MPAA Lawsuits Coming?

Watch out, frikkin **AA is coming.

Here's an idea...

Dont illegally download music and film...

Suddenly.. no problem...

It's magic!

trader

Trouble for them is, unlike music is that I can go rent a DVD for a couple of days, rip it and then pass it on that way.

No download, no IP indicator, no problem, it makes pirated movies potentially a bigger loser for the industry, if you know where to go.
Whereas music is portable as an MP3, it will be a long time before a movie is so easily obtained.

I wanna see the development of downloadable movies and music that cuts the costs out for distribution, staff, premises etc. and so is passed on for a reasonable fee.

However the effect of the MPAA action will do something to stem the tide, much like King Canute.

Its slightly harder to make DVD copys. The average person would not know how to do it (Especially since dvdxcopy is not availible).

Dvdxcopy sucked. Their are so much better. And its not hard to find the old versions. Also it wouldn't make it any harder to copy dvds because those that have older version of course would still have it.

netflix, dvd decrypter, dvd-shrink and nero 6

burn and return.

said by xNPC:

---

netflix, dvd decrypter, dvd-shrink and nero 6

burn and return.

---

Word to that.

said by Fountainhead:

---

Here's an idea...

Dont illegally download music and film...

Suddenly.. no problem...

It's magic!

---

Get netflix and a DVD burner!

I have a VAIO, VAIOs come with Click2DVD...hmmm, what is this for? Could it be for copying DVD movies?

NetFlix ROCKS!

said by Fountainhead:

---

Here's an idea...

Dont illegally download music and film...

Suddenly.. no problem...

It's magic!

---

I think you made them see the light! Jerk.

said by Fountainhead:

---

Here's an idea...

Dont illegally download music and film...

Suddenly.. no problem...

It's magic!

---

once again a clueless idiot taps in...

its about Sharing, not downloading

He's not really clueless. He actually has a very simple and effective solution to the problem.

If you download a copyrighted digital file you have no legal rights to, you have committed an illegal act. There's really no room for debate on that.

The real issue in the Hollywood vs. FileSharers war is the concept of fair use and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Fair use grants consumers rights to make copies of copyrighted works for personal use, but the DMCA says it is illegal to circumvent security measures on digital material.

So, fair use says I have a legal right to copy a DVD for personal use, say to protect my investment against scratches. However, the DMCA makes it illegal to copy an encrypted DVD.

Publishers are asking for tight control of their product that allows them to prevent even legal copying of their work by consumers.

said by Fountainhead:

---

Here's an idea... Dont illegally download music and film... Suddenly.. no problem... It's magic!

---

And don't use a copyrighted TV and Movie animated character as your Avatar on BBR either.

SPECIFIC EXAMPLE: Do you have a letter of permission from Mike Judge and MTV to use Bevis's likeness and mannerisms in your avatar? If you don't, you are no better than those you seek to label as music, movie and software thieves as you are violating an established copyright just like the people you are 'against' are claimed to have or are doing.

This Avatar is illegal using your way of thinking:


Do you feel that EVERYONE here on BBR who is using a copyrighted image or likeness of something in or as their avatar is as guilty as the person who pirates the latest movie, album or CD??

People fail to look past their own shallow morals (or lack of morals) when rushing to condemn others for what they themselves do and think is no problem....

My use of this avatar has not cost Mike Judge or MTV money. And if they begin selling avatars, I will gladly pay them a fee. I think we need to keep things in perspective.

On the other hand, the pirating and sharing of movies costs the industry billions of dollars.

Go ahead... continue down this path and fight for it as if you are entitled to copy movies and share them... and in the end, these industries will crumble...

Congratulations... you win.

Beware of trolls, kids.

said by SuperJudge:

---

Beware of trolls, kids.

---

Fountainhead does have a point.

- His avatar isn't illegal by his way of thinking
- Sharing copyrighted music/movies/software/etc is illegal.

Ok, so, that's two points.

I didn't say my use of the avatar is legal.

I said that the sale of images for avatars is currently not a business engaged in by MTV or Mike Judge and if they were to form a business by which I could pay them for the use, I would.

