MPAA Opens Anti-filesharing Website

PontifexPrimus writes "The MPAA's new advertising campaign against movie piracy has a home on the internet. Did you know that 'Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc.'? Learn about the dangers of filesharing!"

Because without KaZaa....

[OwnerOfWhinyCat]

....your Microsoft O/S is completely secure [securityfocus.org].

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[Chester K]

....your Microsoft O/S is completely secure.

I think it's funny you're responding cynically to their FUD-laden scaremongering about backdoors and viruses being spread through file sharing programs with equally FUD-laden scaremongering about security holes in Windows.

Though I'm sure the irony will be lost on you.

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[God! Awful 2]

"Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc."

Hmm... there have been e-mail viruses that randomly send personal files to your friends. How long before viruses start placing your personal files in your shared folders?

I'm sure some /. readers would care to speculate on who would like to write such a virus...

-a

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[shaitand]

umm no, 2 windows vulnerabilities in the last month. 9 potential linux vulnerabilities axed in the last month.

The fact that vulnerabilities get found and fixed on linux is hardly a blackmark.

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[Cpt_Kirks]

I'm not looking to get involved in some battle of the zealots

Jeebus, are you in the wrong place!

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[shaitand]

Actually it's what you just said that makes no sense. It also makes no sense that you assume anyone who prefers one system over another must be a zealot, this is a clear indication that you yourself are a zealot.

Let's take a look at this for the moment, the linux kernel is primarily coded by people from a pool of top programmers in the world. Microsoft and other fortune 500 companies (including IBM and those who contribute to the kernel) basically buy and swap these people around. There is a list of about 300 names and you'll find at least a few of them on the roster for any given major project, commerical or gpl. What this means is, more or less the same people are doing the programming, and they are no more or less apt to write a bug. So given two projects with roughly the same controls, of the same complexity, and with the same programmers, you'll end up with more or less equal bugs going into the code. There is no such thing as an app without bugs, they are there, they never all get weeded out.

It's what happens after that which is interesting
In the case of windows by far more bugs are discovered by 3rd parties than by microsoft after release, those parties can do nothing bug report said bugs to microsoft. No shortage of bugs are discovered first by the crackers and the crackers exploiting them is how they become known to everyone else.

With linux after release there are thousands of people looking for and fixing bugs in the linux kernel, at any given hour, of any given day. Out of the thousands of people looking over the source code trying to find a bug and get an honorable mention in the changelog. These thousands were able to come up with 9 bugs and all of them had 24hrs or less turn around time before being fixed. A bug is virtually never discovered because someone was exploiting it, bugs are almost always exploited retroactively after there is already a fix out there.

Now either way, if you don't stay patched you'll be vulnerable to bugs... because no matter how many we find there are more out there. But I consider a system where the best the hackers can do is follow the bug announcements themselves and hope I didn't patch to one where the hackers are usually the ones who find the bugs to begin with.

Godwins law

[junklight]

Godwins law doeesn't say anything about winning or losing - it merely states that at some point in any heated internet discussion someone will mention the Nazis. At this point the conversations/argument no longer has anything useful to be said and has most likely become a slanging match.

There is nothing about winners or losers.

Read all about it: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GodwinsLaw

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[pantycrickets]

2 windows vunerabilities in the last month

9 Linux vunderablilites in the last month

Shhh.. keep it down, what are you trying to do? Start a riot? This is Slashdot, not some sort of place to post facts.

Sort of...

[wirelessbuzzers]

While you're rgiht that Linux is not perfectly secure, you must admit that those are rather different classes of vulnerability. The two Windows ones were a remote root exploits in the default configuration, and a root exploit that could be easily used by a webpage/email. The Linux ones were mostly DOS vulnerabilities, most of which would require substantial access (ie, a shell account or more) to exploit, and many of which are not present in a standard configuration (eg, you have to have NFS turned on).

I would say that considering the kinds of vulnerabilities we're talking about, Linux's track record is at least as good as Windows' in this department.

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[dubious9]

Those were all dead links.
s/yro.slashdot.org/www.securityfocus.com

1. [securityfocus.com]Linux Kernel 2.4 XDR handler routines for NFSv3 have been reported prone to a remote denial of service vulnerability.
The issue presents itself in the XDR handler routine contained in the nfs3xdr.c kernel source file. The issue is due to a signed/unsigned mismatch, when processing the size field of an XDR packet.

A remote attacker may exploit this issue to trigger a kernel panic and deny service to legitimate users of the system.

2 [securityfocus.com]

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[dubious9]

OK, now I'll respond to the 2 vs. 7 post and i'll entitle it: "Lies, damn lies, and Statistics."

First off, you've got the kernel source, and anybody can look for bugs.
Second, you are encouraged to report bugs in linux so that they will be promptly fixed. Microsoft asks that you inform only them and if you tell the world, then Microsoft will likely get mad at you.
Third, what is the bug comparision total over the long term? A lot of the bugs you stated were similar and one was a vendor driver problem and only one gave the user root access.

In conclusion, bug count totals are meaningless when used in comparison, much like counting lines of code. They only speak of the quality of the code along with other factors.

The fact is linux is designed with security in mind, and windows is not. Even microsoft people say so. Linux is updated much more frequently than windows, and new kernel roll outs are simple. Windows is closed source and bugs reporting is discouraged and may be illegal under the DMCA.

I would then expect Linux to have more bugs reported, but that says nothing about the number of bugs present in windows. And as other posters have said the linux bugs are predominately unlikely to work remotely, and even if they did, only a couple are root cracks the rest are DOS bugs.

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[Lord_Dweomer]

" 2 windows vunerabilities in the last month
9 Linux vunderablilites in the last month"

We don't take kindly to strangers 'round 'ere.

Re:Because without KaZaa....

[Quino]

You see, the line of thinking (disclaimer, I subscribe to this line of thinking) always has been that Linux is less buggy *because* bugs are more readily found, resulting in safer, less buggy software.

Here's the line of thinking as I understand it, well written software, just due to human nature and the nature of programming, ends up with a more or less constant rate of glitches (constant in a statistical sense, I'm sure). Usually, the hardest part about making glitch-free software is just knowing about the bugs. Apparently, the most important part in bug-fixing (and the hardest) is the bug-finding.

You're assuming that the argument is that, because it's OSS, it's bug-free from inception. I don't think anyone has ever made that claim. OSS, the argument goes, is just better software (in a general way, of course. OSS is no guaranty of crappyness-free software, just as the fact that someone succesfully managed to charge for their software is no form of guarantee either) because the process in which it's developed (checkout The Cathedral and the Bazaar, insteresting stuff) more bugs are found faster.

Your post pretty much suports this view -- what you're showing is pretty much, according to OSS suporters, the superior bug squashing process taking place. In that light, according to your nice list, MS is 7 bugfixes behind! (doesn't it appeal to common sense also? What do you think is more likely, that the 7 bugs don't exist in MS software, or that MS hasn't found them yet?)

One word.

[James A. A. Joyce]

The be-all and end-all word: FUD.

Need I say more?

Re:One word.

[TedCheshireAcad]

But it's so priceless, on the page of ''Why you should care", they say:

When you download movies illegally from the internet, you're breaking the law.

genius...

My personal favourite.

[BiggerIsBetter]

"Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get."
- Frederick Douglass

Translation: It's OK for us to rip you off, but you can't rip us off.

Re:One word.

