Wikileaks Reveals BitTorrent Lawsuit Background 209
daria42 writes "A US diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks has revealed much of the previously hidden background behind the BitTorrent court case currently playing out in Australia's High Court, including the Motion Picture Association of America's prime mover role and US Embassy fears the trial could become portrayed as 'giant American bullies versus little Aussie battlers.'' Oops. Looks like there's a little bit of egg on the movie studios' faces!"
Oh gee (Score:2)
Re:Oh gee (Score:5, Insightful)
Poor, wretched victims... Where is the MPAA relief fund when they are in such dire need.
*Glues plastic tear under left eye*
Re: (Score:2)
Or he could put the glue in his eye and shed real tears.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then no-one would need plastic tears, and those hard-working plastic tear manufacturers would be out of a job. Of course they'll blame the losses on plastic tear piracy...
Re: (Score:2)
Then no-one would need plastic tears, and those hard-working plastic tear manufacturers would be out of a job. Of course they'll blame the losses on plastic tear piracy...
Then the plastic tear manufacturers would be found to have documents linking the corporate executives up to Hedge funds and stocks of glue manufacturers, but hey, that's okay because their precious material that they never even saw was stolen by those rascals at the glue manuf....... oh. :)
Re: (Score:2)
If the accused in the case really are guilty (and Im not familiar with the case at all)
Perhaps you should have taken the time to learn what it was about, then. Even reading the summary of the previous /. story would have been enough. The case is about iiNet refusing to shut off the internet connections of its customers because AFACT tells them to. No guilt, no trial, no burden of proof.
As usual when dealing with the MPAA et al., even the kneejerk responses are well warranted.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not they are guilty is irrelevant to this discussion and to the article. The article was about the US remarking on the type of media spin that might hit them, and the thread has become about "serves the MPAA right because they have no right to legal restitution for copyright infringement".
Re: (Score:2)
Just because theyre irresponsible and litigious and about as friendly as the Nazghul, doesnt mean that people are excused from following the laws of their land or from perjuring themselves; and it certainly doesnt mean that folks on slashdot are excused when THEY support such people as Jammie Thomas and Tenenbaum.
Good gracious, its as if, because MPAA commits one wrong, it excuses us circumventing the legal system just to spite them for that wrong. Illegal is illegal, whether or not you like the prosecutio
Re: (Score:3)
Good gracious, its as if, because MPAA commits one wrong, it excuses us circumventing the legal system just to spite them for that wrong. Illegal is illegal, whether or not you like the prosecution. Are people really pushing for anarchy and the abolition of the justice system?
This is funny. When the MPAA does something wrong to the public, it's no excuse to break the laws that the MPAA made as a result, illegal is illegal!
If I bribed a politician to make it illegal to refuse to give me money on request, and I asked you for all the money in your wallet, by your logic you'd have to oblige me.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because theyre (The MPAA) irresponsible and litigious and about as friendly as the Nazghu
Is an affront to the Nazgûl. A Black rider will be appearing at your home in the near future to collect restitution.
(Be thankful that you aren't getting a call from the MPAA.)
Re: (Score:3)
When the justice system is no longer just to the people, then yes. Whether or not it has reached that point is a matter of opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
No, we are pushing for anarchy and the abolition of the injustice system.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, well, im sure people turned to governments because anarchy was working out super well.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because theyre irresponsible and litigious and about as friendly as the Nazghul, doesnt mean that people are excused from following the laws of their land or from perjuring themselves...
You know that most laws aren't enforced, especially ones in the civil category, right? They're all there in case they are useful in a case against someone who is supposed to be guilty of something but law enforcement doesn't think they have enough to work with. In other words, if someone needs tools to get something out of someone or something, they can dig for laws to work with. In the line of work I'm in, I see examples of it daily. I *so* wish I could post those examples....
Hmm... I wonder how many l
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal does not mean wrong.
Be that as it may, I would say that to download a song without restitution to the artist IS wrong, since that idea was explicitly written to the constitution (the social contract whereby our government gets its power), and is the expectation of any artist that signs with a label (that their labor will result in payment).
You deciding that music wants to be free is fine; write your own music and stop taking from musicians. And incidentally, "Labels are evil" is a cop-out, since artists dont have to sign with
Re: (Score:3)
This!