Much like a ringtone.

The use of this avatar has cost them zero cents.

Sure it didn't cost them any money. I won't argue that it did but on the other hand downloading a movie/song doesn't cost someone money. It may have lost a sale but there is no way to prove that everyone who downloads a movie would have paid for it. So it is impossible to put a value on how much this pirating is costing the industry.

Basically by your logic it's ok to infringe on someones copyright when they aren't offering what you want for sale. Sorry that argument just doesn't hold water.

said by k_mumm:

---

Sure it didn't cost them any money. I won't argue that it did but on the other hand downloading a movie/song doesn't cost someone money. It may have lost a sale but there is no way to prove that everyone who downloads a movie would have paid for it. So it is impossible to put a value on how much this pirating is costing the industry.

Basically by your logic it's ok to infringe on someones copyright when they aren't offering what you want for sale. Sorry that argument just doesn't hold water.

---

Damn straight.

I just sent Mattel a check for $1500 as an out-of-court settlement.

They were suing me because I had a Magic 8 Ball webpage.

Their grounds were that they suffered product market share "dilution" and loss of income due to my fraudulent use of their products' likeness.

Nevermind the fact that I wasn't using a pic of their product. I was using a real 8-ball off a pool table that I had modified into an animated GIF with a ? in it. Nevermind the fact that their product only had 20 answers, and mine had over 50 - out of which the only two that were the same were "Yes" and "No".

You can be sued for anything at any time. It's only a matter of how much money you have to throw at lawyers in your defense. Every single person who uses an avatar that is an image of someone else or someone elses work is at risk of being sued.

Imagine someone has an image of daffy duck as their avatar. They go around and post all sorts of lewd comments or are just generally up to no good with their attitude on boards all over the internet. I'm sure many of us know or have met in the past people who fit that description quite well.

However unfortunate it may be, some people may actually think that the person who posted those things was in some way affiliated with Warner Brothers, and file suit against them (Warner Brothers) for themselves or their children having been subjected to "whatever". That is Warner Brothers case against the copyright infringer, and they would be likely to win their case for damages.

Laugh now, but it could happen, if it hasn't already.

- FM

Never mind

said by Fountainhead:

---

I didn't say my use of the avatar is legal.

I said that the sale of images for avatars is currently not a business engaged in by MTV or Mike Judge and if they were to form a business by which I could pay them for the use, I would.

Much like a ringtone.

The use of this avatar has cost them zero cents.

---

First off, again, just because you can't buy it doesn't mean you can just take and use it. Look at TV shows. I like the show Max Headroom and it is NOT available on tape or DVD. Should I just be allowed to copy it for my collection? Legally, NO. That would be taking future profits from the producers of the show. Just because you say you would buy the avatar from Mike Judge and MTV doesn't mean your current use is legal or acceptable.

Same thing goes for ringtones. Verizon Wireless has publicly stated that they do not allow their customers to transfer their own ringtones into their phones because of copyright issues. They make them use their "Get it Now" service. Most other wireless phone makers think the same thing. Why do you think it costs $1-$2 just for a ringtone? The airtime is negligible at best. Even though the ringtone is (in most instances) a midi file, the melody is still the same and the author is still entitled to royalties.

Also, look at the DirectTV case in Canada. At first, the courts ruled that those making decoders for DirectTV were not breaking the law because they thought, as you do, that you cannot steal what is not sold. Later, the Canadian courts reversed themselves.

When the Movie Industry starts selling SVCD's and CAM's of new movies around their release date, I'll start buying them.

said by Fountainhead:

---

On the other hand, the pirating and sharing of movies costs the industry billions of dollars.

---

Billions? I highly doubt it.

I'd like to see some hard facts and figures for these "statistics of lost revenue"

It's like RIAA claiming music file swapping is costing the industry "billions" in lost revenue. Propaganda

said by KeepOnRockin:

---

Billions? I highly doubt it.

