your cousin's piano recital, they'll opt to drop the suit rather than go to court and pay a nasty PR penalty when the words gets out. And if they're boneheaded and take you to court, a reasonable judge would make them pay your court costs and associated damages. Life, however, isn't fair, so perhaps somebody may get screwed.
    • That is math.

      They "loose 3.5 billion". THey sue 20.000 john doe's so that is 150.000 dollar per john doe. (well actually they sue 23,333.33 people)

      Don't forget this is all about getting press coverage and scare tactics. Even they realize that suing 20.000 people does not really make a difference. And today they got free coverage by slashdot (and tomorrow they will get it again! 8) )

      (and forget the fact that a large loss is the printing machines in the far east that are chewing out mass amounts of copies

    • "capitalist scumbags" (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:36AM (#11777455) Homepage Journal
      Just a good example of capitalist scumbags.

      Hmm... . So the behavior of one cartel [iht.com] makes every captialist a scumbag?

      Are the people at Yahoo scumbags? What about the folks who run the show at 3M? Ford? IBM? Dow-Corning? ARM Holdings?

      Are there any capitalists who aren't scumbags, or is a large business automatically evil?

      • "Are there any capitalists who aren't scumbags, or is a large business automatically evil?"

        On /. the answer that question is "YES".
        • "Are there any capitalists who aren't scumbags, or is a large business automatically evil?"

          On /. the answer that question is "YES".

          Yup, on /. the most likely answer to a multiple-choice question is indeed "YES", and it's nothing to do with political bias ;)

      • Re:"capitalist scumbags" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:59AM (#11777715)
        Are there any capitalists who aren't scumbags, or is a large business automatically evil?

        Large corporations are not necessarily "evil", however one wants to define that term, but in my experience the vast majority of publicly-held companies are amoral, meaning there is no real sense of right/wrong. There is only a sense of what increases the bottom line. These are the kinds of companies that will, for instance, continue to spew pollution as the fines for it are cheaper than actually lowering emissions. Another example would be of an automaker that saves money by settling with plaintiffs as opposed to making a safer vehicle. In general, the law doesn't mean a whole lot to them if it's cheaper to break it than to follow it, even if they get caught. I wouldn't categorically say that all large companies are evil, but I would say that it's a safe bet that most will do whatever makes them the most money, regardless of right or wrong, and unfortunately the upper management of said companies could be considered to be in breach of their fiduciary duty if they didn't.
      • Answers (in order, assuming "the people" refers to the people "in charge"):

        No.
        Yes.
        Yes.
        Yes.
        Yes.
        Yes.
        I do not know that company enough to form an opinion.
        The former, although there is a positive correlation between capitalism and scumbaggery.
      • The posted did not say "Just a good example of capitalists, who are all scumbags". That's what you incorrectly infered. It's like someone who complains about crooked cops. They're not complaining about all cops being crooked, they're complaining about the ones who are. My uncle is a capitalist in the sense that eh owns and runs his own business, and he couldn't be more ethical in the way he operates it. The same could not be said for the **AA's. They are cumbag captialists, or rather just scumbags. T

      • Re:"capitalist scumbags" (Score:5, Interesting)

        by NardofDoom ( 821951 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @11:57AM (#11778481)
        Let's talk about evil.

        In just about every creative work, evil is archetypical. Take vampires. They have an insatiable thirst for blood. They can never get enough. Same with werewolves. Same with demons. Same with The Flood from Halo. Same with the Aliens(TM). Same with the Cylons and the Goauld. Same with the Necromongers and Voldemort. They take what they want, by any means necessary, and won't stop until they have it all.

        So what does this mean, culturally? Do we find things that consume without end to be evil? There's one thing that knows no limits to consumption; that doesn't know the meaning of the word 'enough' and doesn't have any qualms about using whatever means necessary: A corporation.

        By now you're probably thinking "but corporations are run by people, and normal people aren't asshats." Well, corporations are designed to shield individuals from prosecution, and are motivated to maximize profit. Individuals in a corporation who make profits go up are rewarded, and ones that make profits go down are not. And, for the most part, they use a short-term view.

        So what you have is a race to the bottom. People who are willing to work the hardest for the least amount of money get the jobs. People who are willing to sacrifice their morals for increasing profits get rewarded. People who are willing to exploit others and make messes and not clean them up and even break the law (if the fines are less than the returns) are rewarded. In this environment, it's hard not to become "evil." This is particularly true in large organizations, where red tape and bureaucracy and sheer size make it impossible to monitor everyone's behavior.