[Stickster]

You're arguing apples to oranges. The point is not that the originator wouldn't have made a sale to you anyway; the point is that copyright is a right that rests with the work's originator. You don't have the right to make a decision on whether you're allowed to copy the work. The originator does, and if they decide that the only way you get a copy is by paying them, then that is the price. If you don't pay for it, you don't get to enjoy it.

And honestly, your argument is also somewhat specious, because if the work wasn't worth your paying for it in the first place, why would you want it to begin with?

Re:One word.

[MrLint]

Funny I was in Chinatown today and there no MPAA members stopping the *sale* of pirated movies out in the public street.

Re:One word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown [imdb.com]

So.

[emf]

I ran a file share app, someone "hacked" my computer and put those .mp3's there. It wasn't me. ;)

Anybody mirror the site yet? ;)

Slashdotted

[nycsubway]

Woooooooooo! they've been slashdotted..

Anybody mirror the site yet? ;)

Mirror their site? Absolutely not. If they can't keep their own webserver running, I dont think anyone should help them get their message out. After all, their message is to not share information

Re:So.

[jeffkjo1]

"You also become a distribution source for illegal downloading of movies, music and more, which makes you just as responsible if you had downloaded the movie yourself."

Not according to the law.
While the MPAA is trying to scare you, this statement is untrue. If I loan my car to a friend and he gets drunk and runs someone over, am I at fault? No, the police will want to know where I was for purposes of proving I was not driving the car, but I am not going to be charged with murder. It's the same way with filesharing.... although it gets more interesting. If I install a program that puts a backdoor on my system... am I really at fault, or is the software manufacturer.

Re:So.

[debrain]

If I loan my car to a friend and he gets drunk and runs someone over, am I at fault?

The facilitation of distribution of movies can be seen in a very different light. It may be more akin to loaning a gun to a friend who you know will murder with it. Wherein, you are now a party to the crime by providing the instruments of the act (instruments which have no other purpose; a jinx in this argument? Is the sole purpose of the instrument to circumvent copyright?).

Short of cited precedent, I think arguments, an

Re:So.

[darkwiz]

"You also become a distribution source for illegal downloading of movies, music and more, which makes you just as responsible if you had downloaded the movie yourself."

Not according to the law.

No, you are guilty of contributory infringement. Having a filesharing program running, and sharing copyrighted files from it - you are knowingly distributing copyrighted materials. By the law, you do not have that right, only the copyright holder does, unless they have specifically given you that right.

It is in no way comparable to loaning someone your car, because the primary use of loaning your car is legal. If you knowingly give people access to resources that you are aware they are using to commit a crime, you are generally guilty of a crime as well.

The key word there is knowingly. You pay someone to kill someone: you have broken the law. You give them a gun knowing that they are going to use it to murder someone, you have broken the law. You give them the keys to your neighbor's house, knowing that they will use them to rob their house - you have broken the law. If you loan them your car knowing that they will use it to rob a bank, you are not only incredibly stupid, but also guilty of a crime.

You'd have to be pretty naive to think that people aren't going to use your filesharing of "J-Lo and Ben Affleck Cavort Around, Pay Us Money" to download it illegally, and stupidity is not generally a legal defense. In otherwords, you are knowingly facillitating the commission of a crime, and would be extraordinarily hard-pressed to argue otherwise (unless you were distributing licensed, or free media - in which case the **AA isn't your problem).

In the least, all these actions are "Aiding and Abetting" or criminal negligence. In the worst, they are conspiracy. Filesharing of copyrighted works is no different, although of considerably less gravity then the above crimes.

Please people, a little sanity here. The **AA are overblowing things, but distributing copyrighted works with normal, restricted distribution rights is illegal. Period.

Re:So.

[Qzukk]

You'd have to be pretty naive to think that people aren't going to use your filesharing of "J-Lo and Ben Affleck Cavort Around, Pay Us Money" to download it illegally...

Of course, what if I'm sharing mp3s of my garage band? Or a friends' garage band? Or if I got all the garage bands in my neighborhood together and put them all up?

See, it is not as hard as you'd think to come up with a sane, nonillegal use of filesharing. If I had a garage band it would be natural to post my music online to spread awareness and to see what other people think of it. Take a look at the Minibosses or God Ate My Homework.

Or, lets say you have an incredibly popular site or you know your site is about to be hit by /. You could toss your site into freenet and post the key, or set up several torrents for it and post links to the torrents.

So now, to mangle one of your analogies, since its obviously illegal to loan someone their car to be used in a bank robbery, should you be banned from ever loaning your car? Should filesharing be banned because it could lead to copyright infringement? Just because the legitimate purposes aren't popular at this point in time, who knows where it could go from here?

Campus and Corporate Networks?

[fredistheking]

So by your logic, if some network administrator knew that any illegal activity was going on, they would have to shutdown the entire network? There are usually far too many students or employees to be able to afford policing all the traffic (nevermind the privacy issues).

Furthermore, it is not a crime to install or run a p2p app. It is only a crime to knowingly engage in copyright infringement. Do you think your average kazaa (not slashdot) user knows how to turn off uploads or even know that they are allowing uploads at all?

Re:So.

[Danse]

Actually, the interesting thing about the statement is that they say "which makes you just as responsible if you had downloaded the movie", when it's distributing the movie that is the real crime, not downloading it.

What really happens

[AndyFewt]

For those of you who *always* wondered what happens When you download movies illegally:
#1. You're cheating yourself.. absolutely, I divorce myself!
#2. You're threatening the livelihood of thousands.. just the MPAA member company shareholders/execs
#3. Your computer is vulnerable.. avi/mpeg/mov can carry a virus? Learn something new everyday!
#4. You're breaking the law.. >:]

The best part of their site was their "Music Games & More" section where they say "Did you know that you can download the latest songs", I wonder what the RIAA would think.

"Don't cheat yourself (the poor shareholders/execs) out of the magic (new yacht/ferrari). Movies - They're worth it (HONEST!)!"

I don't know about other people, but I know that all of the movies have downloaded in the past I had actually paid to go see them before/after I had downloaded it and/or bought the dvd if I thought it was good. Not even Kazaa can beat Dolby 5.1 and a dvd picture :)

Re:What really happens

[The Mayor]

Actually, the Windows Media Player has had several known buffer overflow problems. A carefully chosen media file could therefore exploit this buffer overflow to execute malicious code after the buffer overflow error is encountered. Although I am unaware of any such bugs in other media viewing software, I am sure that they exist.

Re:What really happens

[AndyFewt]

I personally don't use Windows Media Player, never had. But like you said, it requires a carefully chosen media file which would exploit it, execute the code and do this without anyone suspecting it. I believe MS said that they had no evidence anyone had exploited it. The bugs probably do exist in other software but whether they will buffer overflow and execute the code you want is another matter. But either way, the virus in any file would probably be crafted for one specific problem in one specific (popular) media player.

MP3 exploit exists in Windows XP; Video at 11

[Ho-Lee-Chow]

There is a more serious MP3 buffer exploit [microsoft.com] in the Windows Shell of Windows XP (including SP1). All you have to do is hover the mouse pointer over an MP3 or file with a corrupted ID3 tag to trigger the exploit. Sure, that may not be the easiest way to spread a virus or a backdoor trojan, but what about code that simply formats your hard drive? I'm sure there are plenty of trojan EXEs that will gladly re-format your HD; now what if hovering your mouse over an MP3 could have the same effect? That would be a great method for "destroying" filesharers' PCs a la Senator Orrin Hatch.

Microsoft is quite innovative in the field of security. They find ways to open up exploits in all kinds of data formats that were previously thought to be safe: MP3s, WMAs, E-mail, etc. (Okay, that was a bit of a troll and extremely unoriginal, but what the hell.)