I'd like to see some hard facts and figures for these "statistics of lost revenue"

It's like RIAA claiming music file swapping is costing the industry "billions" in lost revenue. Propaganda

---

You are sorely mistaken. Pirating has long been a problem and the P2P network has made it easier. (Read Quote below)

The file swapping has most definitely cost the music industry billions of dollars. The record companies are dying. Staffing at major labels is down 80%. Marketing budgets are slashed, tour support is non-existent, and much fewer artists are getting signed...

From »www.cybercollege.com/frt ··· v009.htm :

The Harry Potter movie released in late 2001, for example, was available on DVD in Asia for about one dollar a copy--only two days after the film debuted in U.S. theaters.

According to Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, "Piracy saps $3.5 billion from the motion picture industry and discourages studios from releasing more digital content."

"The Harry Potter movie released in late 2001, for example, was available on DVD in Asia for about one dollar a copy--only two days after the film debuted in U.S. theaters.

According to Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, "Piracy saps $3.5 billion from the motion picture industry and discourages studios from releasing more digital content."

Where do you see P2P file sharing in that statement? I see where it refers to copying movies in Asia, but nothing about file sharers.

Ok...

Here...

Since you can't make the connection yourself, I have dug out the info for you...

»www.guardian.co.uk/busin ··· ,00.html

Film industry pays dearly for piracy

Richard Wray
Tuesday October 21, 2003
The Guardian

The impact of internet piracy could be losing the film industry $460m (£275m) annually within seven years unless the leading motion picture studios and distributors act now, warns a new report.
Informa Media Group believes revenues from legitimate sales of movies over the internet will be more than $870m by 2010. But sales over the internet would be worth $1.33bn if the industry clamped down completely on online piracy.

Adam Thomas, the author of the report, Film on the Internet, said the industry is unlikely to go the same way as the music labels, where online piracy has had a major effect on profits, but the studios should not be complacent.

"It is not going to be the cataclysmic event that the music industry experienced but there are warning signs and it could be a serious issue," he said.

In fact, the prognosis given in the Informa report is not as dire as one given earlier in the year by Deloitte & Touche. A report from the consultants warned that online piracy could cost the top studios up to $4bn annually within the next two years.

Drivel like that still assumes that everyone who downloads a movie would go to the theatre if they couldn't download it. That's not true at all.

Some movies are worth supporting, but others(Gigli, not that I downloaded it anyways), aren't.

Just another made up report that doesn't take into account the economy for one thing and just assumes like others have said that everyone just downloads the movie without seeing it in the theaters or buying the DVD.

"According to Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, "Piracy saps $3.5 billion from the motion picture industry and discourages studios from releasing more digital content."

_________________________________________________________________________________ _______

Since we're turning to Jack Valenti for all our facts, figures and moral leadership, here's another sage-like piece of brain spew from our favorite octogenarian champion of the status quo:

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."

He said this in "expert" testimony to Congress in 1982. He also called the VCR an "avalanche" and a "tidal wave", and said it would make the film industry "bleed and bleed and hemorrhage". It's stunning to see just how little the MPAA's arguments have changed in two decades." Compare it to the "Analog Hole" crap they were "fixing" with the DMCA and they're virtually identical (except Valenti was playing on anti-Japanese sentiment then, and today it's anti-pirate sentiment). Of course, the MPAA was unsuccessful in plugging the "VCR Hole" - insufficient lobbying and knowledgeable judges familiar with the use of a VCR stopped them. The MPAA successfully adapted to the changing times and even today in the DVD age sells about 70 million cassettes for rentals and 600 million cassettes for home viewing every year (both numbers are on the decline due to the rise of DVD).

The media content industry is the most LAZY, BACKWARD, STATUS QUO LEGISLATING industry on the face of the earth. AND there is a DIRECT correlation between their tactics and anti-innovative conduct and the "creep" of Copyright protection and length in the last 40 years.

They NEED to be shoved out of the debate. If "stealing" from them is the only way to make them less powerful (i.e. less money in = less money to grease legislators with) then I think it's a WONDERFUL thing.