        So, if you use the literary archetype of evil as your definition, corporations and the capitalists who run them are, in general, evil.

        I'm just sayin.

    • Who in the MPAA actually verifys the files are illegal and not just some homemade porn or some songs from your friends band that he gave you?

      Ultimately the lawyer that represents the plaintiff will have to verify this, lest he be subject to sanctions for violating Rule 11.

      And how do they justify the number ($150,000) per digital file? What if it's an analog file like a printout of the digital file? Is that still $150,000 or maybe just $50,000?

      17 USC 504 allows for the plaintiff to seek statutory damag

    • Who in the MPAA actually verifys the files are illegal and not just some homemade porn or some songs from your friends band that he gave you?

      I'm sure someone does. These are court cases being filed, not automated C&D letters. They probably have a small army of paralegals and/or clerks looking over every case prior to filing.

      And how do they justify the number ($150,000) per digital file?

      It's called 'statutory damages,' and that's the exact amount per title (that is, per copyrighted work, not

    • That number may have psychology behind it. That is, if the going rate is $150,000 per song, then it seems like you're getting off the hook if you're only paying $15 per song.

      I don't recall the name of the psychological concept behind it, but people are more willing to cooperate if they think you're making good faith negotiations. This is why, when you ask for a few bucks from a person, you have a better shot of getting what you want by overstating how much you need, and then revising it downward in order

  • Give me one fucking name (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Vordak ( 855348 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:21AM (#11777257)
    "The studios argue that the lost revenue means fewer artists will work to create movies or TV shows." Give me one name of someone that is an 'artist' and won't star in a tv show or movie.. I can see not staring in a shitty movie/tv show, but there isn't anyone out there that won't star in a movie/tv show if its good..
    • I thought the same thing when I read that. What are they going to do, sit on a corner with a tin cup? I don't think so...
    • First, there are bundles of "artists" that won't appear on TV for a variety of reasons- even in a TV movie. Pacino and Streep doing Angels doesn't count- you'll see why later. A-list people won't do it. But that's not the issue.

      The issue is a film like Memento. The picture was criticaly acclaimed, and raised the bar for a lot of indoe filmmakers. The seed money for the project came from Team Todd Productions, and offshoot of Dem Moore's production company. They took an enormous chance with the film which

  • Downloaders? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by joeljkp ( 254783 ) <joeljkparker@@@gmail...com> on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:22AM (#11777269)
    From the article:

    Earlier this month, the MPAA filed lawsuits against computer networks utilizing a software technology known as BitTorrent, but these new suits were against end users, or people who actually downloaded the films.


    Is this a change in tactic for both of the *AA orgs? I was under the impression that up to now, they had only sued the uploaders or the people facilitating the sharing.

    • Re:Downloaders? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Troed ( 102527 )
      If they used BitTorrent they most probably uploaded as well.

    • Re:Downloaders? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tink2000 ( 524407 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:34AM (#11777445) Homepage Journal
      Unfortunately (stupidly?), the *AAs are looking at both up- and down- loading as equally wrong.

      "Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders' exclusive rights: the rights of reproduction, 106(1); and distribution, 106(3). Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs' distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs' reproduction rights." See A&M RECORDS, Inc. v. NAPSTER, INC., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added)."

      Untill just recently, they've taken a "kill the head and the body dies" approach by getting the big uploaders.
    • The US courts are becoming more and more a joke. I really can't imagine anywhere in Europe (certainly not in scandinavia where I live), where $150,000 claims for downloading a freaking movie wouldn't become a huge news issue (everybody, not just fileswappers/downloads/etc would go nuts since such claims basically would ruin most people's life. And thats not something that taken lightly over here).

      The US courts should soon be renamed to something more fitting, like "The corporate torture device".

      And you gu
      • It has nothing to do with the courts -- Congress set the statutory damages at up to $150,000 per work infringed upon.

        And anyway, while we've been forgetting the public interest here, I wouldn't praise Europe. You guys have traditionally far worse copyright laws than us, and have been pressuring the US to make ours worse.

        If we had any sense we never would've joined the Berne Convention, and would've kept copyrights sharply limited in term, scope, with strict formalities required for them to come into exist

  • I'm not surprised that they are targeting swappers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rahga ( 13479 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:22AM (#11777272) Journal
    I'm nout surprised that they are targeting file swappers... I mean, it would look bad if you had to sue your own people [slashdot.org] after they leak the movies.

