Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media

MPAA to Launch Anti-Piracy Commercials 662

Posted by michael
from the need-more-money-to-roll-in dept.
cfish writes "The MPAA is launching expensive 30 second TV commercials to preach about movie piracy. Featuring starving artists in the movie industry."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA to Launch Anti-Piracy Commercials

Comments Filter:
  • by sweeney37 (325921) * <mikesweeney@gmai l . com> on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:52PM (#6504056) Homepage Journal
    But wait, I saw Pirates of the Caribbean yesterday and the moral at the end was something like, "Sometimes you need a little piracy in order to do the right thing."

    But the MPAA says it's bad. Why must Hollywood send me conflicting messages?

    Mike
  • hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TrippTDF (513419) <hiland AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:53PM (#6504058)
    I wonder if they will count the costs of the commercials in the money they are loosing every year to piracy...
    • Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

      by FauxReal (653820) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:58PM (#6504138) Homepage
      I wonder if they will count the costs of the commercials in the money they are loosing every year to piracy... You can be certain they're counting that and the hidden cost of hosting multiple "consultation sessions" in the Bahamas with their stripper/secretaries.
    • Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by arcanumas (646807) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:05PM (#6504291) Homepage
      These costs are coming out of the "starving artists". That's why they are starving.
    • Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Creep73 (647258) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:06PM (#6504292) Journal
      Steve: Hey bob it's about time we sent out those stats on how much money we are loosing to file sharing. Could you get me some numbers.

      Bob: No problem Steve. I figure we should have had a 25% increase in sales this year however those darn file swapers kept our increase to a modest 8%. Make sure the reported numbers reflect that.

      Bob: And Steve while you are at it. Could you take a few million of the money laying around and make a comersial about how much file swapping is hurting the industry.

      Thanks

      Steve: No Problem. I will get right on it.
    • This is Dan (Score:5, Funny)

      by Keltus (662411) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:06PM (#6504295)
      This is the AVI that Dan downloaded.

      This is the sharer who hosted the AVI that Dan downloaded.

      This is the cracker who sold ripped the AVI that the sharer hosted that Dan downloaded.

      And this is movie star who shot herself for losing the money.

      Downloading AVIs supports terrible things. If you download AVIs you might too.

      Brought to you by the MPAA
      • by kzinti (9651) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @06:36PM (#6505573) Homepage Journal
        This is the AVI that Dan downloaded.

        This is the sharer who hosted the AVI that Dan downloaded.

        This is the cracker who sold ripped the AVI that the sharer hosted that Dan downloaded.


        This is the Hollywood studio that went broke over poor ticket sales because of the AVI that Dan downloaded.

        This is the actress who can't afford to buy crack because of the movie studio that went broke because of the AVI that Dan downloaded.

        This is the crack dealer who's starving because his customers went broke because of the AVI that Dan downloaded.

        This is the drug kingpin who was assassinated because he couldn't buy guns because of the lost drug revenue because of the AVI that Dan downloaded.

        This is the Betty Ford Clinic therapist who's been laid off because of the lack of business because of the AVI that Dan downloaded.

        Dan is one influential son of a bitch.
  • Three Things (Score:5, Informative)

    by mattrix2k (632351) * on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:53PM (#6504062)
    1 From the Article: Stressing the importance of copyright protection, the campaign begins with an unprecedented television "roadblock" on more than 35 network and cable outlets on the evening of July 24, with each network donating 30 seconds in the first prime time break.
    Beginning Friday, July 25, every major exhibitor in the country will donate time to play daily trailers on all screens in more than 5,000 theaters across the United States.

    Sounds like a pretty huge campaign, gonna dwarf the EFF's efforts [slashdot.org] by a big margin.

    2 Here is the website of the campaign [respectcopyrights.org]. There's even some FUD [respectcopyrights.org]: Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc.