Avast Yee Mateys! Arr Arr Arr, look at me I'm a PIRATE!

quote:

---

Since we're turning to Jack Valenti for all our facts, figures and moral leadership, here's another sage-like piece of brain spew from our favorite octogenarian champion of the status quo

---

lol.

Definitely the champion of the status quo.

roflmao yo ho ho an a bottle of rum
fire up my p2p proggy an download me some

Nah...I'm a 1337 h4x0r p|r8:

Red Bull and Gin is as good as it gets,
I'm seeding 12 torrents and running freenet.

First off, when any industry says it is losing money to piracy, it is lying. What is really happening is that their business model is failing, and they wish to turn back the clock, to keep their position as the sole source of whatever product they are foisting upon the general public.
Instead of "losing money", think of it as every file traded - be it an mp3, a movie, or software program - as a "potential income enhancement event" that will not occur. For example, how many of you know someone who uses Photoshop, yet did not pay for it? Possibly including yourself, perhaps? Do you honestly think it is even worth $699US for it, just so you can join PS threads on Fark?!? Yet, every one of those people is considered a "loss" of $699US for Adobe. I would hazard a guess that less than 1 percent of people would buy it, if that was the only way to get it. No way can they claim the other 99% as a loss, since they would have never paid for it in the first place.

What gets me so angry is how some people can actually stand up for these lowlife scumbags; "...staffing at major labels is down 80%"..." Hey, the staffing at the local home ice delivery company is down 100%! Same for the local buggy whip manufacturer, and the Edison Phonograph plant, and the coal furnace supplier, etc. Guess what? Their time was up, and soon it will be for you, too. Your monopoly is finished, guys and gals. Time to give your customers what they really want; this would preclude suing them (unless you're SCO), since there are a LOT of us that would pay you good money for digital content, as long as we can use it the way WE see fit, NOT YOU. Get with the program, please.

As far as the **AA's go, they still have a chance to move into the 21st century, and actually innovate. They can do so willingly, or we can drag them along, kicking and screaming all the way. If they can't adapt, they will die, and I'll dance on their graves when it happens. (While jamming to the tunes on my Archos Jukebox, and yes, it goes to eleven!)

said by Fountainhead:

---

My use of this avatar has not cost Mike Judge or MTV money. And if they begin selling avatars, I will gladly pay them a fee. I think we need to keep things in perspective.

---

Just because the avatar is not for sale doesn't mean you can take "COPYRIGHTED" material and use it for yourself. Under your interpretation of the rules, you are in violation of copyright law UNLESS you can prove your avatar is a parody (which it is not.)

You seem to forget, even Fox TV was going after fan websites of the Simpsons and other Fox shows because they claimed it was hurting them not being able to control everything about their shows.

Sure bash those breaking the law but rationalize your own crime.

said by Fountainhead:

---

My use of this avatar has not cost Mike Judge or MTV money. And if they begin selling avatars, I will gladly pay them a fee. I think we need to keep things in perspective.

---

I heard that argument before. "My downloading this movie doesn't cost the movie industry any money. If they began selling movie downloads, I will gladly pay them a fee."

said by Fountainhead:

---

On the other hand, the pirating and sharing of movies costs the industry billions of dollars.

---

If pirating is costing the industry billions, why is it that the cold hard facts show that more people are seeing movies this year than last year and that the overall amount taken in for movies every week is higher than movies per week a year ago? Please don't spread lies easily crushed by reading about the weekly box office on cnn.

said by Fountainhead:

---

Go ahead... continue down this path and fight for it as if you are entitled to copy movies and share them... and in the end, these industries will crumble...

---

According to sales the industries are doing better.

said by Fountainhead:

---

Congratulations... you win.

---

Well at least you got one thing right in your mindless rant.

I don't think US copyright law prevents usage of images in this manner. Even if it did, the economic impact of his use of the image is nil, as previously stated. The economic impact of illegal file sharing is millions of times greater. There is really no comparison between the two.

said by Fountainhead:

---

Here's an idea...

Dont illegally download music and film...

Suddenly.. no problem...

It's magic!