  • If I didn't laugh I would cry (Score:3, Funny)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:24AM (#11777291)
    "The studios claim they lose $35 billion worldwide in annual revenues from sales of illegally copied movies on video and DVD formats in street bazaars and black markets."

    and later ...but these new suits were against end users, or people who actually downloaded the films.

    And we all know those are the same people. Sheesh.

    • "And we all know those are the same people. Sheesh."

      Nah, I don't think that's what the article meant. Going after the big dogs -- the counterfeiters and the sellers -- and suing downloaders are not mutually exclusive acts. The problem is being attacked on both end. Our government has lately been putting increasing pressure [freep.com] on the Chinese government to put a stop to counterfeiting of all sorts of items, including DVDs, and busting the guys selling them on the streets is typically the job of the police

      • Granted.

        But I'd still like to know what percentage of downloaders would actually spend money on legit movies if those movies weren't available online.

        The MPAA keeps saying they're losing X amount of money due to downloads, but I'm not sure that if they were to eliminate all downloading, those figures would transfer into real world sales.

        • "The MPAA keeps saying they're losing X amount of money due to downloads, but I'm not sure that if they were to eliminate all downloading, those figures would transfer into real world sales."

          Agreed. In fact, I think that's a given. The loss is probably much, much less. But on our side of the fence, we exaggerate as well -- if you were to believe Slashdotters, piracy actually helps the industry, pirates end up buying the CDs and even more CDs, and so on. It's hard to find a Slashdotter who'll admit t

    • The majority of losses is almost certanly from people who buy illegal copies from street bazaars, or illegal copies which enter the normal retail chain.

      I personally hate the numbers they produce, though I hate most distilled stastics, you loose so much of the information in producing the number for Marketing to use.

      These fines are also directed at the internet downloaders to try and prevent it taking off in a big way, really we just need cheep movie downloads from services like itunes, single-world wide r
  • doing this just to pay for the oscars? :)

  • Bazzars and Asian Piracy does not equate to dloads (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:26AM (#11777323)
    For one thing the asian pirates produce a much better product. The picture is perfect its a full copy of the DVD usually indestinguishable from the originals.

    The stuff off the internet is usually at best described as low quality with choppy motion, questionable sound and video artifacts from the compression schemes used.

    While the MPAA has every right to go after people that violate their copyright they should in no way be allowed to delude the courts,their investors, or themselves that suing movie lovers will improve their bottom line.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Bazzars and Asian Piracy does not equate to dlo (Score:4, Informative)

      by Troed ( 102527 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:50AM (#11777629) Homepage Journal
      The stuff off the internet is usually at best described as low quality with choppy motion, questionable sound and video artifacts from the compression schemes used.

      Absolute bollocks. 1.4Gb XviD, DVD-R rips or HRHD (that high definition rips in high resolution off HDTV) are sometimes _better_ quality than national TV in many countries - and HRHD rips rival _anything_ available to buy here in Europe (while still being playable in HDTV resolutions with an Xbox and a projector/plasma/lcd-tv).

      Why buy something of lesser quality when you can download something that actually makes use of the expensive toys you bought?

    • I don't know where you steal your movies from, but everything I have ever...uh.....seen out there on the net...is a perfect digital copy. Sometimes they rip the extras off or have generic menus, but the movie is in perfect shape, minus minor compression that you cannot notice on a 50" DLP HDTV.

      Or so I have been told.

  • black market ( not file sharing) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by free space ( 13714 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:27AM (#11777331)
    From the article:
    The studios claim they lose $3.5 billion worldwide in annual revenues from sales of illegally copied movies on video and DVD formats in street bazaars and black markets.
    ...
    Earlier this month, the MPAA filed lawsuits against computer networks utilizing a software technology known as BitTorrent, but these new suits were against end users, or people who actually downloaded the films


    Apparently, they're currently targeting the distributors who are selling illegally copied films.they should stick to that strategy, as it 1) focuses the attacks on what hurts them most (since black market targets customers who pay for the stuff) and 2) less likely to make consumers hate them
  • I think they are trying to disguise the fact that there aren't any good movies to download these days. Who the heck wants to see Million Dollar Baby or Ray or that one about some dude testing wine. I mean really, folks should be punished for sending those over the internet. Bad taste alone.