Reason #2

[CrowScape]

With movies taking in more money every year and with DVD sales growing by leaps and bounds, if those thousands of Industry employees aren't getting enough money I would think the problem does not lie with illegal downloads.

Re:What really happens

[Robber Baron]

"Don't cheat yourself out of the magic. Movies - They're worth it!"

I know there's a plan to run commericals in theatres that are along those lines, but the last movie I saw in the theatre (T3) had a commerical for one of the local broadband providers with the tag line "listen to music online". Talk about mixed messages eh?

I don't know about other people, but I know that all of the movies have downloaded in the past I had actually paid to go see them before/after I had downloaded it and/or bought the dvd if I thought it was good. Not even Kazaa can beat Dolby 5.1 and a dvd picture :)

I'm the same. If I think it's going to be good, I'll see it in the theatre. If it's exceptional, I'll buy the DVD, even after I've downloaded it (after seeing it in the theatre). On the other hand, if it's a steaming pile of shit like Pearl Harbour (Thank heaven I didn't pay to see that abortion), I'll delete it immediately and contemplate sending a bill the the studio for the wasted time/bandwidth/disk space.

The commercials are comming...

[Sven The Space Monke]

I just saw American Wedding on friday (I'm not gonna give any opinions - I'm not a movie critic). They had one of these commercials just before the previews. This pne "starred" a set designer talking about how much he loves movies, and how he met his wife on the set of The Big Chill, and how "not everybody invloved in the production of a big movie makes 6-figures". and a lot of other stuff to put a human face on the MPAA side ('cuz Jack Valenti isn't human enough). It seems like they pulled out all the stops on this one. "Touching" music (sounds almost like something Williams would do), "artistic" font design, etc. This guy rambles on about how much he loves movies for what seemed like forever before he got to the point. Once he did, it became rather apparent that the plan backfired. The theater was packed (opening night), and several people started laughing openly at this guy say how stealing one copy of a movie online steals his ability to make a living for his family. I heard a guy behind me say to the person next to him that he was going to start pirating movies if this was the "sh*t these assw*pes are gonna make me sit through before they get to the f***ing movie". The person next to him agreed.

Re:The commercials are comming...

[Tim Doran]

Jack Valenti isn't human at all. He's a high-performance killing machine sent from the future to wipe out filesharing -- and with it, all hope for humanity's future.

Jesus, I think I should go to bed.

Re:The commercials are comming...

[Danse]

Yeah, I went to a preview of American Wedding and they showed it then too. I cracked up. Aren't those guys all union members anyway? I don't see them taking a pay cut anytime soon. The only possible way that movie piracy could affect them is if people simply stopped going to movies and just downloaded them instead. I would have to happen on a scale that caused the industry to just stop making movies (and thus not hiring all those union guys). That ain't gonna happen. The quality is generally (very) inferior and you don't get the big screen/big sound system effect either. Sure, some people have home theaters worth more than a nice car, but they're few and far between. Then there's rentals. I could possibly see this impacting those, but even then it's a long shot. You don't get all the extra features and stuff that a lot of people like (and one of the few things that the movie industry is doing right). So I think the poor guy will still be able to put a crust of bread on the table for his wife and kids for a long time to come. Hollywood needs to handle this a lot differently and quit pissing people off. If they would simply create good movies and keep improving the package deal you get when buying a DVD, then they should have no problems.

Re:What really happens

[NanoGator]

" I saw in the theatre (T3) had a commerical for one of the local broadband providers with the tag line "listen to music online". Talk about mixed messages eh?"

Not really. Go download Winamp and you can listen to streamed music legally and for free.

Re:What really happens

[necrognome]

Slightly OT, but you have no idea how bad ads can get in the movie theatre. At one of the theatres in NYC, the UA Union Square to be precise, there is something called "The Twenty." It's this "hip, new" (their words) reason to come to the movies early to see (sit down) twenty minutes of ads, music video and TV show previews, and "short films" that are really ads for television networks. Imagine twenty minutes of commercials, BEFORE the previews, coming soon to a theatre near you.

Re:What really happens

[erasmus_]

Just the MPAA member company shareholders/execs? Since you sound very knowledgeable about the topic, can you explain exactly how actors, directors, cinematographers, writers, or even key grips get paid when you pirate a movie and don't pay a dime for it? Or how about computer people just like us, who work on the special effects, or just install and support the computers for the people involved with a movie? You're going to save me a lot of guilt from downloading, so I await the answer anxiously. Thanks!

hey, FUDster

[alizard]

can you explain exactly how actors, directors, cinematographers, writers, or even key grips get paid when you pirate a movie and don't pay a dime for it?

With the exception of the few who are "important" enough to get cut in on a percentage of the net, these are union people who get paid by the hour and get paid rather well while work lasts. Their payment does not depend on whether or not the movie sells or is pirated.

You are saying that no more movies are going to be made if somebody downloads a low-quality copy of the next Matrix movie? What are you smoking?

The RIAA argument you're trying to make also requires you to demonstrate that significant losses in sales are occurring due to broadband downloads of movies.

EVIDENCE PLEASE, other than studies paid for by the MPAA to PR firms.

Your argument also, carried to its illogical conclusion says we have a moral obligation to buy even movies we don't like or these poor, starving industry employees will be out of work. Do they have the obligation to buy software from companies that employ us whether they like it, want it, or need it?

Or how about computer people just like us, who work on the special effects, or just install and support the computers for the people involved with a movie?

You either expect to make enough from your share of the profit to afford to take the risk of their not being any or are getting the certainty of a pretty good paycheck. Either way, you are not my problem, any more than any failed dot.com I wasn't personally involved with is.

Re:hey, FUDster

[Overly Critical Guy]

Nothing you say can change the fact that pirating movies is illegal and immoral, even in spite of your typical Slashbot anti-corporation mindset that somehow justifies things for you.

With the exception of the few who are "important" enough to get cut in on a percentage of the net, these are union people who get paid by the hour and get paid rather well while work lasts. Their payment does not depend on whether or not the movie sells or is pirated.

Yes it does. If movies don't sell, those people won't ge

Re:What really happens

[Ninja Programmer]

#1. You're cheating yourself.. absolutely, I divorce myself!

Well, if you were bisexual ... oh never mind.

#3. Your computer is vulnerable.. avi/mpeg/mov can carry a virus? Learn something new everyday!

ASF files appear to be able to carry executable activeX content. (I can't be 100% sure since Microsoft cease and desisted VirtualDub from reverse engineering the format, but I have run ASF file which popped up a web page from an URL contained in the binary of the file in MBCS format.) The problem is that often an ASF file will be renamed (I have noticed this from ASF files I obtained with Kazaa-lite) with an AVI or MPG file extension. Windows media player will detect the file by content, not by file extension, and after warning you about a mis-match, will go ahead and play it anyway.

#4. You're breaking the law.. >:]

Someone should inform them that price fixing, payola and anti-trust is also breaking the law. Though that applies more to the RIAA than the MPAA.

Re:What really happens

[shird]

2. You're threatening the livelihood of thousands.. just the MPAA member company shareholders/execs

I had a look at the video and the general theme of their site and realised theres a bit of a fault with their reasoning. They claim that although it might not affect the producers and actors etc because they earn so much, it will affect the 'small' guys like set painters etc...

but... if the movie makes so much as they admit, theyre not going to pay the 'set painters' etc any less because, as they admit, they still will be making more than enough money to pay these guys. They are probably contract workers and will only do it for an acceptable fee. WTF.. shut up you stupid MPAA wankers.