---

No the solution is to open Moive download sites like they have been promising to do...I would gladly pay ¢99 to $2.00 to ddl a first run movie...Why is that so hard???

Suing p2p users will hardly make a dent in sharing. It will just make people hate you and want to boycott your movies.

They can sue and sue all day long, they won't stop us from downloading the latest and greatest movies off the internet. Besides, if the movie is really good I usually go out and end up buying it. If it's a movie I will only end up watching once, I do not buy, and i'm happy I didn't buy it in the first place.

Screw u MPAA & RIAA

said by technick:

---

They can sue and sue all day long, they won't stop us from downloading the latest and greatest movies off the internet. Besides, if the movie is really go I usually go out and end up buying it. If it's a movie I will only end up watching once, I do not buy, and i'm happy I didn't buy it in the first place.

Screw u MPAA & RIAA

---

I am the same way as you.

Maybe if it did not cost $50 for 2 people to see a movie and get popcorn and soda people would lean less towards downloading movies. Movie prices are outrageous.

Maybe I should stop seeing movies if this bullshit continues like the way RIAA dragged themselves along..

I had some respect to MPAA, except for their fair-use violations.
I download and I will download TV Shows, only because my VCR is broken and I don't have TiVo.
I don't buy DVDs, I borrow them. I still pay those damned $9.50 for the movie in the cinema.
If MPAA starts suing people, goodbye to all of the above.

I already have been boycotting MPAA movies for some time now. It feels much like a long term hangover is fading away. I miss the movies about as much as I miss having cotton candy being forcefully shoved in the out door. I get more enjoyment from a hammer hitting my big toe.

Maybe I should stop seeing movies if this bullshit continues like the way RIAA dragged themselves along..

MPAA, RIAA, >GIGO

Expecting the MPAA and RIAA to deliver the goods is much like expecting fine art from a cheesy used car salesman, or honesty from a politician. Wrong person for the job. The job of the RIAA-MPAA is simple; part the most people from their money with as little effort as possible. Maintain total control. Fortify the machine. Integrity, truth and honor are all negative value functions, they offer less ROI than the traditional monopolistic behavior that the MPAA and the RIAA are used to exhibiting. Beat up on the little guy for his lunch money, doctor the spin, discourage competition. Intimidation and control. What does that sound like to you?

The two things that distinguish the MPAA-RIAA from organized crime are their level of refinement, and the narrow range of product they provide. They were thoughtful enough to force copyright legislation to protect their interests, while shifting the burden of proof to the little guy regarding loss of income from piracy. They don't even need to prove loss, potential loss is adequate. If they could learn to embrace new technology, piracy could be a win-win for the MPAA-RIAA; they get the benefits of additional exposure while actually offsetting the TCO to the 'potential' market.

Bill Gates knew that by not aggressively fighting piracy of Windows 3.1, it would become ubiquitous.

RIAA pays Clear Channel to push RIAA artist "A", and to displace the independent competition. Yes, we can get the same crap we download for free, on the radio. Airplay costs the RIAA money, however. Even though songs are played for free on the radio it's not legal for you to make a recording from the radio, and share it. If you were to tape a song from the radio, MP3 it, and share it, who would lose income, who would measure the loss, and how could loss me measured? What is fair?

Radio and TV airwaves, "in the public interest", are one-way broadcast media, and can be easily and thoroughly controlled. You may legally watch or listen, at the time of broadcast, in the intended market area. RF spectrum "airwaves" is a limited resource. New frequencies can't be created, when they're all occupied in an area, there is no room for more. Competition is now impossible, and total control is practical and certainly desirable for the "owners" of the frequencies. The internet is a multi-way medium, far more difficult to control. The RIAA and the MPAA would be perfectly happy if the internet didn't exist. They're not accustomed to operating in an environment where competition is possible. They can't control the internet, they don't play well with others, and they don't like to share. This new medium scares the hell out of them; they know that they're doomed if they don't modify their mode of operation.

If the internet was simply a distribution medium, compare it to radio and TV. You can get every radio and TV station you take the time to tune in, you can talk back, and people could tune to you. Uncontrollable competition. Scary.