*this; (Score:2)
Now how the hell am I supposed to write C++ methods that manipulate their parent object?
Re: (Score:2)
Now how the hell am I supposed to write C++ methods that manipulate their parent object?
By downloading the source via BitTor *click*
Re: (Score:2)
That! is really annoying. What is up with people and their This! Am I really getting that old? Is it too much to ask to actually write a few more words? And is This! the reason one feels the need to post as AC?
Apparently it's 'Like' or '+1' for /.
Somewhat like the bare 'mod parent up' posts, without any supporting discussion behind them...
Re: (Score:2)
That! is really annoying. What is up with people and their This! Am I really getting that old? Is it too much to ask to actually write a few more words? And is This! the reason one feels the need to post as AC?
It's nothing new. It's just the latest evolution of the same reality we've had for ages.
Don't know what I'm talking about?
When was the last time you saw a post containing nothing but "me too"?
Oh yeahhhhh. Look, sometimes people feel the pressure to make their opinion heard only they don't have a unique opinion. They have a "me too" opinion. Better they post "me too", "this", or the latest "+1" mini-post than re-write the parent comment. That way we don't have to actually read the same comment over and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This!
(sorry, just had to)
Re: (Score:2)
This!
(sorry, just had to)
You both had to, didn't ya? Damn dependency on humor; it's gonna destroy all of you young rats these days. :)
And what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And what? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair I think it's more subtle than that. Each time people see something like this they feel ever less guilty about, and ever less desensitized to piracy.
Each time the MPAA does something like this, they push people further and further away from legitimate services.
I for one don't see why anyone should see the slightest guilt in downloading MPAA movies, frankly paying money to buy their product to support their existence seems more morally bankrupt than downloading, or ideally just simply not watching their content at all nowadays.
Really, all wars in whatever context rely on either winning the hearts and minds of the people, or brutally supressing them. The MPAA in it's war on piracy is attempting the latter, yet even the latter only works as a temporary stop gap, the former is the only permanent solution, yet that's a battle they've already long lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Each time people see something like this they feel ever less guilty about, and ever less desensitized to piracy.
I think you nailed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. See my comment above, grub. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2406288&cid=37268548 [slashdot.org]
Good to see ya again. Haven't been on for quite a while.
Re:And what? (Score:4, Insightful)
My favorite is the argument that downloading TV shows is stealing.
I pay for cableTV so I get all those channels. how the hell is it illegal for me to download a TV Show that aired on a TV channel I PAY FOR to watch it later? I'm just using the internet as a TiVo... which is 100% legal.
And how about all TV shows that are broadcast over public airwaves? Those are free to record.
So I gladly continue to download TV shows. and tell the MPAA,RIAA,WMAA, NCAA and WNBA to stuff it up their rectums.
Re:And what? (Score:5, Interesting)
"If you dont like the laws, change how you vote."
But this is equally a rediculous argument. When parties are too focussed on corporate interests at the expense of the voterbase, through, as we've seen recently in the UK, the likes of entire political parties running shit scared of the likes of Murdoch, then what use is voting when it comes to such things? On such issues most Western countries simply can't be classified as democracies as democratic principles are ignored when legislation is made surrounding things like saner copyright laws.
"But dont try to push some "I can do whatever I want and then act outraged when the courts disagree" nonsense, part of being an adult is that you put childish ideas behind you.."
Except many adults would disagree with you, and in fact, so would history.
Pirate radio in the UK in the 60s and 70s was instrumental in creating the UK's thriving private and public sector radio broadcaster market today. At the time law meant that radio was limited to literally only a select few stations, but because pirate radio persisted, government finally, over 20 - 30 years eventually realised that the only way to solve the problem was to give consumers what they want, not to fight them, because it's a fight that government and other vested interests cannot win.
The ideas you see as childish are the types of ideas that have kept democracy thriving. Bowing down blindly to government and putting faith indefinitely in a corruptible political system is naive at best.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I pay for cableTV so I get all those channels. how the hell is it illegal for me to download a TV Show that aired on a TV channel I PAY FOR to watch it later?
