Copyright Infringement In the News 697
Lots of newsbits about copyright infringement today - let's mash them all together with some egg whites and breadcrumbs and see what we get. marklyon writes "The DOJ announced that they are planning to prosecute filesharers under the The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act. John Malcolm, a deputy assistant attorney general, made the pronouncement at the Progress and Freedom Foundation's annual technology and politics summit Tuesday. Cnet has extended coverage." Reader M_Talon writes "According to this article on ZDNET the RIAA is using one of the DMCA's more nasty clauses...the right to subpoena an ISP for a suspected pirate's personal information. They want to force Verizon to reveal the customer's information, and Verizon is refusing on the grounds that the pirated material isn't on their servers." Reader MattW writes "Apparently some theaters are consenting to run anti-piracy ads before movies. After all, these are not a bunch of fat cats we're talking about -- piracy now threatens the livelihood of the rank and file workers of Hollywood. After all, the movie studios are having a terrible year,
right?" Finally, the Washington Post (probably one of the last articles we post from their site, as they go registration-required) discovers spoofed files on Gnutella, and public radio is reporting that the RIAA will drop their suit against listen4ever.com, since it's, uh, gone.
Who decides if it's prosecutable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hrm... (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Don't distribute works you don't own the copyright for.
2. Don't distribute works whose total value is more than $999.99US
3. Don't distribute works whose total value is more than $999.99 US for more than 180 days.
The government kinda shot itself in the foot with this one. It will be damn hard to prove that you have distribute works for 180 days whose total value is more than $999.99US.
Re:good news! (Score:3, Interesting)
At issue in the RIAA's request is an obscure part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that permits a copyright owner to send a subpoena ordering a "service provider" to turn over information about a subscriber
After the precedent is set most ISP's will just hand over the subscriber's name is my guess... of course there's always a chance that the precedent goes the other way, but it looks like a long shot from the wording of that quote.
Copyright Infringement PSA's in movie theaters? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hollywood is starting to believe their own press and it's time people started to remind them that they are ONLY ENTERTAINMENT.
hrmmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, I would assume most people in the theater are ummm... going to theaters?
As a whole though, fuck the MPAA and the RIAA.
MPAA: Movies and TV, generally suck. I only get the occasional movie if its really good. Otherwise your prices don't justify a product I'll watch maybe once or twice.
RIAA: I'm stealing music you stole (more or less) from the artist. What goes around comes around...
----rhad
Re:Who decides if it's prosecutable? (Score:1, Interesting)
The Linux kernel is copyrighted. There was a neat little program posted not to long ago that calculated the number of lines and code quality to produce the software's value. I have a billion dollars worth of copyrighted software on my computer I didn't pay a dime for. And I have the source code too! Am I going to prison?
Re:Under the NET Act... (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong.. I think the movie and record comapnies should all jump off the highest building they own, but stranger things have happened when they start using their money and suing the average defensless Joe.
I figure they could state it in two different manners
1 - If you had the movie stored on your system and also had a p2p program of any type installed - they could say that sales losses where diretly effected by your sharing of the movie.
or
2 - They could state that if you copied the movie (especially if on DVD), and bypassed their.. umm.. 'security' measures, that you most likely shared that process with others. Thereby cutting into their profits.
Either way the movie and recording companies will continue to strong arm the public until the complete foundation falls apart at the seems. And when it does it will creat a mini-anarchy of a turning point in all of this.
Until then, I suggest that we continue to fight and argue and hold on tight for the ride.
Units shipped fell because unit price has soared (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll tell you why I stopped buying CD's. It's because a CD used to cost about $11 when they first came out, and now that the technology is available to produce them for $.05 a piece they cost about $25.
Hey RIAA, stop selling the damn things at such a ripoff price, and we will start buying them again. (And no, I don't burn them either, I just don't listen to the new (CRAP) music that is being forced down our throats.)
