page: 1 · 2  |
 
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs: | Dag Watch out, frikkin **AA is coming. | |
|  | 
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs: | Re: Dag Here's an idea...
Dont illegally download music and film...
Suddenly.. no problem...
It's magic!
--
I'll buy everyone a HDD for xmass.... -- Strom | |
| | | 
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | Re: Dag trader | |
| | | 
Cozworth
Premium
join:2003-06-10
england
clubs:
| 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. 
--
Coz.Happiness is a spinning Star  | |
| | | | Deathsadvoca
join:2003-08-20
South Lyon, MI
clubs: | Re: Dag Its slightly harder to make DVD copys. The average person would not know how to do it (Especially since dvdxcopy is not availible). | |
| | | | | 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | Re: Dag 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. | |
| | | | | 
xdeadhead
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA | netflix, dvd decrypter, dvd-shrink and nero 6
burn and return.
--
I am not Herbert. | |
| | | | | | | | | vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
| 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 tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
| | | | 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | Re: Dag I have a VAIO, VAIOs come with Click2DVD...hmmm, what is this for? Could it be for copying DVD movies?
NetFlix ROCKS! | |
| | | | | | 
ObdH
Premium
join:2003-06-11
| 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
--
»www.tacticalhost.com/downloads/C···atch.exe --COD 1.4 Patch | |
| | | | davebenham
join:2002-01-31
Round Lake, IL
| Re: Dag 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.
| |
| | | | | | |
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs:
| Re: Dag 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.
--
I'll buy everyone a HDD for xmass.... -- Strom | |
| | | | |
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs: | Re: Dag Beware of trolls, kids.
--
Updated My Journal
TP&C | |
| | | | | | 
reaver221
join:2003-05-08
Cincinnati, OH
| Re: Dag 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. | |
| | | | | | |
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs:
| Re: Dag 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.
--
I'll buy everyone a HDD for xmass.... -- Strom | |
| | | | | | | | k_mumm
join:2001-06-14
Laramie, WY
| Re: Dag 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
1 edit | Re: Dag Never mind | |
| | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| 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. | |
| | | | | | | | Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC | When the Movie Industry starts selling SVCD's and CAM's of new movies around their release date, I'll start buying them. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
2 edits | Re: Dag "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. | |
| | | | | | | |
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs:
| Re: Dag Ok...
Here...
Since you can't make the connection yourself, I have dug out the info for you...
»www.guardian.co.uk/business/stor···,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.
--
I'll buy everyone a HDD for xmass.... -- Strom | |
| | | | | | | | | yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | Re: Dag 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | 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. | |
| | | | | | | 
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
| "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! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
1 edit | Re: Dag 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. | |
| | | | | | | saltydogmn
join:2002-08-31
Saint Paul, MN
| 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!) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | davebenham
join:2002-01-31
Round Lake, IL
| 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. | |
| | | | | 
Logan 5
A Sense Of Loss On Friday's
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-25
The WasteLAN
·Pacific Bell - SBC
|  Re: Dag
said by davebenham :
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.
Guess you can't or don't want to see things in perspective because you're WAY wrong on this one, so let me try to help you out.
Next time you watch a movie, or a program on tv, look for the little © symbol at the end of the credits. That means that the COPYRIGHT holder has exclusivity with regard to the character likeness thereof, mannerisms and just about anything else they care to protect.
To be able to use a likeness of a property like a Beavis, or Cartman from Southpark or whatever, one must pay a royalty fee to be able to legally use that likeness for whatver reason.
Failure to secure the proper licensing agreements can lead to civil or criminal penalty's up to or including jail time, fines and restution if it is determined that the illegal use of the trademarked or copyrighted item damaged the livelyhood or reputation of the trademark or copyright holder.
said by The header on the avatar page from BBR:
»/avatar
If your choice is likely to be popular or copyright (Dilbert, a famous band icon, symbols from popular games, disney characters, car logos), or is just not suitable for younger users of the site, then please think again as the moderators will just delete it before it is public.
copyright exists on the internet as well: You are responsible for observing any applicable copyright laws in choice and use of your avatar.
While this is OBVIOUSLY not enforced as aggressively as maybe it should be, just because you have the avatar that you have does not mean that BBR has somehow made it legal for you to be using it. The mods have better things to do than that, as they expect people to act somewhat civilizied and pleading ignorance of the law is not a good enough reason to be breaking it.
Economic impact is an irrelavent arguement as bottom line it is currently ILLEGAL under US copyright & trademark laws to use a likeness of anything copyrighted or trademarked with out the express written permission of the holder of the copyright or trademark.
I want you to prove me wrong. | |
| | | | | | 
ghostpainter
I Write for the Apocalypse
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
clubs:
|  Re: Dag
said by Logan 5 :
said by davebenham :
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.
Guess you can't or don't want to see things in perspective because you're WAY wrong on this one, so let me try to help you out.
Next time you watch a movie, or a program on tv, look for the little © symbol at the end of the credits. That means that the COPYRIGHT holder has exclusivity with regard to the character likeness thereof, mannerisms and just about anything else they care to protect.