Because the laws of the land, in combination with the terms you agreed to with your cable and internet service, say so.
Its like people think they arent responsible for the laws of their land or for the agreements they sign. If you dont like the terms, dont sign the agreement (regarding software licensing, DRM, etc). If you dont like the laws, change how you vote. But dont try to push some "I can do whatever I want and then act outraged when the courts disagree" nonsense, part of being an adult is that you put childish ideas behind you..
There's many times where you SHOULD say fuck the law. It was the LAW that made slavery legal. And it was "illegal", "lawbreaking" slaves that dared escape from their masters. And it took a damn war to make change, not stupid letters to their congressman. And It was the fucking LAW that made Rosa Parks a criminal. It wasn't the fucking voting booth that made change. It was people breaking stupid ass laws and going to jail that did it. And don't try to argue that slavery is different than corrupt copyright la
Re: (Score:2)
There's many times where you SHOULD say fuck the law. It was the LAW that made slavery legal.
Why not Godwin the conversation while we're at it?
I mean, this isnt slavery we're talking about. The gross, heinous travesty is that an artist signed a contract with a company for money, agreeing that the company owned the rights to the results of their labor; and that company released it under certain licensing terms. At any time you can choose not to purchase that license, but I fail to see in what way you can claim "you not getting the latest work from Justin Beiber" is any different than "you not bein
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree to software licensing. I just pirate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, whats that, you wanted to vote by party?
Yea, that might be part of your problem. Vote by candidate, find one who will actually make promises and keep them (and absolutely refuse to vote for them again if they do not), and make them stick to them.
It works for entitlements, doesnt it?
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, there are a number of Tea Partiers who just got blasted last month for refusing to compromise their position and vote to raise the debt ceiling, in contradiction to promises they made.
But of course, thats OK, because theyre republicans and nothing they do matters anyways, right?
Re: (Score:2)
If there are no politicians working to further your concerns, run for office yourself. If you don't want to run, find someone else, and donate to their campaign. If you don't have the money to donate to a campaign, volunteer. If you don't think that will have any effect, stage protests. Distribute leaflets. Incite a rebellion. Do something.
Sitting on your ass, stealing content, while complaining to the internet, is worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Each time people see something like this they feel ever less guilty about, and ever less desensitized to piracy.
You mean "more desensitized" i think, which is ridiculous, since noone gives a crap about piracy now anyways.
I mean, I think a lot of the laws suck too, but to watch people honestly defending perpetually using pirated games and defending Joel Tenenbaum and Jammie Thomas, is ridiculous. As bad as the laws (and their requisite punishments) might be, I dont think anyone can make the case that people care too MUCH about piracy and copyright. One might remark that that is in fact the reason that MPAA is reacti
Re: (Score:2)
Really, all wars in whatever context rely on either winning the hearts and minds of the people, or brutally supressing them. The MPAA in it's war on piracy is attempting the latter, yet even the latter only works as a temporary stop gap, the former is the only permanent solution, yet that's a battle they've already long lost.
Let me ask you, what do you think the purpose of DRM is? Go up to a dozen people on the street and ask them the same thing. Nearly all of them will tell you DRM is to prevent media theft. With how quickly TV and movies show up on the internet, surely someone, somewhere in the industry would have realized all their efforts aren't doing a damn thing, and perhaps they should not spend all that money developing such measures.
DRM has nothing to do with anti-piracy measures. It exists to assert control over t
Re: (Score:2)
It is also about creator lock-in. Consider that if a author wants to change ebook distributor, all his current ebook releases may be behind a different DRM system. Try explaining that to your readers.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me ask you, what do you think the purpose of DRM is? Go up to a dozen people on the street and ask them the same thing. Nearly all of them will tell you DRM is to prevent media theft.
Actually, nearly all of them will tell you they have no idea what DRM is, much less what it's intended to do. I personally think that's a bigger problem, but it's also reality.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair I think it's more subtle than that. Each time people see something like this they feel ever less guilty about, and ever less desensitized to piracy.
Each time the MPAA does something like this, they push people further and further away from legitimate services.
I for one don't see why anyone should see the slightest guilt in downloading MPAA movies, frankly paying money to buy their product to support their existence seems more morally bankrupt than downloading, or ideally just simply not watching their content at all nowadays.