Reminds me

[Anonymous Coward]

...of the movie "Truman Show" where Jim Carrey is in the travel agency, and one of the posters on the wall shows a jumbo jet being hit by lightning. The caption on the poster read "This could happen to YOU!"

LOL! Sometimes FUD is funny.

This makes you almost wonder

[Hertog]

Have they, besides seeding the P2P networks with bogus files, also started spreading virii?

I wouldn't be surprised a bit.

I think the MPAA just....

[The Analog Kid]

learned about the dangers of the slashdot effect.

Re:I think the MPAA just....

[Nutrimentia]

I suspect that this article was submitted here precisely for this reason!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

New anti-priacy policy...

[groove10]

Only produce movies starring Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, that way... No one will want to pirate them because they suck so bad!

Re:New anti-priacy policy...

[BiggerIsBetter]

It's turkey time. Gobble, gobble.

I'm safe!

[worst_name_ever]

I was worried when I read this article, until I remembered that I am immune to this kind of thing ever since I bought the software that prevents my computer from broadcasting an IP address. I'm so glad I clicked on that popup ad!

This is great!

[Megor1]

You also become a distribution source for illegal downloading of movies, music and more, which makes you just as responsible if you had downloaded the movie yourself.

So the riaa should really sue the riaa since they were offering songs for download when their website got broken into?

You're Cheating Yourself

[error502]

Most of the time, the movies available for download on the Internet are obtained when someone sneaks a camcorder into a theatre and illegally records the movie up on the screen. The sound isn't right, the picture isn't in focus, people are walking in front of the camera, and scenes are missing. Is that any way to experience the magic of the movies?

Is what any way to experience the magic of the movies? Free? I think it's a great way.

Only 4 out of 10 films turn a profit.

6 out of 10 films suck.

Do you really want fewer movies to choose from?

Gladly. Maybe they'll be forced to make movies that aren't complete shit.

Re:You're Cheating Yourself

[BoyHowdyAAF]

Only 4 out of 10 films turn a profit.

6 out of 10 films suck.

And odds are, at least three of those films fall into both categories. ;)

Glad?

[sporty]

Am I the only one that is glad that my well being, that "cheating myself" is so much more important than "breaking the law"?

I won't bother debunking 3 or even talking about 2... but don't you love how they try and manipulate priorities?

Cheating myself?

[Xerithane]

Here's an idea MPAA. You can use this one for free, and I'm putting it in the public domain for you. Because you have such high opinions of movies such as "TITANIC" and "SPIDER-MAN" and "JURASSIC PARK", I have some news for you: Don't make movies that suck.

There is nothing that compares to the silver screen. Well, there wasn't, but home theaters are starting to come close. So, make movies that don't suck and people will still go to see them.

4 out of 10 movies don't recoup their investment because they suck. Gigli isn't going to recoup it's investment because it sucks. 4 out of 10 movies are going to suck. The other 6 are just going to suck less. Stop automating your script-writing, and be more stringent with what movies you actually produce and then people will still go see them in the theater and you will still make money. People will still pirate them, but so what.

The biggest thing people use pirated movies for: To find out if it is worth the $8. If it sucks, it isn't worth $8. I'm not cheating myself, I'm saving my damn money.

Re:Cheating myself?

[swordgeek]

Just a minor correction.

"4 out of 10 movies don't recoup their investment because they suck."

Correct.

"4 out of 10 movies are going to suck."

INCORRECT!!!

9 out of 10 movies are going to suck. 5 of those 9 will actually make a profit, despite that. (and the tenth, that one movie that doesn't suck, isn't likely at all to make back its costs)

Re:Cheating myself?

[BWJones]

I have some news for you: Don't make movies that suck

I have some news for you. We are dealing with a common denominator here. The general American public will purchase just about anything and it does not matter the qualtiy. Lemme see if I can think of some examples: In the movies we have "Rob Schneider is (x)" People go to see that! And it must make a profit, because they keep making these Rob Schneider films. In the computer business we have Windows. And people continue to purchase Windows. Tak

Re:One Better

[leviramsey]

Are you willing to pay an extra $5 per ticket?

How soon they forget.

[PaddyM]

I just saw 'Pirates of the Caribbean'. 'Sometimes the right path, the right course, requires a little piracy'

Right-ho, chaps! What say we /. it?

[Limburgher]

Or, if you want, try this link [respectcopyrights.org].

Worst part

[ciroknight]

A lot of the public will hear this tripe and it will slow down file trading a little... but I doubt in the long run if it really puts too much of a hamper on file sharing, since what they are talking about is lies... if anyone is intellegent enough to be file sharing at the level the MP/RIAA is worried about, they will know that you can't get viruses from movie files... It's a sensible attack though, especially targeting us teens... and it will work marginally.. but this will only help slow the bleeding.. the damage has been done, they are going to die still, IHMO of course..

Next targets for the RIAA?

[Stinky Glen20]

If I were sneaky, I'd log the IP of every comment made. Then go check out everyone who leaves an RIAA sucks to see if they were "sharing illegal content".

That would be a nice way to prioritise the millions of lawsuits.

Read it again...

[JessLeah]

They don't say that your system is insecure "while filesharing". They say that your system is insecure "while online". While some would call me a nitpicker for pointing this out, I think it indicative of the general anti-technology fears that the MPAA/RIAA "higher-ups" (Valenti/Rosen/etc.) hold.

At least they're not the RIAA

[Robawesome]

Yet another reason to prefer the MPAA over the RIAA. At least when the MPAA's profits go down, they try something new, like adding content to dvds and varying release dates. When I buy a dvd in a store, I don't feel like a complete sucker. WHen I looked at buying a CD, I felt like an ignorant "consumer". Yeah, pay $30 for 1 hour of content, 8 minutes of which I like. When I bought the extended version LOTR dvd, I got:

1. The theater cut movie + deleted scenes
2. 5, count'em 5, seperate audio commentary's
3. Something like 8 hours of additional "making of" video
4. around 2000 production photographs.
I got so much content in those dvds I have not even watched it all yet. Whereas with a CD, you are done in one hour, tops.
The MPAA may be doing some unsavory things, but at least they are trying, without ripping me off or treating me like a criminal. I am boycotting CD's, but I still enjoy movies, and will pay money for the quality and experience.


"$DarlMcbride"==false

Oh no! I might have the "Backdoor" virus!

[AntiOrganic]

Apher, Benjamin, Backdoor, Duload, Fizzer, Hantner, Klez, Neuer, Nimda, Livra and Magic Eightball

Good to see they include viruses/worms that have no history of spreading via P2P, like Klez and Nimda. Hey, why don't you put Code Red and Slammer/Sapphire up there too?

Thanks For Letting Me Know!

[FsG]

Did you know that 'Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc.'?

Nope. Nor did I know that I can get music and movies online for free. Thanks for informing me, MPAA!

- Joe User

Irony, thy name is unauthorized mirror lawsuit.

[Cordath]

You know, I bet MPAA lawyers could make a good case for sueing anybody who mirrors their slashdotted site. Hey, it's copyright infringement isn't it?

Why the MPAA is full of shit (and the RIAA isn't?)

[swordgeek]

OK, it's fairly simple stuff here.