    3 The article first said (in the badly edited future) it was the RIAA doing it, when it's the MPAA...I think it was a case of RIAA on the brain. :)
    • by stefanlasiewski (63134) * <.slashdot. .at. .stefanco.com.> on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:08PM (#6504336) Homepage Journal
      The nature of "peer-to-peer" file sharing sites like eDonkey, Gnutella, KaZaA, etc., open your computer to destructive viruses and worms and annoying pop-ups.
      (...)
      Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc.


      Which is why the RIAA recommends you use Open Source P2P software such as gtk-gnutella and gnucleus. Remember kids:

      "You can't hide a trojan
      when the source code is open".
    • by fenix down (206580) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @07:58PM (#6506454)
      Good lord that's a crappy site. They manage to make flash fonts more eye-grating than KDE 2, but seriously, the fuck? [respectcopyrights.org]
      "Movies aren't the only form of Entertainment widely available on the Internet. Did you know that you can download the latest songs, play games online with a worldwide community, purchase books, the latest software and much, much more?"
      I think somebody needs to remind these people what the point of that page was supposed to be. Maybe I'll give them a call after I use this here "Internet" (as seen on TV) to go pirate me some books, games, curly fries, cole slaw, and much, much more!!!

      I think the best summary of their case is the fact that both of their examples of The Magic of Movies!!! are from the '70s. Why yes, I do remember the chills I got from Jaws. That's probably why I got so depressed after you people made a third goddamn Mummy movie. Wait, no, you put the head of a wrestler onto a giant flying scorpion. That'd reduce me to a blubbering wreck even if my viewing experience were limited to The Cable Guy, and for that matter, every goddamn movie since 1989.
  • Easy answer (Score:5, Funny)

    by JUSTONEMORELATTE (584508) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:53PM (#6504064) Homepage
    Just don't pirate movies from the starving artists -- Stick to pirating movies from the filthy rich ones.

    --
  • by Yohahn (8680) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:53PM (#6504075) Homepage
    Is somebody going to make commercials about video/DVD hardware vendors that can't make new products sell as well since they have the extra expense of DRM?
    • Or maybe a commercial about the loss of revenue by not capitalizing on technology? I know it's been said before, but I haven't seen it in response to this article, so I'll reiterate:

      If priacy is such a huge problem because it's so easy for someone to quickly and conveniently download a decent quality movie from the web, why doesn't someone slap together a business plan and create a cost based service out of exactly that?

      The RIAA may suck, but at least they're giving that a shot with a few new services th

    • by jc42 (318812) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @06:17PM (#6505274) Homepage Journal
      What I want to see is an ad featuring an artist explaining that he/she is starving because of the "take it or leave it" standard industry contract that they signed, which puts them in debt to the Company although the recording sold over a million copies.

  • Irony (Score:3, Funny)

    by chia_monkey (593501) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:54PM (#6504077) Journal
    You no the ironic thing about all this? You just KNOW someone will copy these commercials and throw them up on Kazaa and such.
  • please feed a starving pirate today..

    send food to India, China, Asia, and anywhere else but US..
  • by Microsift (223381) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:54PM (#6504084)
    Since I've got TiVo, I ignore commercials, so can someone copy that to the web in some viewable format?
    • by professortomoe (540098) <nerv@optonline.net> on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:59PM (#6504160) Homepage
      The commericals can be viewed here [respectcopyrights.org]. Only one up for now, but the rest will be up later I suppose.
      • A better link here (Score:5, Insightful)

        by alexo (9335) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @06:08PM (#6505159) Journal
        The same site has an even better link [mailto].
        Use it to make them know exactly what you feel about their "campaign".

        I suggest that you be very polite, just ask them some questions.
        Yes, you are not accusing them of anything, in fact, you'll be happy to support their cause if they just explain certain issues that you find confusing...

        Like, for example, wouldn't they agree that taking say, 5-10%, of the $30,000,000 that a single actor might get paid fro a single movie and distributing it among the poor, starving stage workers will help them much more than spending large amounts of money on dishonest advertisements?

        Oh, and by the way, when a movie makes some X millions of dollars, how much of it is distributed among the workers and how much is kept by the middlemen (the studios)?