To be able to use a likeness of a property like a Beavis, or Cartman from Southpark or whatever, one must pay a royalty fee to be able to legally use that likeness for whatver reason.
Failure to secure the proper licensing agreements can lead to civil or criminal penalty's up to or including jail time, fines and restution if it is determined that the illegal use of the trademarked or copyrighted item damaged the livelyhood or reputation of the trademark or copyright holder.
said by The header on the avatar page from BBR:
»/avatar
If your choice is likely to be popular or copyright (Dilbert, a famous band icon, symbols from popular games, disney characters, car logos), or is just not suitable for younger users of the site, then please think again as the moderators will just delete it before it is public.
copyright exists on the internet as well: You are responsible for observing any applicable copyright laws in choice and use of your avatar.
While this is OBVIOUSLY not enforced as aggressively as maybe it should be, just because you have the avatar that you have does not mean that BBR has somehow made it legal for you to be using it. The mods have better things to do than that, as they expect people to act somewhat civilizied and pleading ignorance of the law is not a good enough reason to be breaking it.
Economic impact is an irrelavent arguement as bottom line it is currently ILLEGAL under US copyright & trademark laws to use a likeness of anything copyrighted or trademarked with out the express written permission of the holder of the copyright or trademark.
I want you to prove me wrong.
That is why RIAA and the MPAA are trying to overturn the Beta laws of the 70's as well....they want to make you taping on a VCR from a TV Illegal as well.... | |
| | | | | | | davebenham
join:2002-01-31
Round Lake, IL
1 edit | Re: Dag Copyright laws generally do not give the holder complete control over their creation. Copyright laws were devised to guarantee rights of ownership for publishers. However, in conjunction with the rights of the publisher, the rights of the consumer are also recognized and addressed under a legal doctrine called fair use. Fair use exists as a necessary counter-force to copyright law because many recognize the proliferation of copyrighted ideas and material cannot readily take place in a society if publishers exercise draconian control over their material as you suggest they have a right to do. Fair use attempts to reconcile copyright law and the first amendment right to free speech.
And since you asked me to prove you wrong, here you go. Fair use regularly protects parody as a method of expression. Parodies often use likenesses and other copyrighted material to poke fun and make social statements. Look up Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music sometime, it's a supreme court case that recently dealt with parody. I might also suggest looking up "fair use analysis" sometime.
Incidentally, the fair use doctrine explicitly states economic impact is one of the factors in determining copyright infringement, so you are wrong in your statement that "Economic impact is an irrelevant argument."
What does this mean for the ill-chosen avatars that may infringe on copyrights? That actually isn't an easy question. MTV could choose to take the issue to court, and chances are they would win. But they'd likely win with an out of court settlement or an intimidating phone call from a lawyer to an average joe citizen, not necessarily because they are standing on legally higher ground. | |
| | | | | | | |
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs:
| Re: Dag said by davebenham :
What does this mean for the ill-chosen avatars that may infringe on copyrights? That actually isn't an easy question. MTV could choose to take the issue to court, and chances are they would win. But they'd likely win with an out of court settlement or an intimidating phone call from a lawyer to an average joe citizen, not necessarily because they are standing on legally higher ground.
I hope the remains of Black Isle doesn't try to sue my a$$, I don't have any Canadian money anymore.
--
Updated My Journal
TP&C | |
| | | | | | |
reaver221
join:2003-05-08
Cincinnati, OH
| Re: Dag said by ghostpainter :
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???
Because you're not going to the theater to see it (~$8) and then maybe buying the DVD (~$20).
"Hey! Let me have your content at like 1/10 of the price! Why is that so hard?" | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
sivran
God Save The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Dag Another perspective...
How much of that 8 bucks goes to the studio that produced the movie? Really, how much?
How much of that 8 bucks, or less depending on when and where you see it, goes to overhead--distribution costs, etc.?
Now how much of the price of a download could potentially go to the studio? Studios have websites already, the overhead would be minimal to open up (and maintain) a download section. A lot more, I'd think, as websites don't require truck drivers, ushers, or clerks.
--
Think Spyware's bad? TCPA is worse. Fight it!
Kerio 2.1.5 - My favorite firewall (Download link updated!) | |
| | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Dag said by sivran :
Another perspective...
How much of that 8 bucks goes to the studio that produced the movie? Really, how much?
How much of that 8 bucks, or less depending on when and where you see it, goes to overhead--distribution costs, etc.?
Most of it. When a movie comes out for the first couple of weeks, 90% goes right back to the distributor or studio. The remaining 10% goes back to the home office of the theater company to pay for bookers (those whose assign movies to theaters) and other "national" costs.
As the weeks go by, it goes to 80/20, then 70/30 and so on until a film becomes a flat rate like $500/week.
The theater itself has to make ALL of its operating costs from the concession stand. Not one cent of the ticket price goes to the theater itself. | |
| 
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Just like the music industry.... Suing p2p users will hardly make a dent in sharing. It will just make people hate you and want to boycott your movies. | |
|
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA
1 edit | They will never win 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
--
"Our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising everytime we fall." - Confucius - - - - - - - - - - - Streamfire.net
- - AIM - CoNFuCiUsNiCk | |
| | 
MuDvAyNe
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Vonage
| Re: They will never win 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.