Really, all wars in whatever context rely on either winning the hearts and minds of the people, or brutally supressing them. The MPAA in it's war on piracy is attempting the latter, yet even the latter only works as a temporary stop gap, the former is the only permanent solution, yet that's a battle they've already long lost.
right -- do I really need to remind you that if you grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow? You protect profits by whatever means necessary. Failing to do so is immoral, since the only morality in business is a comfortably darwinian one.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one don't see why anyone should see the slightest guilt in downloading MPAA movies, frankly paying money to buy their product to support their existence seems more morally bankrupt than downloading, or ideally just simply not watching their content at all nowadays.
Hear, hear.
Let me add to that... Like any other war with something that is not 100% traceable (yes, I said 100%, not 98%, 99%.... 100%), there is never going to be an end to its existence. The more suit there is, the more knowledge people gain on the tracing mechanisms used to find it. The more knowledge, the more defense. The more defense, the more offense.
But, wait, it's not 100% traceable! It's information. It will NEVER stop being shared. You (MPAA et al) may simply stop finding out HOW it is sha
Re: (Score:3)
That is a little harsh. As an indie film maker I probably fall under the "assorted bungholes" label you freely dish out. I however also hold down an "honest" (according to your world view) job; I work as a sysad for an environmental consultancy.
I can tell you from personal experience that film making is craploads harder than any IT work I have ever done, and I have had some doozies in the past. It is also fun and extremely rewarding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Increasing DRM does work, you just fail to grasp what it is trying to do. DRM isn't supposed to stop pirates, or even the more technologically capable customers. DRM is to prevent the bulk of their customers from using their rightfully purchased content in a manner other than is desired by the publisher. In that sense, it is doing a great job.
It is doing a great job? Then what's the problem?
My intelligence sense is tingling. The word "want" comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok cool... we're on the same page. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Totally! And if I don't barricade my house it's my problem if it gets ransacked. And if a girl wears a short skirt and doesn't learn self defense sufficient to fight off a 6'3" attacker then it's her problem if she gets raped.
No.
Imagine the Internet space like a physical object. A house. A street, a city. Everyday space.
The music that someone just made is on the outside of the house, as is everything else that's not encrypted. Since it's DRM'ed, we'll say it's in a box on the side of the house. We see it, we know what it is from a distance. We go up to get it and realize that the box is controlled and you have to make a purchase to get the box open. Once it's open, you can take an article of what's in there out of it. So
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure the MAFIAA is oh so terrified of the protesters who after a day or so will get tired, go home, and watch a movie and listen to some music.
You know, what? I reckon the people behind AFACT are truly terrified of people getting tired, going home, and watching a movie and listening to some music that they've downloaded from a non AFACT site.
Well, misery loves company I guess (Score:2)
I guess it's nice to know that the U.S. isn't the only country whose leaders are just slavish lapdogs for the MPAA/RIAA. Goodday mates!
The Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
US Embassy fears the trial could become portrayed as 'giant American bullies versus little Aussie battlers'.
So they are worried about the truth getting out. That is a warning flag that you are on the wrong side of an argument.
Re:The Truth (Score:5, Informative)
Fear of being "portrayed" as giants bullies is a far different thing than actually being giant bullies. Now while I think the MPAA are giant extortionist bullies, but this cable is less fear of leaking the truth and more simple image management. And the Embassy doesn't really have anything to do with the case, it looks more like they were briefed simply because it's an international case, and what they fear is America looking bad. It's not like the US Embassy is trying to defend their own actions.
The cable doesn't actually seem to contain anything scandalous, it just comfirms that the MPAA is the primary motivator behind the case. IANAL but that doesn't seem like either a surprise or a problem (legally speaking. Of course the MPAA are a bunch of scummy bastards who should be banned from legal filings pretty much period.)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to look bad in front of the neighbors, a good step is to keep your dog on a leash so it doesn't crap in their flower garden.
Dinosaurs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Those aren't the same people. It looks to me like the diplomats of the US embassy are more on the intelligent side compared to the MPAA decision makers.
Re: (Score:2)
Those aren't the same people. It looks to me like the diplomats of the US embassy are more on the intelligent side compared to the MPAA decision makers.