        And one last thing, could they you how much the top 50 movies gross in 2002/2003 and what was the average stage worker salary at the time? And would they be so kind as to compare those figures to a time before the wide spread of DVD recorders and high-speed internet (say, 10 years ago?) - adjusted for the usual economy-strength indicators - just to show you what was the effect of piracy on the figures above?

        Thank you in advance, best regards, merry christmas, yadda yadda,

        Be creative!

        Then, if you do get an answer, rip it apart, exposing all its flaws and fallacies (in an extremely polite matter, of course) and ask them for better ones, because it seems to you that they are the real "pirates" in this saga.
    • Since I got TiVo (my new DirecTivo is being hooked up tomorrow.... two tuners, biiiiiatch!), I find that I watch some commercials. The ones that have "something" that hooks me. Often it's a movie preview, but it can be for anything.

      I've talked with other TiVo owners and I'm not alone in this.
  • Donating time? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jav1231 (539129)
    Now that is interesting. It must be nice to get free time on the major networks for a lobbying effort. JAV
  • Good timing... (Score:5, Informative)

    by graveyhead (210996) <fletchNO@SPAMfletchtronics.net> on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:56PM (#6504103)
    The EFF [eff.org] has just begun a pro file-sharing. It is an awareness campaign which effectively cuts the RIAA out of the loop, called "Let The Music Play". Details here [eff.org].
    • Re:Good timing... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Call Me Black Cloud (616282) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:19PM (#6504467)
      Pro file-sharing? That's just half the story. From your link:

      ...part of an ongoing campaign to protect the rights of people sharing music online while compensating artists

      People often forget about the compensation part...
  • Because somebody didn't pay to see the movie or because the movies they were in sucked or because the studio refused to give them their paycheck (*cough*Stan Lee*cough*)?

    Ben
  • starving artist (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm sure the artists are starving because people pirate movies and not becuase only the big actors and execs make money while everyone else barely scrapes by.
  • Cool! (Score:4, Funny)

    by TopShelf (92521) * on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:57PM (#6504126) Homepage Journal
    Let's hope the ads focus on those film stars most affected by video piracy: Jenna Jameson, Devon, Asia Carerra, etc.
    • Re:Cool! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:11PM (#6504375)
      I would be hard to sell those gals as "starving" since they spend a considerable amount of time with their mouths full :)
      • Re:Cool! (Score:3, Funny)

        by Alastor187 (593341)
        I would be hard to sell those gals as "starving" since they spend a considerable amount of time with their mouths full :)

        I think you are right, they would probably be better portrayed in a 'Got Milk' commercial :P
  • The editors are being a bit glib with their precis. The adverts actually feature people a bit lower in the food chain (make-up artists etc) than those earning millions per film. Presumably the message is that people like that will be cut before the studio dares to review Arnie's salary. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but as I don't have broadband I'm a disinterested party in all this.
  • by DocStoner (236199) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:58PM (#6504140)

    Hell, I want to see a commercial that shows starving Americans that were the result of the greedy corporations moving their jobs overseas.

    How about that to "enlighten" people?
  • by luugi (150586) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:58PM (#6504148)
    There's a bunch of free movies out there! All you need is a computer and an internet connection!

    Now everyone will know that it's easy to get them.
    • I was thinking the same thing. I hadn't really heard about Napster until the RIAA started trying to shut it down. In the same aticle, I also learned about AudioGalaxy, Morpheus, and Kazza. In a way, what they are doing is backfiring. They are not stopping copyright infringement, but they are educating people as to how to do it, and the benefits of doing it. Is the wholesale infringement right? That is a question each of us must answer ourselves, but from the number of people doing it right now, it wou
  • I wonder how many unlicensed copies of software are running around the MPAA offices, movie studios, and the homes of those poor folks being impacted by movie piracy.
  • It's not as appropriate but still funny.

    s/Kid Rock/movie star of your choice.

    Kid Rock Starves to Death [theonion.com]
  • by burgburgburg (574866) <splisken06@[ ]il.com ['ema' in gap]> on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:59PM (#6504165)
    But I loved "Pirates of the Caribbean"!