  • I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by elid ( 672471 ) <eli.ipod@g m a il.com> on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:28AM (#11777350)
    If they would actually get $150,000 per person per movie they sued, I wonder how that would compare to the actual gross revenue of top movies in history before the Internet (compensating for inflation).

  • stealing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fuzzums ( 250400 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:30AM (#11777382) Homepage
    you're actually better off by breaking in and stealing 1000 dvd's!

    but virtual crime seems worse...
    • you're actually better off by breaking in and stealing 1000 dvd's!
      but virtual crime seems worse...
      Well, since it's virtual crimes, we should have virtual trials and virtual penalties, no?

    • No (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tetromino ( 807969 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @11:05AM (#11777802)
      you're actually better off by breaking in and stealing 1000 dvd's!

      No. Stealing 1000 DVD's would put you in felony territory in pretty much all states; that is to say, you get to spend some time in a mound-me-in-the-ass-state-prison, you lose the right to vote, you will have problems getting firearms legally (if that's your thing), and you will have great difficulties finding an employer willing to hire you. In the US, it really sucks to be a former felon trying to lead a normal life. On the other hand, stealing 5 DVD's is only a misdemeanor, so if you are caught, you might get off with a $500 fine and some community service.

  • MPAA: Sue the Screeners (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Speare ( 84249 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:31AM (#11777400) Homepage Journal
    I'd like to see some high-profile news articles about MPAA suing the producers, the screeners, the guild members who leak out all those freebie discs. That'd be good for the debate, but I'm not gonna see CNN (a division of Time Warner) covering this sort of thing.

  • oh please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Arctic Dragon ( 647151 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:31AM (#11777401)
    "The studios argue that the lost revenue means fewer artists will work to create movies or TV shows. Traditionally the films that are rewarded by Oscar voters at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are those that take thematic and commercial risks.

    When rampant online theft occurs, these films become that much harder to finance...we cannot and will not let that happen," MPAA Chief Executive Dan Glickman said in a telephone conference call with reporters.    "


    I'm sick of their "the stuntman will starve if you download a movie!!" argument, when actors make millions per movie (eg., Brad Pitt earned $17.5M for Troy). I'm not trying to justify the downloading of movies, I'm just sick of the MPAA's silly argument.

    • "I'm sick of their "the stuntman will starve if you download a movie!!" argument, when actors make millions per movie (eg., Brad Pitt earned $17.5M for Troy). I'm not trying to justify the downloading of movies, I'm just sick of the MPAA's silly argument."

      The vast majority of films released don't feature actors taking home $10M+ paychecks. There are tons of smaller budget and indie films out there. But I can understand that for those who don't happen to live at the coasts, the only types of films that

    • The stuntman isn't making those millions.
    • I'm sick of their "the stuntman will starve if you download a movie!!" argument, when actors make millions per movie (eg., Brad Pitt earned $17.5M for Troy). I'm not trying to justify the downloading of movies, I'm just sick of the MPAA's silly argument.

      Well how much do the stuntmen make?

  • Stupid lost revenue (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ChaosCube ( 862389 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:33AM (#11777431) Homepage
    I can see it now, "We've lost an estimated $2 billion so far this year; all due to peer to peer file sharing." There's a big flaw in their argument. Who is to say that users would pay for these movies in the first place? Let me explain. I have downloaded a few movies and songs in my day, but I would not have paid for them in a store. The studios are claiming lost revenue, but the reality is that the people are downloading them simply because they are there and a movie may be cool to watch. I have downloaded exactly one (1) movie that the MPAA would consider theirs, but I never would have paid to see it in the theater or purchase it at a store. There was no lost revenue, not even close. So, as we know, these numbers come straight out of people's asses. I suspect that many others share similar views about the movies. They are downloading them becuase they are there and may be entertaining, but would never actually pay money to see them because that would be a waste.

  • What Proof do they have? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Z-Knight ( 862716 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:37AM (#11777465)
    I may be naive, but what proof can they possibly have that

    (1) someone is downloading a particular movie/song/etc and not simply a file named as a movie/song/etc? I mean, someone can simply be downloading a file containing PI to the 10,000th digit or something stupid like that? How can they tell that what they donwload is the movie without actually looking at the file themselves? And if they are looking at the files that were download then are they not packet sniffing and hence breaking into people's computers (essentially)?