I'm not sure that's saying much.
Re: (Score:2)
"They accept this, why the hell don't they tackle the real problem then instead of sueing everybody"
Businesses have no business running a good business! Truth be told it's about control the rather not 'compete' they rather try to find a way to create a walled garden to keep their control. We're seeing the beginning of this in videogames where many games are becoming free2play mmo's and are DRM'd with steam or an always online connection.
Re: (Score:3)
A. Require they admit fault on their part and
B. Require they do some sort of action other than a lawsuit.
Re:Dinosaurs (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the MPAA, being a shield organization, can't really change that. Its members have to come to the same realization, but they're paying the MPAA dues to keep from having to confront reality.
MPAA is paid to shield the movie studios from the reality that their business model is broken. When these things "hit the fan" so to speak, the MPAA takes the flak and the movie studios hype their next release. How many people gripe that Sony, Universal, or Disney do these things? None. They blame the MPAA. Thus the real culprits never face the wrath they deserve. And because of that, they never learn the lessons they need to learn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the US Embassy in Australia doesn't produce and own TV shows?
Really?
I thought they were behind that hit Beijing Show: "Big Brother: US Embassy - Australia"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. I don't live in Australia, but in Europe. But the problem is the same: A lot of media content is not released globally (not just MPAA, also Japan, India, China) but with the Internet the borders between countries no longer exist.
If I could buy what I want and play it on any device I own, then I would.
Re: (Score:2)
Reason being, companies want to squeeze the maximum possible revenue out of every individual region. This is why some products are more expensive than the US in Europe but cheaper in say China or India. People get a stronger sense of unfairness when it's something like an mp3 or movie and they pay more for the same digital bits transferred from the same server.
Internet = no borders (Score:2)
but with the Internet the borders between countries no longer exist.
Except that now streaming web sites are starting to cut out IPs from other countries. They're not exactly learning their lesson here but trying to apply the same flaws that are inherent in previous methods to these new methods.
Fix the problem (Score:3)
That was my take on this as well and what was most glaring. They admit to knowing what the problem is, yet take no steps to fix it. Instead, resorting to questionable legal tactics. Is there any business roadblocks to having movies/ TV shows released globally at the same time?
Re: (Score:3)
That was my take on this as well and what was most glaring. They admit to knowing what the problem is, yet take no steps to fix it. Instead, resorting to questionable legal tactics. Is there any business roadblocks to having movies/ TV shows released globally at the same time?
Well, yeah, there are, and it's all about profit. For example, a studio won't go to the expense of distributing a product to a different region until they are reasonably certain that there is a profit to be made, ie, demand is high enough that they will be able to sell enough units to cover the cost of localizing for that region. I work for a company that assumes that risk, and gambles that the demand is out there, or can be created if it isn't. We acquire licenses for Japanese manga and anime, then loc
Re: (Score:2)
Q: Why does a dog lick his balls?
A: Because they can
They need no reason other than that. Fix the legal system and they'd have to shape up, but as long as RIAA/MPAA is allowed to heavily influence the WTO, I think they'll prefer to adapt the legal systems rather than their business models.
Re: (Score:2)
Q: Why does a dog lick his balls? A: Because they can
They need no reason other than that. Fix the legal system and they'd have to shape up, but as long as RIAA/MPAA is allowed to heavily influence the WTO, I think they'll prefer to adapt the legal systems rather than their business models.
I'd mod you up, if I had any points. It's called "working the refs" in the US and it is a damn effective tactic.
Re: (Score:2)
This is because the tiered distribution system is as old as film itself.
Duplication, transport, differences in national standards, all added up to a system where a movie would hit rental one place before hitting cinemas elsewhere.
Now however a english language movie has global reach on day one, but the agreements and corporate systems are set up around the old ways. And so they try to put the genie back in the bottle...
This, in combo with the issues of exchange rates and differing wages results in a movie t
Re:Dinosaurs (Score:4, Informative)
There are likely also delays that stem simply from the transaction costs and delays involved in the hellish morass that is international licensing contracts; but those aren't really the product of intention, just inertia.
