MPAA Blames BitTorrent for Star Wars Distribution

AI Playground writes "Slyck News reports on the MPAA's press release (.doc) blaming the BitTorrent protocol for the leak of Episode III. MPAA President and CEO Dan Glickman: 'There is no better example of how theft dims the magic of the movies for everyone than this report today regarding BitTorrent providing users with illegal copies of Revenge of the Sith. The unfortunate fact is this type of theft happens on a regular basis on peer to peer networks all over the world.'"

And this is news?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Look, most people I know who have the ability to download the movie chose not to. They want to see it on a big screen, with big sound, with other fans.

Re:And this is news?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, watch only stolen movies. It makes me feel cool, like if I had a big penis.

Of course, BitTorrent is responsible. The author of this un-American software should be arrested immediately and pay a fine of 400 million to the starving author of Star Wars.

You, sir, are most correct!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Revenge of the Sith only had a record $50 million opening day. This is a travesty! I will personally donate my yearly salary of $40,000 to George Lucas to help keep him from starving.

Re:And this is news?

[bman08 (239376)]

I believe it was BitTorrent on the Grassy Knoll. BitTorrent also touched those boys at Michael Jackson's pad. This is like blaming Boeing for destroying the World Trade Center.

Re:And this is news?

[Seraphim_72 (622457)]

You forgot that BitTorrent hides alien contact in Area 51, and that it also stole WMD's from Iraq just as we were going in. Also, it made me sterile just by watching a downloaded movie.

Sera

Re:And this is news?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Where is this Bit Torrent person and when is he handing out free movies again?

Also I heard that the RIAA is suing FTP for the lack luster sales of Ashlee Simpson's CD.

Re:And this is news?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure its not BitTorrents fault. Its Intels fault. If there were no computers there would be no piracy...

Actually its probably the MPAAs fault, if there were no movies there'd be no piracy...

Not only BitTorrent

[trezor (555230)]

Of course, BitTorrent is responsible.

No, no, no! Not only that! I got mine via FTP, so FTP is responsible as well! And I found the FTP-link by the web, so I guess that makes HTTP responsible as well.

Oh.. and they all use IP. Which would make IP the one mainly responsible for the IP-theft! Yup. Sounds like double-A logic to me.

MPAA's at fault

[Propaganda13 (312548)]

I didn't know that you could download the new Star Wars until the MPAA told me. So they're really to blame for me downloading it right now.

Re:And this is news?

[by Anonymous Coward]

BitTorrent is (one of many) file transfer mechanisms that spareds distribution cost evenly over content consumers, instead of dumping it all on the content producer.

And that's all it is. Nothing magic, evil, or anything.

The only reason the MPAA doesn't like it is because it happens to be prohibitively expensive for someone who isn't making money off of it to distribute lots of content in the old days. The MPAA makes lots of money from licensing their content, so they don't care if it's expensive for a content producer to distribute data. P2P simply happens to reduce cost to content producers (good for individuals who can produce worthwhile content, like open source authors or Red vs Blue artists) below the point where individuals without scads of money can infringe on copyrights held on very large files like movies.

The attacks the MPAA is making against P2P are attacks against inexpensive content distribution, and all those that rely on it and those that benefit from it.

they need to be stopped

[timmarhy (659436)]

from making misleading claims like this. it's already been ruled that copyright infringement is NOT theft

Terminology is chosen to generate emotions

[GuyMannDude (574364)]

You're splitting hairs to justify doing something that is clearly ethically wrong, that is pirating movies, music, and software.

It's more than splitting hairs. Piracy is not a synonym for copyright infringement. Piracy and theft are charged words designed to generate a strong emotional response. Unconsciously, the word 'piracy' conjures up images of barbarians who murder and rape without remorse. 'Theft' is used to dig at the fear that everyone has of having their material items stolen from their house. Yes, consciously, we know that a 13-year old 'pirate' is not a raping, murdering, theiving monster but the MPAA wants to generate fear, anger, and other emotions in the public. Using 'copyright infringement' -- the correct term -- just won't do that for them. So they continue to use incorrect terminology. We're not being grammar nazis by insisting that they use less-neutral terms. Yes, copyright infringement is wrong. But it's a different class of wrong from the actions of pirates and thieves.