    (2) Secondly, what if someone owns a particular movie on DVD but does not have the ability to convert it to avi or mpg format for his computer...he then downloads it from the internet so he can view it on his trips, etc....does he not already own the movie? How can they sue him for downloading it since he already has it, he just needed a different medium of it!!! To take that a step further...how can the MPAA prove that he doen't own any of the movies that he downloaded? Maybe he does and maybe he broke all his disks or his kid scratched them up...should he be forced to buy new ones when he already bought them before?

    Seems to me, that these suits require people to prove their innocence rather than the MPAA having to prove their guilt...that is unconsitutional!!!

    • Son, son... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Azureflare ( 645778 )
      There's something you gotta know. No one actually "owns" movies anymore. You "rent" them. Yeah. If you break a DVD, scratch it, lose it, or it gets stolen..

      Well, you gotta buy a new one.

      Also I fail to see how someone would be unable to make a digital copy of a movie if they already have the DVD.

      • So do you believe in the school of thought that when your hard drive crashes, you should buy/obtain another copy of your OS? Or, why should people be allowed to install their OS, why not boot from disc? The parallel is real.

    • Re:What Proof do they have? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sacrilicious ( 316896 ) <qbgfynfu.opt@recursor.net> on Friday February 25, 2005 @11:41AM (#11778255) Homepage
      someone is downloading a particular movie/song/etc and not simply a file named as a movie/song/etc? I mean, someone can simply be downloading a file containing PI to the 10,000th digit or something stupid like that?

      Conversely, a given downloader typically has no way of being certain of what they're downloading until it's complete. What if my friend says that there's an amateur porn movie with the title "Sideways", I download it, and it turns out to be the current theater release? I had no way of knowing this before completing the download. Is there a law that says that once a studio uses a word as a title, that no other work may be distributed while named the same word? IMO that would amount to copyrighting the word itself, which is clearly public domain.

    • You many many good points, X-Knight. A person prosecuting for this "crime" would have a lot of very difficult obstacles, and might find it impossible to actually get a conviction.

      The problem is, these aren't going to court. A huge organization with money is sueing individuals for HUGE sums of money. That's really threatening, especially when the victim can bow out of the whole ordeal by settling out of court for a mew few thousand.

      The worst part is this: Even if you were SURE you would win in court, t

  • Who do you think will win? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Laurentiu ( 830504 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:42AM (#11777524)
    "The next contestants may not be very well known to the general public, but they will be after our lawyers finish tearing them apart. Ladies and gentlemen, here they are:"

    Lights out.

    "John Doe One. This 15 year old criminal downloaded a crappy hand-filmed DIVX version of Spiderman 2. He agreed to sell one kidney and both his eyeballs to pay the 150k fee."

    "John Doe Two. A medschool student (still), the IP of his machine was found in the Lokitorrent logs. That's proof enough that he is guilty. He will spend the next 106 years making Texas license plates to cover for the fine."

    "John Doe Three. 35 years old, still living with his mom, has a valid Slashdot account. Since all Slashdot users are geeks and all geeks download illegal contents from P2P networks, he's guilty as hell. Sentenced to 25 years in the Russian unranium mines."

    "John Doe Four. Farmer, age 42. His computer contained the infamous BitTorrent software. He claims his 12 year old nephew has installed it without his knowledge. Both are in custody at a high security location, awaiting the decision of the MPAA board."

    "John Doe Five. He posted a nasty anonymous comment about MPAA on a well-known forum dedicated to freedom of speech. Why anonymous, John? Do you have something to hide? Thankfully his ISP has been forced to disclose his IP under the Patriot Act, and now the 28 year old security consultant faces the death sentence under accusations of theft, identity stealing (Mr. A. Coward was appaled to find out you used his name, buster!) and digital terrorism."

    Lights in. Humorous comment from the host.

    "And the loser is...."

  • How about they fix their security holes first? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ironsides ( 739422 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:42AM (#11777525) Homepage Journal
    The bigest security hole in Hollywood does not come from it's customers, nor the "Analog Hole". It comes from insiders who either stupidly distribute the material to those who ask for it, or those who are bribed to supply it. Pro Pirates can come out with copies of DVDs before the official ones hit the street. How? Because they pay someone working in either the DVD authoring or the DVD pressing to send them a copy of the DVD.