1) The MPAA would recoup its investment MUCH faster by encouraging people to come to the movies more often, and by reducing costs. How can they do this?
a) Reduce ticket prices. Lower tickets mean more movie-goers.
b) Quit paying the stars so fucking much money!!! Ben Affleck made TWELVE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS for Gigli, one of FOUR movies released this year that he starred in. In other words, he made roughly one THOUSAND times as much as a skilled professional with a post-secondary education. (Notice that the MPAA site doesn't link to any stars' opinions--just the grips and the stuntmen, making a thousandth as much as the stars)
c) QUIT MAKING MOVIES THAT SUCK BADLY!!!

How many times do you need to hear it? How many brainless sequels to brainless movies do you need to make before it sinks in that you SUCK, and that your movies SUCK?

Imagine this: A movie where stars are treated as skilled employees and paid roughly $200,000/year (hey, their careers aren't as long as some of ours--they deserve higher salaries for that), the writers are required to come up with original and innovative ideas to earn their pay, and the tickets are $5/seat, with affordable popcorn.

Why they might actually make a profit, and DESPITE all of the file sharing (that doesn't take away a single ticket sale), get people out to the movies.

As an aside, you might ask how does this NOT relate to the RIAA?

1) The RIAA actually is hurting (some) from filesharing. Most people are as happy with a burned MP3 as they are the original quality song, whereas nobody would seriously miss a good theathre movie just because they had a really crappy camcorder copy they can watch on their TV.

2) The artists don't get paid millions--they get paid SHIT. They get about a tenth as much as the tech staff, instead of a thousand times as much.

homophobic

[TerraFrost]

it seems as if half of the MPAA / RIAA's case against piracy is that everyone is out to rape you. after all, all p2p apps are really trojans designed to steal personal information, and even your own friends are out to get you. that last part is refering to the RIAA holding parents, grandparents, and roommates [yahoo.com] responsible for piracy committed on their computer, even though they may not have been the source of it.

also, the respectcopyrights.org website was mentioned sometime ago on slashdot:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72066&cid=6504 160 [slashdot.org]

How'd that get in there!?

[jrockway]

> 'Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc.'

Dammit! Did I put my_ssn.txt and my_bank_records.txt into ~shared AGAIN!? Damn the insecurity!

"Entertainment Available on the internet"

[Bradmont]

(from the "music, games & more" page)
Browse the links below to discover a whole world of entertainment available to you - legally - right at home.

Gotta love how they don't link to project Gutenberg on the books page. :D

The "back door" is real ... Sorta.

[crankyspice]

Remember who these ads and websites are aimed at. The average /. reader knows the "truth" about back doors in software, and, more than that, knows how to share directories with granularity. The average computer user, I would posit, does not. Don't believe me? Hop on KaZaA, Gnutella, whatever, and do a search for '.xls' or '.wpd,' etc. See how many personal documents you uncover. We did that once and found a CEO's copy of the salary breakdown for his dot-com... No names to protect the clueless (and shareholder value ;)). So, it's FUD, but it's (if there is such a thing) justifiable FUD.

fuzzy math

[Ender77]

OK, Movies are making more money than ever(the good ones anyway), DVD's are selling like hot cakes, and the movie indistry is losing money HOW? Even if they were losing money, I can't feel to sorry about it when you hear about the leading actor(s) making 6 to 8 million dollors to star in it. Here is an idea, instead of getting some famous actor and paying them all that money how about trying out some NEW actors to play the part.

MPAA has much less to worry about than RIAA does

[scarolan]

First of all they have a built-in protection from piracy in the HUGE file sizes that have to be downloaded. Any dialup user can grab a few albums worth of MP3s if they leave their connection on all night. It can take DAYS to download half a movie on Kazaa, even on a broadband connection.

Secondly, most of the releases that come out on IRC, newsgroups, bittorrent or whatever are crappy cam recordings that people don't like anyway. Who wants to watch some washed-out version of a movie with bad sound anyway? If it's any good you'll go see it in the theater to get the real experience.

Third, most of the movies you find on the internet are in divx or some other format that generally only plays on a computer. Most people are not savvy enough even to burn a VCD to play in their DVD player, what to speak of building a dedicated home theater pc to play the divx movies. Most people do not want to sit in their computer room in front of a 17" monitor to watch movies. They would rather see it on the 42" widescreen in the living room, or in the theater.

Finally, movies is a social thing. People take dates to movies, they take their kids to movies. They like to eat the candy and sit in the theater with the big screen and surround sound.

So MPAA, take a chill pill. We're not going to drive your poor key grip and dolly boys into homelessness. WTF is a 'key grip' anyway???

Re:MPAA has much less to worry about than RIAA doe

[glitch23]

So MPAA, take a chill pill. We're not going to drive your poor key grip and dolly boys into homelessness. WTF is a 'key grip' anyway???

He holds the car keys of all the Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Jags, Lexuses (Lexi?), and Mercedez-Benzs for the actors and actresses while they are filming so that no one can steal their car.

I'm a Key Grip!

[Frogbeater]

As a Grip, Key Grip actually, one of the "artists" listed on the site as being against the piracy of films, I am all for piracy as long as the studios aren't offering an alternative.
(Notice they didn't use actors as the artists that are being harmed by piracy? What, you don't feel sorry for Ben Affleck?)

I have to innovate to keep my job. The producers demand more efficiency from the crews and the "creatives" demand more creativity from the crews or I am not hired on the next job.

I can't sue someone that is doing a more efficient or more creative job than I am like the MPAA/RIAA are.

Fortunately "Respect Copyrights" reeks of "Just say No to Drugs."
We know how well that worked.

BTW-A Key Grip is the Head of the Grip department. The Grips are in charge of on set engineering. We build cranes to fly the camera, munt cameras on cars, fly lights from the tops of buildings, string light controlling cloth over a city street, etc.

Piracy And Baseball

[jeffkjo1]

Notice how baseball seems to be suffering the same problems as the RIAA and the MPAA... inflated salaries, and less and less return on their investments (Only one major league team turned a profit last year... one) but MLBA can't claim piracy is causing their losses, because... well, that would be retarded.
Interestingly, however, the reasons for baseballs, and the RIAA/MPAA decline are identical:
1. Overpriced... seats/cds are too expensive.
2. Salaries, stars seem to want more and more lately...
3. THE MAJOR REASON: Recession! People don't buy cds, movies, or go see baseball games because THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.

Baseball is adjusting, because it has to, RIAA/MPAA are fighting tooth and nail for legislation so they can retain their current business model....

STFU RIAA/MPAA.

Bad recordings vs bad movie theater...

[Keeper]

Most of the time, the movies available for download on the Internet are obtained when someone sneaks a camcorder into a theatre and illegally records the movie up on the screen. The sound isn't right, the picture isn't in focus, people are walking in front of the camera, and scenes are missing. Is that any way to experience the magic of the movies?

Funny, I could swear the last time I went to see a movie in a real movie theater that ...

* The sound was off (too much treble, no bass)
* Lots of "muching" sounds by people in the audience pigging out on snacks
* Random noise/chitchat
* Cell phones/pagers going off
* The picture wasn't in focus (it was slighly out of focus until the last 15 minutes)
* People would walk across my field of vision (in order to get more snacks or to use the bathroom)
* I missed scenes when I went to the bathroom

Now, what am I gaining by going to an actual movie theater? They need to come up with a better arguement than the one they're using, that's for sure...

"Imagine that someone had spent two years..."

[SharpFang]

"Imagine that someone had spent two years writing a book. It would not be fair to let someone else make their own copies of the book and sell or give these copies to others without paying the writer. And unless the writer was very wealthy, she probably could not afford to spend so much time writing unless she could get paid for her work. In fact, very few people would ever create books (or movies, or songs, or paintings) if they could not earn a living from their work. If everyone copied the book and sold them or gave copies to others without paying for it, it would be hard for the writer to earn a living from writing, and ultimately that would mean there would be fewer creative works for us to enjoy."