GMD

Of course

[Kjella (173770)]

It's more than splitting hairs. Piracy is not a synonym for copyright infringement. Piracy and theft are charged words designed to generate a strong emotional response. Unconsciously, the word 'piracy' conjures up images of barbarians who murder and rape without remorse.

...when that term was first coined (centuries ago), people actually feared pirates. Nowadays pirates are characters in cartoons and adventure films for the family with very little resemblance to actual pirates. Quite a few are anti-heroes (ie. on the bad side, but still "cool") or in some way redeem themselves, and not least of which act a lot less brutal and more honorable than the real thing. When children get old enough that they want to be scared, they don't go see a pirate vid about how it really was, they see "Alien" or the like. I think the effect is overrated at best.

Kjella

Re:Let's please get our heads on straight...

[by Anonymous Coward]

I find nothing wrong with the terms "piracy" and "theft" to describe such actions.

But what about "rape" and "murder"? When you copy a movie, you are metaphorically raping the director by taking something he considers precious, without consent, for your own pleasure. And you are metaphorically murdering his chance of making a profit out of you.

In fact, I think people who rape kids' movies should be charged with sex crimes. Those pedos are some sick people. I heard about this guy who even copied an old "Bambi" VHS tape! Pedophilic rape and bestiality in one. The sicko tried to say it was okay because the copy was for his granddaughter. That's just twisted.

Or maybe we could, you know, use words which are actually descriptive of the real crimes being committed?

"Copyright infringement" should be reserved for cases such as when I make a video game that stars Mario or Pokemon, infringing upon Nintendo's copyright.

No, it shouldn't - because that would be a case of trademark infringement, not copyright infringement, unless you used Nintendo's actual artwork or level layouts.

Of course, it's not your fault you don't know the difference. You've been confused by everyone using words wrongly. If everyone used "theft" to mean theft and "copyright infringement" to mean copyright infringement and "trademark infringement" to mean trademark infringement, then there would be no confusion. When you start using "theft" to mean copyright infringement, it's hardly surprising that you then get confused and use "copyright infringement" to mean trademark infringement.

And yes, the difference is important. Copyright infringement can be a criminal offense in some circumstances; I don't think trademark infringement can. That's a pretty big difference.

Re:they need to be stopped

[rokzy (687636)]

why do you assume wanting people to be truthful about something ammounts to justifying it?

for example, no matter whether I'm for or against the right to have an abortion I don't want people describing the doctors as "baby murderers". it is incorrect.

and anyone who needs to make incorrect statements to make their argument sound strong should always be regarded as suspicious.

Re:they need to be stopped

[croddy (659025)]

you seem to have confused ethics and legality. "unethical" is something like "using lobbying dollars to gain legal protection for a false economy". "illegal" is something like "violating laws purchased by the MPAA".

an industry whose purpose is the distribution of media recordings has been obsolete since the late 1990's. it is now cheaper and easier for people to do it themselves. by sticking blindly to their business model, the MPAA is simply refusing to accept changes that they have no control over.

Re:they need to be stopped

[Scrameustache (459504)]

clearly ethically wrong, that is pirating movies

The MPAA is in no position to give me, or anyone else, ethics lessons.

Re:they need to be stopped

[Henry V .009 (518000)]

Ethically wrong? Illegal, certainly. In many places. For the distributor usually, not the distributee.

But we're well beyond a universal system of ethics aren't we? I can imagine a number of arguments that could be used to by people who have no ethical problem with copyright infringement.

For one, copyright is a contract between the government and authors on their people's behalf. Since it's made without the individual's say-so, he might not consider himself bound by it.