  • Wow, isn't that great, just blame everything on the pirates. At the same time, they conveniently forget to mention how much artists actually get for what they do, and maybe they're starving just because the jobs don't pay them what they deserve.

    I'm not saying piracy is good, but all I know is, artists get screwed over by pretty much everyone. Supporting the MPAA won't mean that all those poor starving artists will suddenly live like rajahs. It'll be the CEOs etc. etc that get to live the good life.

  • Their pitch: downloading music illegally will make you fat, your skin pale and spotty, and your social and love life wither on the vine...

    Fuck! It's true!
  • So has the motto of the "public service" announcements gone from The more you know to The more you rip?
  • But... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by El (94934) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @04:59PM (#6504179)
    My local library has hundreds of movies on DVD, and thousands on VHS, that they allow anybody to view for free... does this mean that sweet little old lady at the checkout desk is a PIRATE???
    • Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jc42 (318812) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @06:38PM (#6505589) Homepage Journal
      ... does this mean that sweet little old lady at the checkout desk is a PIRATE???

      Actually, yes, it does. One of the things that the publishing and recording industry has been discussing for years now is the growing possibility of limiting the number of readers/viewers to only the original purchaser. It's difficult to do with printed books. But anything in electronic form has a very real possibility of DRM that can implement such a limit.

      At least 10 years ago, when the first prospects of electronic publishing were reaching the media, one of the interesting quotes that I read from several sources in the publishing industry was that on the average, each book sold is read by four people. This was followed by the suggestion that they should be seriously looking at ways to solve this problem.

      Now, of the books in your home, how many have been read by four or more people? Hardly any of them, right? So where does this average of four readers come from? One place: libraries. The publishing industry does consider libraries to be a serious sales problem, and they are discussing solutions.

      This isn't only about electronic books, CDs or DVDs. Part of the discussion has been ways of using political connections to cut back on funding of public libraries.

      And a lot of publications already have a much higher subscription price for libraries than for individuals, though they don't really give the libraries anything more for their money.

      Here in the US, a lot of the small-town public libraries have closed down in the past decade.

  • Delusional? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cpn2000 (660758)
    Ok, I'm confused. Is the MPAA/RIAA
    • Just not getting it
    • Delusional
    • Playing games (i.e. laying foundations for more legislation)
    I agree that piracy is a crime and folks who are engaging in it are making it harder for the rest of us, but honestly does the RIAA/MPAA expect that the people engaged in this are going to reform by looking at 30 second commercials?
  • Expensive? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suso (153703) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:00PM (#6504198) Homepage Journal
    Yeah right, I'll bet they are getting buddy buddy with the TV networks and telling them things like "Either you're on our side, or you'll stop showing our movies." Perhaps I'm wrong. Actually, I hope that I am.
  • Featuring starving artists in the movie industry

    Whatever! Like all the little thieves REALLY care about the artists. They just want to justify their immoral activities with any excuse. At least if you're gonna rip people off, be honest about it. Hiding under this pretencious veil is so hypocritical.

    In all the previous /. articles I've seen regarding piracy, most of this "starving artist" act has been nothing but lip service. Where's the movement to get these artists more money? Where's the protest?
  • All we need now is a sweeping anti-piracy bill that will make everyone from P2P downloaders to video time-shifters felons...oh wait! This nutso stuff from the RIAA/MPAA has got to stop somewhere...
  • I only hope that these commercials have the same dramatic impact that the "Dont copy that floppy" Anti-Software Piracy Campaign had ;-)
  • Don't forget this one [joz3d.net]. It applies to downloading movies also.
  • by SuperDuG (134989) <be@@@eclec...tk> on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:01PM (#6504223) Homepage Journal
    Show some kid going to college

    Pan out the windows of his dorm room

    Show a copy of his bank account with $32 in it

    Show you being a heartless bastard and him opening a subpoena

    Show him getting really pissed off just because you think the world owes you because you managed to rip off some recording artist.