The time has come to completely re-examine copyright law. The DMCA is fundamentally flawed, enough that "Fair Use" copying is illegal. It's likely that I could be sued if I went to WalMart, "bought" a DVD movie, played it, and without my knowing, my neighbor watched the movie through my window. He was going to buy the same movie (trust me), but now he won't. Tangible, measurable loss of income. Unauthorised public performance.

A lawsuit like this isn't likely to happen, but it could. Do we trust that the RIAA-MPAA will use this far-reaching power with care?

I for one hope the MPAA does not follow the RIAA by doing this. I have been boycotting the purchase of CDs for sometime now, and I would hate to do the same to DVDs and the like. I have a dvd (legit) collection of over 300 movies, and add to that collection on a regular basis. But if the MPAA starts doing the same things as the RIAA I feel I would have no choice but to boycott them as well.

Please MPAA, realize that the RIAA does more harm than good when they go after the person they rely on to purchase their goods. I understand the need to protect what they own, but the RIAA tactics go to far with little gained in the end.

Get a library card and a dvd burner. You can still have the great dvds you love and boycott the industry at the same time. And no chance to get caught.

Hypothetical situation, you have Digital Cable(or Satellite), you also have one of these... »www.bestbuy.com/site/ols ··· =product
What is the freakin difference between RECORDING a DVD with one of the MANY DVD recorders from your Digital Cable(or Satellite), and downloading the same movie from the web?

Oh yeah, The one that you download is most likely a crappier quality DivX/XVID/AVI!!! *DUH!*

So why do they care if a rip is shared & downloaded?

I like to have my money back for every bad movie I paid to watch,
One of the movie I download THE HUCK, I could not watch the ho movie be for I delete it, and a PIRATES_OF_THE_CARRIBEAN, I like it so went out and got the DVD that is a 100 time better thin the download version, you do not buy a car be for you test drive it, so why buy the movie if you cant test watch it.

While I have no sympathy for the RIAA, I can see the MPAA's side of things. Production costs are infinitely higher than that of a CD, prices aren't much higher, and aren't DVD sales less than that of music CDs?

Aside from that, the MPAA clearly seems to have avoided being heavy-handed with their customer base like the RIAA, but with the bandwidth wars showing 6mbit becoming commonplace in the near future, the problem certainly isn't going away.

While I think fair use should still allow for unbridled personal copies, I can't fault the MPAA for policing piracy. It's the smart thing to do, looking at it from their perspective. This is totally different from what the RIAA is doing, and I think the MPAA is being very reasonable.

Before you flame me, I am an avid P2P user. I see our side of it too

quote:

---

Since pirated films often weigh in at hundreds of megabytes, film piracy hasn't seen the same volume as music piracy.

---

So logically if you want to keep the trading to a minimum, make the moves much bigger!

I suddenly feel like buying a few thousand, ripping SVCDs of a major new release to video and then putting them in people's mailboxes, or perhaps leaving them in newspaper machines in and around say.....Chicago.

Nail those slimeball Pirates and throw their butts in the slammer with Bubba ! He'll teach them a thing or two.

Won't happen, the guy who got busted for sharing the movie HULK is under house arrest. No point in wasting tax payers money to send file sharers to prison. It's just stupid.

Don't feed the trolls.

If you are loosing billions, stop paying every scmuck on cameral 8 million people MOVIE or 150000 per EPISODE.

see how that would work out?

Instead of having a budget of 150mil you only need 40, negating any loss by 3rd party reasons.

The price for all admission types at my local theater have increased by $0.25. If I forget my student ID card, it would cost me $1.50 more, from $7.25 to $9.75!

I personally am going to wait until movies come out on DVD. Even then, it costs $3.99 at Blockbuster to rent a movie! Anybody remember when it was $2.50 to rent a New Release?

Why do theaters and studios charge so much now to watch a stinkin' movie? They'll probably cry piracy, whatever. Stop recruiting overpaid actors.