For another, copyright has only existed for a few centuries. The great ethical minds of the past never had a problem with appropriating the intellectual property of others.

Another argument that could be used is that modern copyright terms have been manipulated by big business into lengths of time that violate their intended purpose. Therefore the law is unjust and should be disobeyed.

Another argument could be that copyright itself is a bad idea that stifles creation. In music, for example, the case could be made the copyright has killed live performance. Therefore the law is wrong and just be disobeyed.

So on and so forth.

I can imagine arguments in the other direction as well. But the point is that there is no universal morality on the subject.

Re:they need to be stopped

[rpdillon (715137)]

Granted, but that is not really the point of the article. The release specifically says that Bit Torrent has provided the pirated movies.

This is obviously wrong and misleading. It is akin to saying the axe murdered the person, or it was the car that hit the guy in the crosswalk. That is simply not the case: it is the PEOPLE behind the tools that make the decision about how to use them.

This rampant demonization of peer to peer software is absurd. The fact that we have to have a case go to the supreme court to decide whether or not peer to peer software should be legal is absurd. They have to decide in the HIGHEST COURT of the land whether or not people who own computers can share data between the computers?

Again, we (as a society) love to blame the tools, rather than take personal responsibility for our actions. I, for one, grow tired of it.

Re:they need to be stopped

[tomhudson (43916)]

Just wait. Soon the Book Printers Association of America will come after you for theft!

Don't laugh. I got a notice for an overdue book one time (they had screwed up - there was no such book in existence), and it included the notice that if I didn't return the book, I could be liable to a fine of $300 or up to 30 days in the clink on conviction.

Less than a year later, a woman made it onto the evening news by refusing to pay the fine, and her lawyer contesting the law. Turns out minicipal ities don't have the authority to criminalize overdue books.

Re:they need to be stopped

[skasingularity (777400)]

Clearly unethical? Like stem cell research is clearly unethical? Or more like homosexuality is clearly unethical?

There are people who would tell you eating pork is clearly unethical. You say the grandparent poster is splitting hairs, I say you're being too general.

Re:FCC will control the Internet....

[golgotha007 (62687)]

Well thank God America isn't in control of the Internet!

No matter how much control, how many laws, how many overbearing policies are slapped on the Internet, there will always be an underground.

The only people these new laws and forms of control will stop are folks like my dad. It is no different than using software protection to help stop piracy; only average joes are affected.

Copyright

[kdark1701 (791894)]

I'd start taking him seriously if they used proper terminology. It is copyright infringment, not theft.

Re:Copyright

[pete6677 (681676)]

Copyright infringement carries heavier penalties than theft in the traditional sense. If you are ever unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of a copyright infringement lawsuit, you'll be wishing you had just been caught stealing a movie from Best Buy and got off with probation and a small fine, rather than a civil suit which will bankrupt you even if you ultimately prevail.

Re:Copyright

[masklinn (823351)]

Yes it is, because commercial or not it's still unauthorized distribution of copyrighted work

Re:Copyright

[tomhudson (43916)]

The copyright owner has the exclusive rights to copy and distribute the work among others.

No, they don't have EXCLUSIVE rights. Fair use, use in educational situations, quoting when reporting, etc., are all recognized by law as exceptions to the so-called "exclusiveness" of copyright.

Its mentioned in the very first 2 lines of the law you quoted:

Sec. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 121

so, what do they say there?

Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies
or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
of the copyrighted work.

Section 108:

Sec. 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by
libraries and archives

Section 109:

Sec. 109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of
particular copy or phonorecord

Remember how the music industry got all upset about people selling their used CDs? Fuck 'em, its legal.

Section 110:

Sec. 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain
performances and displays

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not
infringements of copyright:

Section 111 - rebroadcasting:

Sec. 111. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary
transmissions

(a) Certain Secondary Transmissions Exempted.

There's more, but I think I've made my point. There is no such thing as "exclusive".