Self serve... (Score:4, Interesting)
actors and pro athletes (Score:1, Interesting)
If I got some great job to where I could afford to live in a neighborhood that was only 'better' simply because it was more expensive and had plenty of serived landscaping, I wouldn't move there. Nope, I would fix up my house and save the rest of the money for education and vacations I guess. Even better, invest it somewhere smart.
Now I see/hear many attempting to pull at my heart strings about the money they feel they 'deserve'. Ummm, sorry... there have been entirely too many that deserve much much more than they give and you will not ever see them making 6 figures or more. How many fathers of 3 have been killed protecting the country, neighborhood, or family that you will never hear of? I hear 98 million is the cut off for being charged luxury taxes, to which is one of the big gripes the baseball players (as in a FUCKING GAME that kids play)... sorry, that was rude but I think well placed and meant as more of a enhancement.
Now here is what I don't get. It may sound like I would be for taking the money from this overpaid oxygen thieves, but nothing could be more wrong. If I were a herd mentallity sheep, that only parrotted rhetoric instead of applying critical thought and insight, much less paying attention to history then it would probably be very likely. My parents were farmers, my granparents were farmers and mine workers, on up the line. However, I have learned that oh-so-valuable lesson that says that you do not cut off your nose to spite your face. If these societal leeches are making this money through the voluntary contributions of others, then so be it. As long as I never am forced to pay (like taxes) then it is all good... if still very depressing as to modern societies priorities and values.
I don't plan to steal any music, movies or TV, or even sneak into any baseball games. However, I think that if I buy a movie, music, game, software, redbrick, hammer, gun, steak knife, red meat, etc. that it is MINE to do with how I will. If I want to turn around and sell it (for more or less) then that is my right (as in rights vs priveledges). However, I may give, sell, etc only that one, simple. Just as I would be accountable for taking the brick, knife, or gun and hurting someone, so must the manufacturers be responsible if I am using it in a perfectly normal/intended way and it 'goes off' and hurts someone. (meaning that the idiots that sue gun manufacturers are once again proving that our society has not eliminated but actively REVERSED social darwinism by rewarding the weak and stupid... with money and sympathy).
I think it is highly ironic (but not historically so) that these athletes, actors and musicians that pull in so much cash for things that in reality do nothing directly beneficial to our society (as opposed to saving lives, progressing innovation, producing merchandise, etc) are then often so quick to turn on the very system that grants them the ability to have such an unnatural high netting of 'worth'. They are the quickest to demand that more regulation be brought in for this or that (as long as it does not infringe on THEIR OWN PERSONAL desires). Also, why is it that they are so insistent on raping others of their hard earned money yet themselves live in such disgusting decadence. (these people have no problem with paying 5000 a week for makeovers or dogfood)
I just don't get it... hope I never do I think
These people need to be taken to task. (Score:2, Interesting)
It is in fact Some Wild Ass Guess (SWAG). He like the rest of the RIAA droids pull these numbers out of their ass and Congress is accepting them at face value. It's pure bull!
It's as ridiculous as it would be for Linus to stand up and say that 5 billion people attempted to install Linux and 3 billion were successful, making his operating system the most widely used in the world. How would he possibly know?
NET is good (Score:4, Interesting)
I know everyone's got a point of view on this matter, ranging from "all information should be free at birth" to "all information should be controlled and tolled".
My view is best expressed by first clearing up the confusion about nomenclature.
"Copyright"
I think Fair Use includes the ability to make copies, so I don't buy Jack Valenti's argument that making a copy of a DVD is, or should be, illegal.
Also, there are too many cases where the free flow of information can be unduly inhibited by onerous technical burdens just to protect the current business models of RIAA and MPAA members.
I think they should rename the concept "CopyCharge".
Owners of the current copyrights should have the exclusive right to distribute for charge.
Of course that includes money. But also, in all fairness, I think it should include Napster-like barter exchanges where "if I give you access to X copyrighted material then you give me access to Y copyrighted material".
I think everyone should respect copyright ownership in that way.
Thus, I don't have any problems with them prosecuting people who actually distribute copies of material for compensation when they don't own the "copycharge" right.