What a piece of crap. So what about libraries, where you can borrow the book and read it for free? What about all that stuff like Project Gutenberg? What about millions of people who make a living by other means and spend years writing books as their hobby?

I just released a webpage. I spent 3 days on it, with breaks for sleep and food. It's a detailed instruction how to make a rope halter, best kind of halter/bridle for a horse ever. The page is available for free. The instructions are very foolproof, everyone should be able to follow them. The halters are available on sale for $30 or so. I'm definitely NOT a wealthy person - but I don't ask for money for accessing my page. I decided this thing is good for horses and it would be good if people used it instead of different cruel stuff they use, for free. I put a small notice at the bottom - "if despite these instructions you can't make that halter, email me and I'll make one for you for quite low price."

That's about it. Information can be free. I may be paid for work I put in things. Not for allowing someone to own them, while I lose nothing. I spent 3 days for making myself feel better - for making life of hopefuly several hundreds horses slightly better. Now if I sacrifice a hour of my time to make one of such halters and mail it to whoever is too rich, lazy or all-thumbs to make one themselves - I may charge them for my time and effort.

Copyright? Doh, if someone else starts making that halters and selling them, using my instructions, I'd be happy! Because I did it for certain idea. Not for money. But that's far beyond imagination of small brains of MPAA employees.

Point by Point Analysis

[Valen0]

[Since I have never downloaded a full length movie from the Internet, most of this information is second hand. Some of it may be inaccurate. My comments are in braces.]

YOU'RE CHEATING YOURSELF
Most of the time, the movies available for download on the Internet are obtained when someone sneaks a camcorder into a theatre and illegally records the movie up on the screen.

The sound isn't right, the picture isn't in focus, people are walking in front of the camera, and scenes are missing.

[Most movies on the Internet today are high quality rips from the original. Point invalid.]

Is that any way to experience the magic of the movies?

Only 4 out of 10 films turn a profit. If people take the films for free and the Studios can't recoup their investment, they may not be able to make the big summer movies we all enjoy so much; the TITANICs, the SPIDER-MANs, the JURASSIC PARKs. So, not only will the creators lose, in the end, you, the consumer, will end up with fewer choices at the multiplex.

[Slippery Slope. The Jurassic Park series is the only series in this list that I believe is decent. Spider Man is just not my type of movie and Titanic is a movie that should have never been made. The MPAA has no one to blame but themselves for their lousy sales ratio.]

Do you really want fewer movies to choose from?

[Seeing the current state of the film industry today... I'd love to see fewer but better quality movies.]

YOU'RE THREATENING THE LIVELIHOOD OF THOUSANDS

The entertainment industry isn't made up only of familiar actors, actresses and directors. It is made up of over 500,000 everyday working people that bring the magic of the movies to you.

[And most of those 500K people don't see most of the money. Plus, the MPAA is assuming that every download would translate into a movie sales. This is not true for some people.]

But, when movies are illegally downloaded from the Internet, these are the people that suffer the most.

It's the woman who does the make-up, the guy who rigs the lighting, the sound technician, the costume designer, the set decorator and the caterer.

[Wrong Answer. It's the stock holders, the executives, and all of the people that make a profit from sales that suffer the most. Most people working on movies do NOT get any of the profit from movies.]

Do you really want these people to lose their jobs?

[Slippery Slope. I honestly don't think filesharing is going to cause the movie industry to go bankrupt. They seem to be doing just fine, even though the economy is in a depression.]

YOUR COMPUTER IS VULNERABLE

Have you ever had your computer crash and had to replace it or reinstall all the files due to a virus or other such problem?

[Never had a problem with viruses... That is what Norton Antivirus is there for.]

The nature of "peer-to-peer" file sharing sites like eDonkey, Gnutella, KaZaA, etc., open your computer to destructive viruses and worms and annoying pop-ups.

Common Viruses:
Apher, Benjamin, Backdoor, Duload, Fizzer, Hantner, Klez, Neuer, Nimda, Livra and Magic Eightball

[Appeal to Fear. All of those viruses are easily detected by Norton Antivirus and other virus detection software.]

You also become a distribution source for illegal downloading of movies, music and more, which makes you just as responsible if you had downloaded the movie yourself.

[Unless you don't share any of your downloads. Then you are not "just as responsible".]

Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc.

[Appeal to Fear. No real backing in the real world.]

Is the theft of your personal information worth the free movie?

[Sorry, most of the filesharing community has seen right through your FUD and know you are wrong.]

YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW

And Orin Hatch might sneak in!

[tjstork]

Keep that dirty old Senator out of your hard drive! He might be trying to look at those naked pictures you took for your wife!

They forgot to mention...

[sillivalley]

The risks of attending movies in theatres -- exposure to disease (SARS, tuberculosis, other airborne pathogens), risks to your sanity (insipid "previews," the idiot behind you with the cell phone, the gaggle of girls talking through the whole thing, bad sound and worse pictures), parking lot mayhem, $6 for a bucket of popcorn that's coated with the same stuff they spread on the floors to give them that wonderful, MPAA-approved tacky feel...

But then you didn't expect a balanced presentation, did you?

Bad move, MPAA...

[NanoGator]

The MPAA is missing the same opportunity that the RIAA ignored. Years ago, the RIAA should have noticed people downloading music and looking into why people do it. They then could have provided a better service and made a profit off it. Nope, they labeled it as thievery and attacked. Now they face a massive boycott. Lovely. That boycott will do more damage than P2P piracy ever could.

The MPAA has a little more time, seeing as how movies are 700 megs or so. Upload caps are still at 256k roughly so they've got some time to come up with their own service. And to an extent, they do. I found a site last night where I could 'rent' movies to watch on my computer. Damn cool really. I've been aching to watch Terminator again, and that'll only cost me $3. I won't even have to worry about returning a tape!

They're going to need to do more, though. The on-line equivalent of HBO would be nice. Pay $10 a month and get access to some movies. Heck, I'd pay my $30 month cable bill to a VoD service. Maybe more if their selection is really good, even with commercials.

The point is that if movie downloading is so popular, despite how painful it is, they need to look at WHY. Are prices too high? Are people obnoxious in theaters? Do people have time to sit and watch a 2.5 hour movie? Do people want to spend $8 to watch an iffy movie? (Sort of like the prices are too high, but it did suck that Star Trek Nemesis fell to the bottom of the heap when Two Towers, Harry Potter, and James Bond blew a gaping crater into people's movie budgets.) Can college students even make the time to go see a movie?

With the answers to these questions, the MPAA could do something shocking, like provide supply for the demand. Who'd want to download a movie off of P2P when they could spend $5 and get the Hulk streaming down like right away? I know that in my house, a good deal more money would go into watching movies. Right now I have to pick and choose a movie in the same way I pick and choose a new computer. That sucks.

The theater experience sucks

[macemoneta]

Our group (5-22 people, depending on the movie) has been going to the movies weekly for about 15 years [geocities.com]. The experience has definitely been going downhill.

The theaters are so filthy, we go there early to find a clean seat. We used to be able to hold a conversation before the movie. While the theater showed a slideshow accompanied by music, it was quiet. Now, there's 20 minutes of commercials, followed by 10-15 minutes of trailers before the movie, and it's so loud you can't talk over it.