--
Hi. | |
| | | 
Mentiroso
join:2003-10-15
Albany, GA | Re: They will never win 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. | |
| 
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY |  Hmmm...
--
Counter-Strike sucks | |
| | 
Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
·Verizon VoiceWing
| Re: Hmmm... 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.
--
Resistance is Futile | |
| | 
Eye4got
@dejazzd.com
| 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? | |
| Phatty
join:2000-05-10
Valley Park, MO
·Vonage
·Charter Pipeline
| Please dont follow the RIAA 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. | |
| |
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | Re: Please dont follow the RIAA 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. | |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | Uhhh Hypothetical situation, you have Digital Cable(or Satellite), you also have one of these... »www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp···=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? | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
BIGMIKE
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA
| test drive 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. | |
| pacmanfan
Premium
join:2003-11-22
Mansfield, MO
| It's going to happen sooner or later
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 | |
| 
AthlGrond
Collectivism Breeds Envy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| Bigger Is Better 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! 
--
System protected by Impregnable Ignorance (TM) | |
| |
BIGMIKE
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA | Re: Bigger Is Better So logically if you want to keep the trading to a minimum, make the moves much bigger!
-------------------------------------------
thats bigger and better! | |
| | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL | Re: Bigger Is Better Actually, that is the plan. Re: HDDVDs. | |
| | 
DnnsMenace
Good Bye, Lenin
Premium
join:2002-03-30
Brooklyn, NY | Let the industry "crumble." Movies nowadays suck anyway. | |
| | | 
Torn
Premium
join:2001-05-11
USA
| Re: Bigger Is Better said by DnnsMenace :
Let the industry "crumble." Movies nowadays suck anyway.
Most movies. There are some good ones here and there. You're correct, however. The majority of the movies are over-hyped and I couldn't care less what happens to the industry in the future. | |
|
Fcktard
@adelphia.net | Anybody know where to buy CDRs without serial #s? 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. | |
| | 
KeepOnRockin
Music Lover Forever
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR | Re: Anybody know where to buy CDRs without serial
I don't think anyone makes CDRs without serial numbers. | |
| |
BIGMIKE
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA | CDRs Yes I just paid 10cen each 100 for $9.95 at fry | |
| | |
KeepOnRockin
Music Lover Forever
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR | Re: Anybody know where to buy CDRs without serial wow, that's a good deal.
I might have to pick some up from Fry's myself | |
|
JudgmentDay
| Judgment Day ! | |
| | 
gruggni
Oxygen Gets You High
join:2003-07-28
Corpus Christi, TX
1 edit | Re: Judgment Day ! 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.
--
"I'm sick of following my dreams man; I'm just going to ask where they're going and hook up with them later."
- Mitch Hedberg | |
| | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | Don't feed the trolls. | |
| 
Augustus III
If Only Rome Could See Us Now....
join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA | here is an idea 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. | |
| | 
cvrefugee
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Corona, CA
| Re: here is an idea 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. | |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| The first lawsuit that comes out I will... 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? | |
| |
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Re: The first lawsuit that comes out I will... Don't you think a DVD burner would be suitable for movies on DVD?
--
Counter-Strike sucks | |
| | | 
wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL | Re: The first lawsuit that comes out I will... I think he is planning on making SVCD's. Don't need a DVD burner for that, only a reader. | |
| 
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith
| The MPAA is like the RIAA 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. | |
| | 
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| Re: The MPAA is like the RIAA 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.
| |
| | |
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith
| I do understand, somewhat 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! | |
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Ban it all 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. | |
|
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
| How the HELL did copyright mutate to THIS? 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).
--
Don't suspect your friends...Report Them. Brazil (if you haven't seen it, you should) | |
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Well.. 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.
--
"Remember when hacking a loogy it comes not so much from the lungs but from the soul." | |
| 
one_bored_si
join:2003-03-10
Montebello, CA | This whole discussion.. 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. | |
| jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| Stage crews etc... 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. | |
| | 
Maven
Premium
join:2002-03-12
Canada
4 edits | Re: Stage crews etc... These superstar actors are the ones selling your typical mainstream movie, not the make-up artists or the rest of the "behind-the-scenes" workers no one knows about. As long as people continue supporting movies starring superstars, they'll get paid huge amounts of money. The actors' salaries are determined by their popularity, not by their talent. | |
| | Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC
| I'm fairly certain the stage crews and make-up artists are not doing their work for a percentage of the film's profits. They get paid during production, without which the film would never get made. So as long a movies are being made, these people are making their money. | |
| | |
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs:
| Re: Stage crews etc... said by Cyron :
I'm fairly certain the stage crews and make-up artists are not doing their work for a percentage of the film's profits. They get paid during production, without which the film would never get made. So as long a movies are being made, these people are making their money.
By this statement, you have made it clear that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
--
I'll buy everyone a HDD for xmass.... -- Strom | |
| jimlampley
join:2002-10-24
St.Cath,On
| lol @ movies not being readily available "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. | |
| | | |
|
|
MPAA Lawsuits Coming?