Go to newegg and overnight a cd burner. Then take my library card down to the public library and proceed to rent all the new releases for free and copy them all. Then prepare to make copies for all my friends and encourage anyone I see to stop seeing movies because the bloated and rich movie industry is suing college kids and ruining peoples lives just because they feel they should have gotten an extra million on their last big blockbuster movie that probably sucked. Just like the music industry, what makes sense about crying about how your losing money at a time when your industry is seeing higher profits than this time last year. Any downloading that is going on must be increasing movie profits because thats all the facts show. Why hasn't the movie industry sued the airlines because that whole 9/11 thing cut down on movie sales?

Don't you think a DVD burner would be suitable for movies on DVD?

I think he is planning on making SVCD's. Don't need a DVD burner for that, only a reader.

Both liars!
The RIAA has been complaining for a while that they were loosing millions because of on-line piracy. But when asked for figures to back that statement up, they hedged & evaded and no data became available. Now, a study was done that showed that they were actually making a profit. How is this possible? People download something that they like the sound of, but don't want to spend $18 on a chance. Now, no matter what, music on a CD is way batter quality than downloaded music. They like it, so they go out & buy it
Now, granted, that making a movie is way, way more expensive than than making a music CD, so they might be loosing money. But I don't think that it's anywhere close to want they say they're loosing. And even with a high speed connection, it takes a long time to download a movie. And as somebody has said, the quality sucks.

You don't understand. It isn't outmoded for the record companies. It's outmoded for me as a musician.
Professional recording equipment and expertise is cheaper now than every before in history. I can record an album in a studio for what I can save up on a minimum wage job. If I have some expertise myself I can do it myself at home for "free," at higher quality than even the pros could do it 20 years ago.
I can produce CD-Rs on my own or have CDs pressed for pennies apiece, including jewel case and inserts.
I have no need of a record company's money to finance my album.
As such I don't have to buy my own CDs back from them at full wholesale in order to distribute them as demos or for sales either. In fact, I don't have to distribute CDs as demos at all. Instead of spending $20k to mail out a few thousand demo CDs I can now upload many times that many for free direct to whomever I wish to hear them without the need of a go between.
I can make sure my website address is attached to those demos. At my website I have worldwide promotional capabilities, including making cuts available for free download as a promotional giveaway, and, of course, album sales.
Of course my website will be heavily promoting my live appearances as well, where I will be selling CDs for ten bucks and pocketing nine of that in profits.
On sales of no more than a few thousand CDs I make more profit than I would with half a million in sales with a Sony contract.
I grew up in a radio household (my dad was sales and marketing development manager for GE Broadcasting Corp.) and been a working musician for for three decades. Half of my friends have recorded, some of them for labels. Most of those that have recorded for a label now do so as private publishers.
This isn't "Pie in the Sky." It's the way many are already doing business, and it's already proven to work.
I can't imagine signing with a label. They have nothing to offer me that I can't provide for myself, at my own profit.

I'm not a musician myself, but I know people who are and I've heard them talk. You sign with a label & it's like signing your life away. CD's are cheap, & the record companies are ripping use off & making outrageous claims about losses[unless they're still using a business model of the '70s - that would account for it].
But we digress. This is about the MPAA.
Another thing, they complain that they losses money because movies are available on the streets & for download - even before they are released. That's their and their fault alone! You have to be inside the industry to get copies then, so their security must suck!

Anything people do these days will break the copyright and you don't even have to file share or copy the movie to do it. Because file sharing is the main topic of the news that people believe that is the only violation to the copyright law when in fact there is sub violations.

You fast forward through or ignore commercials, you invite friends over to watch the movie, lending the movie out to a friend, recording a tv show while your at work is all in violation of the copyright. Even selling a used movie is a violation. Why the MPAA is ignoring these type of violations but going after people who make copies is a question that needs to be asked?

The other problem we have is our legislators didn't due there duty. They didn't look at the DMCA law in depth, they just went by the MPAA and the RIAA lobbyists said and made there decision from that fact. It wasn't a decision the legislating body made on there own. So what we have here is Fair Use taken out of the equation totally.