I do have a problem with heavy handed tactics where the flow of all digital information is restricted just because of some lawbreakers. It's just like crowbars. Yes, they can be used as burglary tools, but they're also quite useful in many other circumstances.
Yes, please, by all means prosecute actual burglars. No, under no circumstances, should you outlaw tools. That's why I view NET as great, but other laws such as DMCA and CB.... as abominations.
Re:Under the NET Act... (Score:3, Interesting)
They can not prove, unless they have hard evidence that you have been sharing those files with others, therefor you are only liable for, what YOU have on your computer(s). Although with evidance, you could very well be liable for up to: 5 years. Doh.
What does this teach us, Load a small, simple OS; Load VMware. Load a second OS of choice in VMware. copy all p0rn, warez, divx, mp3's, etc to VMware, shutdown VMware - Encrypt. Boot VMware to RAM drive. Decript and play- when the door bell rings. kill the power. They see nothing but.... a large amount of encrypted data. They can't even see what the OS is.
Re:The RIAA will never get it... (Score:2, Interesting)
P2P should be made into a political weapon (Score:2, Interesting)
If politicians get the idea that millions of people who use such software will know if their representatives are screwing them, it could be deterrent.
Maybe some sort of e-mail feature can be built in that allows you with the press of a button to send a message to your representative that you intend to vote against them in the next election if they vote to approve some legislation.
People will most likely not act on their threat, but politicians won't necessarily know that.
On the matter of AOTC downloading (Score:5, Interesting)
Oops! I forgot to mention that I waited in line 3 hours to see it on opening midnight, and that I saw it 3 more times, including once on a digital screen. That's $40 for tickets (NYC prices). Yeah, MPAA, that download was one hell of a "lost sale."
The Scariest Precedent (Score:3, Interesting)
What happens when someone finally builds a machine that allows you to duplicate simple objects?
We will we not allow a device this fantastic to exist?
That would suck.
MjM
I never mod down...
Random wacky thought #2 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Under the NET Act... (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it me or does this seem a little vague as a guideline for jail time? Which work is this referring to - the original work or the one on my computer (encoded at a lower bit rate & lossy compression) or the version that I programmed to play (crudely) on the pc speaker? Also, who determines the value of the work? If I get to determine the value, I could share thousands of gigabytes of Britney Spears & NSync songs as I wouldn't even pay a penny for them (they'd have to pay me to listen to them). But if the RIAA determines the value, they could include all the costs of producing the song including studio time & marketing, so even sharing 1 song would be well over $2500. If they use the retail price of the cd, will they have to determine how many people downloaded that song from me to determine "damages"?
IANAL, but since criminal charges & jail time are involved, wouldn't that mean that file sharers would have the right to a trial by jury? I know songs on the radio aren't actually free - the radio station pays the copyright holder, but to most people, the only "price" to radio is listening to the advertising. I wonder how many ordinary people will be willing to find someone guilty knowing that the defendant could be sent to prison for sharing songs that can be heard everyday on the radio for "free"?
Re:The RIAA will never get it... (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't worry about it. The RIAA is an anachronism - 20 years from now they will be have gone the way of typewriter factories in a PC market. Technology is getting good enough that bands simply won't need to sign their lives away merely to get a good recording and good distribution.
You are right about one thing: they are slitting their throats with this kind of stuff. Even if their wildest dreams came true, and you couldn't rip/burn/share songs anymore... your PC would suddenly lose a lot of entertainment value.
I don't see the Dells of the world sitting idly by while sales wither of their multi-media add-ons, all because nobody wants to spend money for essentially unusable upgrades. (Besides gamers - who's going to drop that extra $200 for Bitchen Speakers if you can't listen to music?)
There are also the hordes of MP3 device makers, blank CD makers, ISPs (I would be willing to bet Napster / KaZaA has had a substantial effect on broadband subscriptions), and others who will lose money if the RIAA sues their products and services out of existence.