    Show that, and I'll be impressed.

    Fuck the RIAA

  • "Hi, this is Metallica. Over the past several years we've made 300 Million dollars. Recently due to Music Piracy by Napster, Kazza, Morpheous, Windows Networking, Computers, and the Internet, we've only been able to make a measly 100 Million this year.

    With your help we can again start making our usual 300 Million and continue to ROCK ON FOR YOU! So please. Don't steal digital music it's morally, ethically, and legally wrong."

    (star shoots across the screen) do dooo doo - The more you know
  • Can't wait (Score:2, Funny)

    by batura (651273)
    I can't wait to grab that off Kazaa and share with my friends!!
  • How long before these commercials show up on Morpheus/KaZaA/whatever? Either the commercials themselves will be pirated, or (delightfully devilish, Seymour) the studios themselves will be seeding these out there under movie titles!

    Either way, ranks right up there with the annoying PSA blitz against drunk driving. Not that I don't agree, but beating it into my skull isn't the way to go.
  • by Pollux (102520) <speter AT tedata DOT net DOT eg> on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:04PM (#6504263) Journal
    Two kids are sitting at a computer. They are both listening to the CD. One says to the other, "Hey, that's a real cool CD." The other says, "Say, if you have a blank CD-R, I can burn you a copy." They put the CD-R into the machine. Suddenly...

    Some black rapper reject from the PJ's jumps out onto the desktop screen and starts to rap. "Don't copy...don't copy that floppy! ...uh, I mean CD!" ...

    For anyone who doesn't get the joke, there was a video released back in 1992 by (I think) the SIAA titled "Don't copy that floppy." It is the funniest 8 minute public service announcement video you will ever seen in your life. A rapper does this rap chanting "Don't copy...don't copy that floppy" after two kids try and use a Mac to copy a "cool game" onto another floppy disk. You just have to see it to believe it. You can watch a .wma video of it at http://static.hugi.is/video/fyndin/dctf-1.wmv (dial-up user warning: it's a 15MB download).
  • I for one think this is a step in the right direction...

    (wait wait, put down those torches and pitchforks while I explain!)

    Now they're bringing their issues to the mainstream public. I think what they'll find is that they are going to alienate the general public, and causing the public to think twice about what they buy and who they support by buying it.
  • by Chagatai (524580)
    I propose that the EFF makes their own commerical in the vein of the 1984 Macintosh commercal where a runner comes blazing down the aisle of a movie theatre with a sledgehammer and throws it at a giant visage of Hillary Rosen. And play it during the Superbowl. And let the background music be an "illegally" modified copy of Metallica. Better yet, let the runner be Tux. So there.

  • Another article link (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kaimelar (121741) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:05PM (#6504282) Homepage
    C|Net [com.com] also ran an article about this -- it can be found at http://news.com.com/2100-1026_3-5051653.html [com.com]

    Also, if you want the MPAA's message stright from the source, it's at http://www.respectcopyrights.org [respectcopyrights.org].

  • Laughable Morality (Score:5, Insightful)

    by matlantis (686027) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:08PM (#6504338)
    I think its hilarious that they want to use morality to try and persuade people to not pirate their movies. For years the entertainment industry has come out with morality killing movies, tv programs and music, now the monsters they have created couldn't care less about morality of it. I think its nice for them to have to eat it.
    • by gad_zuki! (70830) *
      >with morality killing movies

      What does that mean? Because a filmmaker dares to upset the socially conservative status quo by tackling subjects like sex, drugs, violence, bigotry, etc suddenly they have no moral standing?

      Sorry but try as you might, you Christian Fundamentalists or whatever you are cannot co-op the word morality and throw it around in the use of a really bad straw man argument.