Remember when the VCR came out with a record button. How the MPAA was up in arms saying that it would ruin there industry, what happened? Nothing that the MPAA said ever did happen. People seen the record button and they didn't think of anything but how to record a tv show or a movie. People who were going to be away and miss there favorite tv show, they would record it to watch at a later time. People didn't pay for the tv show but they still recorded it.

So I am trying to understand why a person would call a file trader a pirate but doing the above is ok. When in fact doing the above is against the copyright. So if we are so against file trading then we need to stop making excuses. We need to stop making cd and DVD burners, stop making blank Cd's, stop making computers or have the internet, just ban it all. I am only using the same analogy the RIAA and the MPAA use, nothing different.

From these simple words in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution:

Congress shall have the power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

We now have a system where multinational corporations shall control any and every possible use of content forever (whether for profit or not and even if the original "author" never sees a dime - see earlier story about Dolly Parton being "lost" and not getting royalties); where they control and OWN these works as PROPERTY, where stocks and loans are securitized with these "assets"; where their limited time "exclusive right" will last longer than any of the creators' lives; where purchasers of their works don't really OWN anything we have the right to get it how, when and for a price ONE company deems we should have access to it and an ever shrinking ability to use even that media/platform as we choose under the nearly extinct concept of "fair use". If the media companies get their way, in the near future we will eventually have nothing more than a limited time, limited media use license written into law and punishable by 20 years in jail for violations by first offenders.

In short, the constitution gave Congress the ABILITY to create a limited time and scope monopoly on creative works to encourage their creators to make more. There is nothing in the Constitution that made it a Right, just something Congress could have done it it wanted to. They did. It started out well, but around about the 1960's media companies realized that a little money spent on lobbyists and Congressmen yielded HUGE returns and they have over and over cut and snipped and built the monopoly protecting, interests of society be damned mess that copyright now is. It is the codification of a severe and absolute MONOPOLY.

Unfortunately we seem to have learned NOTHING from our past. The history of big business and industry in our country should have taught us VERY CLEARLY that ALL MONOPOLIES ARE EVIL, they are bad for the consumer, bad for society, bad for innovation and insatiable in their greed. Too much is never enough for a monopoly. They want MORE and MORE money and control, but don't want to do anything new or different or better to get it, they want to charge you more for the same product or charge you now for something you got for the free in the past, innovation and change does nothing for them but hurt the bottom line. The media industry is no exception, hell they are the poster child for why monopolies should be hunted down and killed like the parasites they are.

Okay I'm done now. Those of you who lick the boots of the content industry can now chime in and say how swell it is to have media conglomerates own every picture, song, story, expression imaginable by mankind for eternity (mark my words...when Mickey Rat's date with the Public Domain comes up again Disney will spend every last dollar they can shove in a Senator's G-sting to make copyright an endless "property" right).

I have never thought that I have been ripped off by the movie industry. If you look at current DVD releases they
have a bunch of additional content not found in the original release. Take a look at the Harry Potter DVDs.
Two disks set one with the movie and the other with interviews with various people associated with the product.
It becomes a historical document as much a movies. I feel in the case of DVDs that I am getting my moneys worth.

As for Jack Valenti this old toad hasn't had an original thought in years. As has been stated on this thread even
with a high speed connection it takes a long time to down load a movie and when you are done the quality sucks.

Brings new meaning to the pharse, "It's a FREE country, I'll do as I please."
Knowing a billionaire movie exec. won't be able to get that tenth Benz really keeps me up at night.

I laugh at the commercials with the stage crews, make-up artists etc who say that pirating movies is taking money out of their pockets. LOL Here is an idea to solve that. Pay the actors less. Does an actor or actress really need millions to make a movie? No. All they do is look good and spit out memorized lines. Who cares? Pay them less and pay the ones who really do the work on a movie set more. That is my solution.

"it will be a long time before a movie is so easily obtained"

where have you been?

Movies out in theatres are available the day after release all over the internet. Dvds can be downloaded usually before its even officially released, whether in DVD format or divx/xvid.