Once again...

[Geekenstein (199041)]

A case of blaming the highway for the high speed chase. Nothing new here...move alone.

Re:Once again...

[Dysfnctnl85 (690109)]

EXACTLY!

BitTorrent maybe the catalyst but it's certainly not the reason the movie got leaked...how about the person who actually ACQUIRED the film in the first place?

Good lord!

Re:Once again...

[nacturation (646836)]

Plus, it's not BitTorrent's fault that the movie was released. The fault of the release is due to TCP/IP itself! I think we should lobby the government to ban the TCP/IP protocol, which makes all copyright infringement possible.

The only thing

[William-Ely (875237)]

that dimmed the magic of this movie was George Lucas.

Tragic

[MattW (97290)]

It's a shame that this has happened, and that Star Wars Ep. III is hardly taking in any money [cnn.com] as a result.

BitTorrent's fault?

[sik0fewl (561285)]

I could have swore it was leaked by there own employees. But it's BitTorrent's fault, you say?

Re:BitTorrent's fault?

[WormholeFiend (674934)]

well, no sith sherlock! from the screencaps i've seen, the timecode was still in there.

I blame..

[SocialEngineer (673690)]

I blame internet. Lets sue Al Gore!

Tinfoil hat time! Did the MPAA leak it purposely?

[GuyMannDude (574364)]

It's interesting to note that the copy making rounds on the p2p networks is a workprint and not a cam-copy, suggesting an inside job. Given that everyone knew how high-profile ROTS was going to be, it doesn't seem too improbable that the MPAA purposely leaked the print just so they could make a big deal about it. I mean, ROTS is pretty much review-proof and p2p-proof; anyone who was interested in the film was going to the theater to see it anyhow. So there really wouldn't be a big loss by leaking this copy and it gives them a perfect opportunity to bang on the drum again. If ever they were going to leak a blockbuster, ROTS would be the one to do it for.

GMD

Re:Tinfoil hat time! Did the MPAA leak it purposel

[timeOday (582209)]

How much mileage do you think they'll really get out of this, though? The general public knows that some people download movies, just as they know some percentage of people driving their cars to see the movie at theaters were speeding. It doesn't make it OK, but it's just not interesting to hear about anymore.

P2P and guns

[CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408)]

Why is it whenever anyone talks about wanting to ban guns because of the "dangers" they pose, they get laughed out of the spotlight and everyone says "guns don't kill people, people kill people". However, when it comes to piracy these idiots seem to be making progress with their message of trying to ban technology.

Repeat after me.

Technology doesn't pirate IP, people pirate IP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:P2P and guns

[tedrlord (95173)]

That simile is flawed. Handguns have many uses, such as easing server bandwidth requirements and doing a lot to spread open source software, while bittorrent was designed mainly for use in non-military situations to kill human beings. It's fairly obvious that for practical purposes, bittorrent should be carefully controlled.

Wait, I think I mixed things up a little there, didn't I.

Well, last I checked...

[Kjella (173770)]

...I didn't get to buy ABC (Atomic, Biological, Chemical) weapons, jet fighters, tanks, artillery, rocket launchers, assault rifles, sniper rifles or any other kind of heavy weaponry on the free market. The content industry is worried because we have a WMI (Weapon of mass infringement) in every home. Or well, slashdotters have an arsenal. If everyone had WMDs, I'd be heading for the nearest bunker real quick.

Their real problem is that there's no specific purpose. If you were building a large enough arsenal to start WWIII, well chances are pretty good that's what you're planning. If I build a means to quickly distribute large amounts of information, it doesn't imply anything at all. Sending streams of 0s and 1s is as general-purpose as you can get.

To pull a real geeky analogy, it is as if we invented the Star Trek replicator, and it was banned because it could replicate anything, even weapons and controlled substances. Or the holodeck was banned because it can simulate anything, and then someone could simulate their pedo fantasy in there.