The sound systems are always broken or set improperly (front speakers only). The movie is never in sharp focus (no, it's not my eyes). If there's a problem, you have to wait 15 minutes for the projectionist to show up. We recently watched part of a film burn up, because there was no one in the booth. When there is a problem, they skip ahead to keep the movie on schedule, so you miss part. Sure, if you complain they will give you another ticket, but that's two hours of your time.

I've called the THX number and emailed the theaters to complain, but nothing is improving. Of course, the admission price is going up. It now costs less to buy the DVD than it costs for my wife and I to see the movie in the theater, and we get several hours of extras on the disk.

We obviously loved going to the movies, but with the increasing cost and reduction in quality, it's hard to justify. I can see why people are bootlegging the movies.

If the MPAA wants to stop the bootlegging, they should just release the DVD at the same time as the movie is in the theaters. Let the market decide how they want to see the film.

MPAA is not talking to those responsible.

[SuperBug]

MPAA is as responsible for content being pirated, as are those who pirate after the fact of an initial illegal copy hitting the 'Net. I say this because apparently the MPAA is ignoring the fact that *TEST* coppies of movies which wound up on the cutting room floor actually make it to the 'Net before the final production release. Are you telling me that it's *our* fault, and not the keygrip, or the sound man, or whomever that works on the movies that are at fault for that as well? It seems a blind eye is turned to that by MPAA maybe? I mean, how is it possible that many of these movies they complain about are actually released on the 'Net *days* before the actual release date? How's that I ask of those bastards at the MPAA!!

The Theater Experience

[smelroy]

The one thing about movie piracy is that it is not very easy to reproduce the whole theater experience. Downloading music and burning it to CD is just as good as buying the original (minus some album art) but downloading a movie just gives you a pixilated file to watch on a 17 inch monitor. Granted some people get high quality rips and burn then to DVD, but not all of us have DVD burners. I imagine some people also hook they computers up to a tv or home theater.. not most of us either. So the way I see it, a night at the movies always has the upper hand.

rebuttal

[erikdotla]

I have painstakenly researched each of the viruses mentioned on their site, and written a rebuttal on my site. There is a weak connection at best between P2P software and these viruses. It's almost laughable that they even chose some of them for the list at all.

Read the Anti-FUD on the front page:
http://erik.la [erik.la]

the thing that gets me...

[dfj225]

is the way they complain about money. I could see arguing that it is morally wrong or that it is illegal, but saying that a company that makes $50 million on a good movie on opening weekend doesn't have enough money to pay its workers because of p2p apps is just rediculus. If they really can't pay the lighting crew, maybe they should stop paying the "stars" $30 million a pop for a crappy job.

Re:the thing that gets me...

[Reziac]

In my several years in the business, I never once saw a production company fail to pay its crew every cent they were owed -- probably because between powerful unions and the ability of even a non-union crew to stage a sit-down strike on the spot, they wouldn't dare short 'em.

However, extras are generally paid out of petty cash, and at that level, there's lots of pilferage (mostly disappearing into producers' pockets. Universal is so bad about this, that I got so I would not knowingly work on a Universal production, because it was a given that we'd get screwed out of part of our pay, one way or another.)

Frex, Darkman -- big budget, big name director and star, major studio behind it (Universal!) -- yet somehow they couldn't find it in their petty cash to cough up the *legally mandated minimum* for extras' meals, so the extras' food wagon made do with stale noodles (WW2 surplus, I kid you not) and hotdogs**. But somehow the rest of the cast and crew still ate well. (On-set food is normally both *good*, and the same meal for everyone.)

Mind you, this is all money that's spent the same whether the film in question ever makes it to the box office -- and many don't.

** Fresh hotdogs only appeared because I personally bitched to the A.D. about the hideous quality of the food, until he finally checked it out and deemed it unfit to eat. If they'd fed the main cast and crew such slop, there'd have been an instant riot.

Interesting statement in their "Terms of Use"

[MarkusQ]

The Studios may at any time revise these Terms and Conditions by updating this posting. You are bound by any such revisions and should therefore periodically visit this page to review the then current Terms and Conditions to which you are bound.

They could revise the terms at any time and I'd be bound to them!

Yikes!

I'd better take their advice and periodically go back and get a fresh copy of their terms. What do you think...is every 100ms is periodic enough? Of course, if they could change them at any time I might miss a short lived change. Maybe I'd better check back every 10ms.

-- MarkusQ

Wow, RESPECTCOPYRIGHTS.ORG.

[Jason Scott]

Well, good to know someone has a parody site up at DISRESPECTCOPYRIGHTS.ORG [disrespectcopyrights.org], huh?

Here's how it works as I understand it

[Rogerborg]

1. Producer decides that he needs to build a bigger swimming pool. This can happen for many reasons, but most often because he needs somewhere to bury all the dead hookers he's been stashing for Ben Affleck.
2. Producer approaches other producers who need bigger swimming pools. They all agree that they should have bigger swimming pools, but they need to find some rubes to pay for them.
3. Producers look at what films were popular last summer, and decide to do exactly the same, but with more explosions and titties.
4. Producer picks either a director, scriptwriter or actor that was in a profitable film last summer, but who hasn't done anything since, and allows the "talent" to plead for the chance to get in just one more movie before everyone forgets who they are.
5. Producer instructs "talent" that they'll be doing exactly the same as they did last summer, only with more explosions and titties. Talent gibbers and moans in pleasure.
6. With one talent safely secured, Producer approaches increasingly less desparate cast and crew, and gets them onboard one by one. This is much like the communist "domino theory" of the 1950's, only with more explosions and titties.
7. With some talent secured, Producer now approaches studio and sells them the film based on it being exactly like last year's film. Studio demands something more. Producer promises more explosions and titties. Cocaine and hookers all round!
8. Studio approaches theatre chains and offers them the movie. Theatre chains demand to know why they should take it. It's explained to them that it's exactly the same as an already profitable movie, only more so. Theatre chains commit to taking it.
9. The movie is made. Does it suck? Who cares! The chains have already agreed to take it. The Producer gets his new swimming pool, Ben Affleck's dead hookers get buried, the studio gets to buy the "coffee" output of a small Central American country. Everybody wins!
10. The movie opens to crappy reviews. The theatre chains have to suck it up, because they've already paid for it. People go and watch it anyway, because it's the least bad thing on, and they've got used to making excuses. The movie makes money. The cycle of life continues.

This doesn't always happen. Sometimes movies go into production before they've been pre-sold to theatre chains. Those are the movies destined for "straight to video/DVD" status, although very occasionally, a small film is picked up by theatre chains to fill a hole where a pre-sold movie hasn't made it out of post-production in time, usually because some snotty director mistakenly believes that it matters that it sucks. When this happens, we tell ourselves that the system works, and that it's vitally important that it continue to work in just this precise way, for ever and ever, otherwise society will fall apart, cannibalism will ensue, cats and dogs living together...

And nobody ever asks what happened to all the music hall performers when movies came out. Nobody cares what became of the movie theatre pianists when talkies appeared. We don't recall the MPAA saying that the VCR would spell the death knell for the movie industry. We don't wonder whether movie theatre box office takes might be being transmuted into DVD and home theatre sales. We don't dare to consider that people will spend exactly the same amount of their disposable income on entertainment, but that they'll spend it in different ways.

We just accept the line that the system works, that it's always worked, and that it must go on working exactly the same way - whatever the MPAA declares that to be - until the end of time. Or it will be cats and dogs, living together...

Re:Good luck guys

[ceejayoz]

If they're anything like RIAA, they'll be hacked pretty quickly...

The RIAA website used to have an unpassword protected administration page at riaa.org/admin/ - helpfully pointed out by robots.txt!