    The other way is actually quite funny. My boss has been working in TV for a few decades now. Back when he worked in Network News, they called up the company that produced Star Wars: A New Hope (yes, the first movie) to get some footage for the news. The studio sent them the whole movie over the satelite (which they recorded to 2" tape). Mind you, at this point the movies was still in theaters, and they had their very own high quality copy.

    Before the MPAA can do anything about piracy, they need to fix their own security holes first. Consumers aren't going to be doing this proffesionaly and on a wide scale. The people who get to the material before the DVD that gets pressed are.

  • "End users" is a misnomer... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PornMaster ( 749461 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:45AM (#11777552) Homepage
    With BitTorrent (which was the technology mentioned in the article), the downloaders are uploading as well. The "end user" is also a distributor. Not only is it part of the community of copyright infringement, it's integral to the function of the community.

  • Hard to justify (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dan.mongeau ( 445278 )
    I believe it is only hurting the cause of the MPAA(not that I agree to begin with) when these hideous people are receiving gifts of $600 pj's, mink eyelashes and Spa treatments, just to BE AT the Oscars.
    There is a couple of million dollars worth of ONLY gift baskets for these people at the Oscars. Why should anyone sympathize with the MPAA crying that someone downloaded a couple of files? Right wrong or indifferent Hollywood is way overblown.
  • If these suits are actually against end-users, it is a major change in **AA strategy, and potentially a risky one.

    In the world of print, which is what the law was written for in the first place and where it is most clear what is legal and what isn't, if Joe's Pirate Press publishes an unauthorized edition of the latest bestseller, they have infringed the copyright, but I am in the clear if I buy from Joe, because copyright restricts reproduction and publication, not possession.

    On the internet, things are
    • On the internet, things are less clear, because if I download from Joe's FTP, it is not exactly clear who has made the copy. Sure, I requested it, but it was Joe who sent the bits my way. Joe could have sent me the bits even if I hadn't requested them. I don't know of any relevant case law, but a case exists to be made that the downloader of a file is in the same position as the purchaser of a book.

      The one thing the **AA's don't want is for such a case to actually make it to court and risk setting a preced

  • Traditionally the films that are rewarded by Oscar voters at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are those that take thematic and commercial risks.


    Oh yeah, the oscars aren't a popularity contest or anything like that.

  • art (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rhennigan ( 833589 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @10:58AM (#11777704)
    Human beings have been creating art for a looooong time without the protection of the RIAA or MPAA. I seriously doubt that downloading music and movies is going to change that.
  • if linux can compete with microsoft, why can't we have "lisney" compete with disney?

    some hive of scriptwriters assembling a script piecemeal blog style... filming being doled out to small crews of the motivated filming individual scenes... editors being anyone at their pc, results voted on by committee... and then distribution and advertising is a no-brainer: all web

    digital hd is becoming really cheap now, there is no reason why an open source style studio system couldn't give the traditional lumbering studios that spend bajillions a good run for their money in terms of product people would want to see... and it's free as in beer and speech

    of course, since there is no "real" (traditional) money in it, the really good talent would get seduced by the traditional studio system for big bucks eventually... but, that fact alone means this plan is a workable idea

    and additionally, distributors WILL buy good product, so there might be a way to make money off of open source filmmaking directly anyways: copyleft ensures a line of ownership so money will get back to those who contributed proportionally (you wrote 2 lines of dialogue which was used in the final cut of the picture, the film made $32 million, so according to the rules we set up before scriptwriting started, here's your check for $4,233.12)

    and we can put to test once and for all the assertion that free product on the internet actually INCREASES purchases and interest in a product: a groundswell of interest a la "the blair witch project" leading to warm seats at the box office regardless of its pre-existing free availability on the net (yes, believe it or not, there are people out there like me who think that watching a film on a 17 inch monitor alone in my underwear doesn't compare to a real popcorn munching oohing and aahing theatre experience, even figuring in the crying babies and the cell phones)
  • Apparently, not that many. This survey [ipsos-na.com] says only about 4% of Americans have actually gotten a full length movie online. A little over 1/2 are not even aware of the concept.
  • They must use the money collected from lawsuits to pay for those trophies!!

    If they wouldn't use 850 K gold or silver, records wouldn't cost as much, ya think?

    And renting the $25 mil necklaces has to come from some poor chap who downloaded at the wrong time, right?
  • "Okay guys, the awards are coming up and we need some PR exposure...who we gonna sue?"

Slashdot Top Deals

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Close