Bottom line, as I said, the RIAA will go away by itself eventually anyway. But I think they are going to piss enough people off that they help expedite the process.
instead of piracy or buying over-priced schlock- (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Isn't this what we want? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why do you not think there are "slashdotters" who stand to benefit from the DMCA? Do you think everyone on this board is a Linux SysAdmin born after 1980? Do you think everyone here receives stock options, a paid vacation, and a bi-weekly paycheck?
Were I to personally come across anyone working "actively towards creating a content distribution system that destroys copyright" I would wring his acne-encrusted neck. I have a family to feed, son.
Of the $181.5 million paid to Writer's Guild members last year, $55.8 million came from residuals in homevideo, DVD, and Pay TV. 50 percent of WGA members are unemployed at any given moment; it's the residuals that pay for the groceries half the time. That's the business. You cannot with a straight face tell me that pirated (or "shared," to use the euphemism popular on campus) content does not/will not eat into that. (The occasional Star Wars fanboy who waits in line for a week, buys tickets for three consecutive showings, and downloads it from a server in Hong Kong across an eight hour period the next day notwithstanding...)
You want to write software and give it away for free? Be my guest, Bunky, but what, if I may ask, do you do for a living?
Lookit, just because music or graphic art or poetry or a video game or a motion picture can be digitally cloned and distributed does not mean that the creator of that piece of art should not be reimbursed any less than a sculptor who creates a one-off.
Am I "anti-digital?" Do I not want you to be able to download your movie from the 'Net? Of course not! In fact, you probably can't find a writer in all of Hollywood who does not want to see distribution-by-download succeed: 1.2 percent of download revenues -- roughly four times that for Pay TV and DVD -- go to the writers, based upon a contract negotiated last year.
Barring compensation through residuals commensurate with worldwide instantaneous distribution, writers need to have their contracts re-negotiated so as to receive a larger lump sum up front. The studios don't want to go that route, fine; all the more reason they need to secure the conditional access for the downloading of the entertainment. Understand that if the MPAA demonstrated any apathy or laxness in this area every creative union in the country would be marching on Valenti's house with torches and pitchforks.
You talk about "The MPAA" and "Valenti" like they are cigar-chomping moguls in shark-skin suits out of some bad melodrama. Whom do you think they represent? Who do you think empowers them? The MPAA allows itself to be colored as The Bad Guy so that George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry's widow and Peter Jackson don't have to be. That would be bad for the brand...
You don't think copyrights should last 90 years. Okay. What would be a more reasonable tenure? Is one year not enough? Fifty years too much? Why? I will be fascinated to read your rationale.
If artists don't want the member organizations within the MPAA and RIAA to handle the distribution of their work, they will not sign a contract with them. If consumers do not want to pay the price for the entertainment set by the distributor contracted by the artist, then the consumer need not buy that entertainment. If enough consumers do this, then the distributors will begin setting prices lower and/or artists will seek out alternate (possibly more direct) means of distribution.
That's how it works. Anything else is robbery with a soundtrack provided by the churlish whining of spoiled children. I say so, and so does the US federal government. And if you think you are going to rally a critical mass of the (voting) electorate sufficient to change those laws, well, good luck. You'll need a much taller soapbox than SlashDot, that's for sure.
Not to mention a much more credible lobbying presence than the EFF...!
Re:from the anti-piracy ad article (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, let's assume that those movies are both in VCD format and requires two CD each (a typical format). That's a total of 1,300 MB per movie or 2,600 MB for both of them.
(4,000,000 downloads) * (2,600 MB downloaded) = 10,400,000,000 MB downloaded. That's 10.4 Petabytes (Petabytes = 10^15 bytes). To put that into a little bit of perspective, that would take over 47079.4 years to download that much data through a 56kbit dialup modem.
Now, perhapps those movies were encoded in a more space-saving format, such as Divx. That's about 700 MB per movie and 1,400 MB for both. The total downloaded would be 5,600,000,000 MB, or 5.6 Petabytes. That's still a heck of a lot of data.
I seriously doubt that these two movies were downloaded 4 million times during the weekend of their initial release.