Commonwealth countries are, presumably, hit particularly hard by this sort of thing because they are more likely to get english-language releases, which would be generally quite acceptable to customers in the US and UK, which are prime early-release markets. Markets with less common languages may see a delay for dubbing; but it is less likely that studios would be worried about those being imported, except by relatively small expat populations.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't really fair. It takes a reasonable amount of intelligence to lie manipulate people.
Movie Studios Don't Care (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no egg on any movie studios' faces. The MPAA is used as the tool to deflect hatred away from the groups it represents. If consumers directed their anger squarely at Sony, Universal, et al, then those people would likely consume fewer of their products. But since it's the MPAA we hate, we don't think anything of buying the products of the companies they represent.
In addition to that, the cables state that the US Embassy is the one who fears the image of the United States. The MPAA doesn't care because they're used to be hated - that's become their primary purpose.
MPAA and bad PR (Score:5, Insightful)
.'' Oops. Looks like there's a little bit of egg on the movie studios' faces!"
The movie studios do not care that the MPAA looks like goons and everyone hates them. That's what the MPAA was created to do and that's why the studio keep them funded: they take all the bad PR on behalf of the studios. They are a front to take the bad PR.
I will get moded into oblivion.... (Score:4, Interesting)
But the simple answer is, stop pirating content and they will stop taking you to court.
Regardless of peoples "I want it therefor since they are not providing it I will find a way to get it without their consent and give it away to all my friends" actions and attitudes the content is the property of the creators and it is their right to distribute it in the manner and time of their choosing and no one elses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that like:
"don't let anyone know you're homosexual, if you don't want to be persecuted for it"
"don't dress like a slut if you don't want to be raped"
"don't make a fuss if you don't want to be hammered down" ?
Yup, I can totally see your point..... If I disagree with your actions than have no proven effect on me, and you have every natural right to be doing (which we do in this case, even if it's not legal, it is bloody moral) I should hit you as hard as I bloody well can.....
Re: (Score:2)
They're not taking the pirates to court. They're taking the ISP to court for failing to play enforcer for the MPAA and its sponsors.
You steal content, you get charged. I'm fine with that. But the economic burden for enforcement isn't being borne by the studios. They are pushing part of the cost of their doing business out onto others. And its quite possible that, if the studios incurred these costs, they would revisit the economics of an outdated distribution system. And then we'd see some changes in their
Re: (Score:2)
Please refer to my reply to MimeticLie below.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I read TFA and understand what they are doing. What they are doing is reprehensible; however, they are trying fight their battle in the cheapest way they can and I can't really say I blame them. Going after everyone who pirates? You may as well try to hit the moon with a bottle rocket.
This all comes down to one thing and that is their constituents ( any of the *AA's ) rights to control their content. This is really pitting a small minority of people who pirate content against the will of the content
Re: (Score:3)
From TFA:
"It was clear Ellis did not want to begin by tangling with Telstra,
Australia's former telecom monopoly and still-dominant player
in telephony and internet, and a company with the financial
resources and demonstrated willingness to fight hard"
from FlyingGuy:
"What they are doing is reprehensible; however, they are trying fight their battle in the cheapest way they can and I can't really say I blame them"
Much like thugs targeting the sick and elderly, you can't really blame them because they want to a
Re: (Score:2)
Nice Troll, but I'll play:
We (the citizens of the world) have not given monopoly powers to content creators to maximize their profits nor to allow them to prevent or limit dissemination of their creations. We gave them those privileges to allow (in this case) art to flourish and advance so that all people could reasonably partake in the enjoyment. Part of that is ensuring that the artist does no go hungry, and part of that is that the works are available for others to enjoy.
These "rights" you speak of are n
Re: (Score:3)
We (the citizens of the world) have not given monopoly powers to content creators to maximize their profits nor to allow them to prevent or limit dissemination of their creations.
Yes you have. Your elected representatives are the ones who vote on those laws. If you don't like the way they are voting, the vote them out. If you can organize enough people who actually care and will not simply give up after 5 minutes things will change because elected representatives want to keep their jobs. Yes that sounds simplistic, but that is how it works. Get enough people elected who believe the way you do and you can change copyright, patent or anything else for that matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately it is more complicated than that. There is a cartel that controls distribution for movies. The cartel takes the largest share of any revenues. Giving money to the cartel perpetuates the cartel.