Trying to turn the attention towards people is pointless, because anyone who isn't completely blind can see that people don't care about IP. It's like saying the same about guns when everyone is going around slaughtering eachother. If you want a better analogy, copyright is the "modern prohibition" and piracy the massive moonshine production. Banning P2P is like banning grain and potatoes to stop moonshine liqour.

Kjella

Magic of Movies

[futurekill (745161)]

I think the $10 price of a ticket is starting to dim the "Magic" of movies more than bootlegs...

many thanks for telling me where to get it

[Gunstick (312804)]

Thanks to the MPAA announcing the availibility of Episode III on bittorrent, I know now which client to start and search for it. Great service.

Georges

Everyone I know

[mindaktiviti (630001)]

Who's downloaded Episode 3 has gone - or is planning to go - to the theatre to see this movie.

If it was some drama or romantic comedy, then no, they wouldn't go to the theatre, but this is a special efx movie and is best seen either at the theatre, OR on a crazy home system if you have the DVD or DVD-like quality.

In other news...

[Pedrito (94783)]

Episode 3 is breaking records for how much money it's already made. Boy, I can really see how BitTorrent is just screwing the movie industry. Just how it screwed Battlestar Galactica on Sci-Fi. What a bunch of whining chumps.

He's absolutely right

[Shky (703024)]

As I stood in line at midnight, surrounded by fellow geeks, the only thing I could think of was: "Wow, BitTorrent has dimmed the magic right out of this."

No, wait, it didn't. The simple fact is, those who were going to see it in theatre did, and those who never were (or who were just going to borrow the DVD from a friend when it came out) didn't. Nothing new here.

That's it!

[NoMoreNicksLeft (516230)]

We need a law that makes it a federal felony to "Dim the magic of the movies, with intention or accidentally, through the distribution of any electronic media."

No longer will Ebert be able to safely sit there sending salvo after salvo at the movie industry, safe behind ill-concieved first ammendment rights!

Please, help save the magic of the movies from dimming, think of the children!

Funny, it doesn't work for me

[Pac (9516)]

When I heard about this BitTorrent program delivering non-released movies, new top-40 albums and great warez software I (being cheap and lazy) immediatelly downloaded, installed and opened it. Then I waited for the goods to start pouring into my disk. So far nothing has happened. Does anyone knows what I am doing wrong?

not enough magic?

[yagu (721525)]

From TFA:

MPAA President and CEO Dan Glickman: 'There is no better example of how theft dims the magic of the movies for everyone than this report today regarding BitTorrent providing users with illegal copies of Revenge of the Sith.

and now, from a syndicated article in the Herald Sun (among MANY other papers):

THE final chapter in the Star Wars movie saga grossed a record $US50 million ($66 million) from its first 24 hours in North American theatres, the highest box office tally ever for a single day, 20th Century Fox said.

I guess the most revenue ever just isn't enough magic for Glickman.... he really does care about us after all!

OT: Penguins vs The Sith.

[Stephen Samuel (106962)]

I was listening to CBC's "Definitely Not The Opera [www.cbc.ca]" where they mentioned that almost nobody is opening a film this weekend opposite Revenge of the Sith. One exception is the French documentary March of the Penguins, a French documentary all about - what else - penguins.
Quote of the hour:

Only penguins would stand up against Darth Vader.

Re:Yeah.

[GuyMannDude (574364)]

Yes, Bittorrent was at fault, and the economic impact was so huge, that Star Wars didn't make a single penny this weekend. And George Lucas is broke! John Williams is selling pencils on the street corner! Hayden Christensen... well let's not even talk about what he's doing to make ends meet!

I'd rather talk about what Nathalie Portman is doing to make ends meet! :)

GMD

Re:It's clear the damage that this has caused!

[Scrameustache (459504)]

For heaven sakes people! Lucas was only able to make $50 million on Thursday! HE HAS CHILDREN TO FEED

You misspelled "younglings" ;-)