The link got posted on FARK and Slashdot and several hundred fake news items got posted (including everyone's favorite goatse man) until they finally took it down.

Whoops!

And these are the people some Congressmen want to trust to hack filesharer's computers to remove copywritten works? Heh heh heh...

Re:Umm oops?

[AndyFewt]

Maybe they're using that same ISP that the RIAA uses (Tomorrow's Solutions Today, Inc), but after further investigation, they are on Ware(z)net, but of course we'll have to put this bit of information in (not that they have learnt from the RIAA but..) Windows 2000 - Microsoft-IIS/5.0 and for those who havent checked netcraft, it's also running on the same ip as mpaa.org

Re:It's simple really

[Maul]

No, I don't think many people on Slashdot agree that copyrights need to be repealed completely. While no doubt some do, that wouldn't work in today's world.

Copyright needs real reform, however. Film, music, and art has a significant impact on our culture, so much that these things become a PART of our culture in a very short time. This is why I have a problem with insanely long copyright terms.

The original term for copyright was fair. Let a piece of work remain copyrighted for 14 years, and then let it fall into the public domain so that society can utilize what has been added to its culture.

Elvis is dead. He had plenty of time to profit off of his works when he lived. His music has become a part of our culture and should belong to society, not some record company who will continue to take advantage of copyright extensions to charge for Elvis' music until the end of time.

Likewise, Hollywood has made a crapload of money off of its hits. Titanic, Jurassic Park, etc. all have made lots of money for studios. I doubt it would REALLY hurt Hollywood if Jurassic Park were to enter public domain in 2007.

Perhaps if the RIAA and MPAA knew they only had 14 years to make a profit off of a recording or film, these groups would focus on making quality material rather than being uncreative.

Re:It's simple really

[hankaholic]

I wrote an essay a while ago about this very same topic. I'm saddened that nobody seems to have found it very noteworthy -- I think that given the media's efforts to invade and control our culture, they have little right to complain about infringement.

Text follows:

We are not criminals. We are the proud citizens of these United States of America, and we want our culture back. For too long the music industry has branded us criminals -- thieves who would fight to take what is not ours, unwilling to support those who influence our lives and shape our culture, our national self-image. Yet there is no sign of the media calling off its plan to define and control our culture.

The music industry claims to have the interests of artists in mind while persecuting those who would attempt to make free certain parts of our culture. With the belief that work should be compensated fairly it is self-evident that artists deserve fair compensation for their work. However, the music industry routinely uses the "work make for hire" clause of the Copyright Act of 1976 to rob artists of their right to profit from their own creations by working with whichever publisher they choose.

If the music industry holds fair compensation in high regard, perhaps they could consider a business model in which an author retains ownership of her own works. If they are unable to fairly compensate artists, it is not the fault of the consumer. Business does not exist in a vacuum, and it is unfair to produce legislation which aims to preserve a monopolistic industry's position without significant consumer benefit. We want the right to experience the music of our lives at will without being forced to use our dollars to vote for the music industry's dominance.

While the popular media industries demonize citizens whose lives are most strongly tied to their products, they are fighting hard to retain their status as the group solely responsible for driving American culture. These self-proclaimed owners of our national identity strive to ensure that our lives are pervaded with their music, their movies, their values. They force their media into our lives; billing movies and albums as not just mere entertainment, but "events" which will affect our lives. One can hardly watch television or a film or listen to the radio without being subjected to mainstream music. Yet rather than rejoice and celebrate their successes they cry out at the realization that culture is a hard thing to bottle.

We do not consider it fair that the media surround us with the same sounds and images, over and over, yet we are criminalized for trying to integrate them into our culture. We have a right to our culture, and to not be regarded as criminals for demanding ownership.

A company cannot own a common term; trademark laws are such that trademark owners must take action to prevent their trademarks from falling into common usage, lest they become public-domain terms. The curious lack of a similar concept in the media domain means that our lives can be immersed in elements which become part of our cultural vocabulary, yet current law dictates that most of us will die before gaining ownership of our cultural identities.

We want ownership of the media that pervades our lives.

(original essay posted at http://www.tr0n.com/~chet/culture_ownership.html [tr0n.com])

Re:It's simple really

[pgrote]

Actually I don't want it for free.

I want it easily accesible, portable and priced reasonably. This isn't about artists rights or copyrights as much as it's about distribution control.

Just today I Tivoed a movie called No Man's Land. It's an 80s flick with Charlie Sheen. Ebert gave it 3 stars, so I thought what they heck. Later on I went down to check on it and it was actually a 2001 movie about Bosnia or something.

Now, I wasn't able to get the movie I wanted. Why not let me hope on the internet, let me buy/use the movie for 30 days. Charge me a buck. Heck, encrypt my credit card in it. I don't care. But let me get it A) Right now. B) Let me move it to my laptop to watch on the plane. C) Don't gouge me on the price. It's not costing you anything except some bandwidth.

Palm does it right. [peanutpress.com] They offer topical, up to date ebooks for purchase. They encrypt your credit card in it. This makes sure that you don't pass it around, but also makes it portable. They don't care where you read it. It's a very nice, easy solution for me to buy books for those long flights. I think some of their prices are too high. I think they should pass the savings of not having to publish a book onto me, but that doesn't matter. I vote with my money. I choose reasonably priced titles.

The cat is out of the bag. People want easy, convinient access to digital media. The companies better get in front of this.

As for the movie industry bitching ... why? Hasn't the success of videotapes and DVDs shown them that they can make a ton of money. I would suggest to them that they get in front of this.

The RIAA is just lost. They can't seem to grasp the fundamental fact that their market is moving away from them.

Re:From the site

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Ah, Spider-Man. Now that is a pirated movie:

The original scriptwriter sued Sony for ripping off his script.

Marvel sued Sony for hijacking the character of Spider-Man and trying to make it sound like a Sony creation.

The actual creator of Spider-Man, Stan Lee, sued Marvel for not getting his fair share of the movie profits.

That is all allegedly done by Sony, a MPAA member, and Marvel, a major comic book publisher.

The above allegations, if true, are a drop in the bucket of all the things the members of MPAA and RIAA and done in the last few decades to rip off artists, each other, and the general public. It sounds to me like they need to clean up their own acts before they start worrying about the security of file-sharers' PCs.

Bells are ringing: Mothra, Mothra! Every heart is calling: Mothra, Mothra!
Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have gotta pay! New Kirk calling Mothra, we need you today!

Re:You people disappoint me...

[Little Brother]

Stealing? Who's talking about stealing? We're talking about copyrightinfringement here. What? You didn't know there was a difference? The fact that stealing, by definition, deprives the origional owner of the thing being stolen? The "owner" still has the same access to the movies as before. The movies are not being stolen.

"What about the money the copyright holders arn't making?" you may now ask. "Isn't this stealing?" No, the copyright owners never had the money, thus it cannot be stolen. Why is this difficult?

"What about the constitutional right to intellectual property?" Try reading the constitution. All it says about copyrights is that the congress may set a copyright. But this isn't to protect people's intelectual property, the point of the option of copyright law is clelarly spelled out in the constitution. The point is to further the advancement of the art by granting a TEMPORARY monopoly to the creator. There would, however, be no constitutional ground whatsoever to stand on if congress decided to revoke the copyright laws, it is not gaurenteed.

"But its still illegal!" you may now protest, your arguments becomming flustered. NOW I'll agree. This is obvious copyright infringement. This is illegal, under current laws (which I don't agree with but accept as law) but this does not make it theft.