My personal take is that I am loathe to give money to the cartel. Sony, for example, stands between me and the people who really made the movie. I can't give the actual creators any money, as much as I appreciate their work, I can only give Sony money and then some insignificant sliver of that go
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I guess you have never really looked into how the book business works...
Contrast the current movie situation with books. If a book is new and I want it, I pay for it. I do this because I appreciate an author's work and my money pays them for that work and encourages them to do more. A fair percentage of what I give Amazon will really get to the author, so I feel like my actions matter in this case. I'm also fairly persuaded that money for music is more fairly distributed and the "product" is now no longer crippled with DRM. I'd be thrilled if they ever did that for books, it's really the only sticky point for giving money to Amazon.
You write a book. Take said manuscript to a publisher. The publisher thinks it will sell. The publisher does all kids of advance work from the editing, art and getting it into desktop publishing software to generate the final PDF file that goes to the printing house. The publisher then $pays$ to have the book's first run printed. This can be a lot of money if they think it will go large. The publisher then shops it to the majo
Re: (Score:2)
Given the quality of many of the piracy cases, that's not really true. Plenty around the world have been dragged into court or just paid the extortion in spite of not pirating (in one case, in spite of never owning a computer and being dead at the time of the supposed piracy). Meanwhile, the taxpayer who won't see a penny of profit from this nonsense gets to pay for the courts that they clog up.
Now, they want so called 3-strikes laws where people get cut off from the internet on the 3rd unproven accusation
Re: (Score:2)
Please refer to my reply to MimeticLie below.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed! Vote with your wallet! If we were to stop going to movies, stop renting movies ( net flicks, local blockbuster or what ever your local equivalent is ) then they would start singing a different tune perhaps. The side effect of that is that there will be one shitload of people unemployed as a consequence but, well, every revolution has casualties yes?
Cable author (Score:3)
The author of the cable seems pretty lucid about the whole copyright/piracy situation (I doubt the ambassador redacts the cables himself). Sadly, the people behind the movie associations do not share that lucidity.
From TFA:
[...] Australia, which does have very high rates of illegal movie and television show downloads, in part because of the sometimes long gaps between their release in the US and their arrival in Australian theaters or on local television.
Oh! Did we just mention a probable (reasonable?) cause for increased piracy... which can be very easily solved?
Principle (Score:3)
(And, no, I'm not saying I support long copyright terms or large financial penalties for pirates.)
What is a "cable?" (Score:2)
Can someone tell me what a "cable" is? I am looking at the link in the story, and it looks like the kind of thing you'd see slowly printing off of a teletype machine in a 1970s political thriller.
What is the purpose of sending cables rather than encrypted e-mails?
Who maintains the "cable" system and what standard does it run on? Is it like old-school TTY or is it like fax or what? Do these get delivered over regular phone lines or some other network? What kind of "cables" are involved in transmitting "c
Re: (Score:2)
Why Piracy rates in Australia are high (Score:4, Interesting)
Australians are getting ripped off, and are jack of it, so piracy is increasing. No surprises there.
Some examples:
The AUD and USD are close enough to each other to be comparable.
Netflix Streaming only subscription in US - $8 per month UNLIMITED.
Streaming service in Australia (no Unlimited subscription services exist as far as I know.
Bigpond movies $6/movie. Sony on PS3 $6 or $7/movie, Quicklix $6/movie
New release DVD purchased in Australia (Battle: Los Angeles) - $30
New release DVD purchased in US (Battle: Los Angeles) - $20
New release Blu-Ray purchased in Australia (Battle: Los Angeles) - $40
New release Blu-Ray purchased in US (Battle: Los Angeles) - $30
2D Cinema Ticket in Australia - $15.50
2D Cinema Ticket in the US - ~$10.00
Re:Just go away Wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that the OFFICIAL response from the MPAA, or are you just speaking for yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you were here... 10 years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
THIS is what Wikileaks should be doing. Helping expose corrupt organizations that push government to act and pursue certain things.
Do you suggest Wikileaks better keep their mouth shut about governments gladly falling to the push?
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea! Send your girlfriend right over.