      There's a lot of things to criticize the content industries about, but the content itself should be hands off.
      • by matlantis (686027) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @06:05PM (#6505099)
        Wow your right the filmmakers that make movies like American Pie really "dare" to tackle hard hitting subjects. You assume that if one filmmaker makes a movie that trys to address these subjects in a profitable way, that therefore all filmmakers must do the same thing. And if were going to talk about logical fallacies lets talk about dropping me into the category of "religious fundamentalists" to some how make my opinion less meaningful. All of a sudden if I think its detrimental to society that children are all listening to songs about raping there mothers, I am a religious fundamentalist, and my opinion has no place out of church. Postmodern culture: Everyone's ideas are right except people that don't agree that everyone's ideas are right
  • "Their Work" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nbahi15 (163501) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:10PM (#6504361) Homepage
    Nobody is telling them that they can't attempt to make a living through acting, singing or dancing. Make your living any way you can. But if your business model fails don't cry foul.

    When you mass produce art it loses its value. Yet here is an industry that insists upon using any method possible to prop up a broken method of enrichment. So as far as I can see the problem is they don't understand that people don't value their work, and they need to adjust it if it is to be more than simply personal gratification.
  • Move over RIAA.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by felonious (636719) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:15PM (#6504422) Journal
    Schwartzenegger $30 million for T3
    Jim Carrey $20+ million a film
    Cameron Diaz $20+ million a film
    Mid Tier actors make around $10 million a film
    Lower Tier actors make around a few hundred thousand up to multiple millions

    The at home user might dl a divx copy of a currently released film playing at the theaters only to go see it at the theater and/or buy it when it's released on DVD.

    So the user at home spends around $9 to see the movie at the theater and another $20 to buy the DVD and the actors take many, many millions in salary to make the movie. How does this constitute taking money from the movie industry?

    Who is actually taking the money (actors/marketing) and who is supporting the industry (user/consumer)? This is a very simple question without factoring in the obscene amount spent on marketing films. We're talking 10's of millions in marketing films.

    It is not out fault that most movies these days are over budgeted and spend too much on marketing to turn a profit. This almost reminds me of the dot-com business model where they just spent to spend without having a sound business model in place.

    Don't blame the consumer for your shortsidedness and/or lack of envisioning a film's realistic chances of making money.

    This is definitely the day of scape-goating at the pc user/consumer's expense. They can get creative with the books anymore so now it's time to blame the consumer and spend money in support of the propoganda. What better way to distratct shareholders and such from realizing it's just bad business decisions and irresponsibility!

    Once again I'm still exersizing my right to boycott because I refuse to support an entity that will only try to sue me into financial ruin with the money I give them.
  • That does it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Daikiki (227620) <daikiki@wanad3.14159oo.nl minus pi> on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:18PM (#6504457) Homepage Journal
    Says the chariman of the Fox group "We feel very strongly about the need to communicate that [. . .] illegally downloading movies is a blow to creativity"

    This fron the people responsible for the term 'foxing' a show. I think Matt Groenig, Joss Whedon, and Ben Edlund, among others, may have a thing or two to say about what exactly constitutes a blow to creativity. Hint: It's not piracy. It's Fox.

    I'm so mad I'm going to go off and dwonload a pirated copy of Daredevil and NEVER WATCH IT!
  • by TomatoMan (93630) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:23PM (#6504528) Homepage Journal
    I completely support the (MP|RI)AA doing everything they can in the court of public opinion to lobby peoples' attitudes about copying. People can talk to me all they want, as long as I can change the channel or choose not to listen - or choose TO listen and consider their views.

    Lobbying to pass laws to criminalize behavior is a whole different matter - that's the brute-force approach that leverages the State's monopoly on legal violence to achieve their aims.

    Run as many ads and try to change as many minds peacefully and through reason as you want. Appeal to peoples' higher instincts. That's perfect.

    Don't make using tools illegal.
    • The theaters already show about 20 minutes of advertisements before each movie, and this is after I already paid to see the thing! They waste 20 minutes of my time for what, a nickel? Now they're going to add a 65 second PSA to the wasted time. Don't forget, the people going to the movie are paying customers. If they were downloading movies off of the internet instead of seeing it in the theater, they wouldn't be there.

      This makes as much sense as forcing patrons of a retail store to listen to a 65 second

  • by JustAnotherReader (470464) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:28PM (#6504578)
    Hi, I'm Blind Melon Daquari from the band "Blind Melon Daquri and the Contenental Breakfasts all star blues review" I just sold half a million CDs. But am I rich? No I'm not. And why is that? It's because of music piracy.

    I get $1.20 off of every CD I sell. With 12 songs on my CD it means every time you pirate a song it cost me 10 cents. For every hundred thousand of your downloads I lose $10,000 !

    Of course, my record company gave me an advance of $100,000 that I have to pay back. And then they made me pay for the recording studio where I recorded my own music. That was another $100,000.

    Oh wait, They also made me pay for their mid level marketers to pay that money-that-looks-like-but-isn't-really-payola to Clear Channel to get my songs on the radio. That was another $200,000. And of course I have to pay the rest of the band. Not to mention the cost of going out to tour to support this new CD.

    Oh yeah, and I don't even own my own songs any more, or my voice, or the recordings of those songs, or the cover art, or anything. In fact, my music is now legally known as "Work for hire". And if I don't like how I'm being treated I can't leave my record label without their permission.

    Oh, and the record company that sold those albums? They made about 3 million dollars of profit.

    So how am I suppose to pay off my $400,000 debt to the record company if you keep pirating my songs? So stop it. mmm-kay?

    Thank you

  • I know (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cyno (85911) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:33PM (#6504639) Journal
    If they put these commercials right behind the FBI warning on those VHS tapes and DVDs and didn't let you fast-forward through them, I bet that would deter all those scurvy pirates.
  • Balance (Score:3, Interesting)

    by imAck (102644) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:37PM (#6504695) Homepage
    Okay, I'm going to get flamed for this one. Most people take an extremist viewpoint with respect to file sharing. One one hand, the MPAA and RIAA, along with their political lobby are decrying file sharing in general. On the other hand, the "information wants to be free" camp is decrying copyrights and reproduction regulations of any kind.

    I take issue with both. Sure, you may not think it's cool that the MPAA and the RIAA want to make money off of music, movies, etc; And you may even justify this opinion by saying "well, they are exploiting the poor muscisians in the first place" or "they have been found guilty of price gouging", etc. But the fact is, if the MPAA wants to educate people as to the illegality of movie piracy, on the level of principle (and within the laws of this country) they have every reason to do so given their business model in a capitalist economy.

    Don't get me wrong...I have nothing against P2P networks, file sharing, etc. Many forward-looking artists are encouraging the free flow of their music through these avenues. The notion of punishing all file-swappers because of the actions of the few, as some legislators have recommended, is assinine.

    Balance is what is needed in this argument. The extremist arguments and knee-jerk reactions from the geek community at large will only make the big media companies more worried and more interested in blanket remedies, IMHO. Likewise, the blanket remedies proposed by the big media companies and their lobby will only make the citizens want to lash out all the more.

    flame away

  • starving? (Score:3, Funny)

    by DuckWing (19575) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:47PM (#6504813)
    the movie industry has starving artists? Where are these people, the north pole? like give me a break.
  • by Nate Fox (1271) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @05:58PM (#6505010)
    is it going to look like this?

    http://static.hugi.is/video/fyndin/dctf-1.wmv [static.hugi.is]
  • by cfish (61161) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @06:00PM (#6505042)
    Quote from the set painter in the ad:

    "(piracy issue) well I don't believe it affects the producers. I mean it does affect them but it's miniscure to the way it affects me. ... because we are not million dollar employees, at all. We are lucky if we can put together 12 straight months..."

    So the movie producers admit they are ripping off the workers? The workers get the leftover, which is nothing.

    (Nice orange mustache, though. )
  • by cioxx (456323) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @06:10PM (#6505182) Homepage
    The way I see it, with movie piracy, biggest losers here are non-action flicks, comedy, and romance movies.

    Personally, I cannot see how one could watch an inferior rip of Matrix Reloaded or T3 on his computer monitor or through Divx on a TV. The quality just isn't there anymore. You're not experiencing the picture and audio they way it was intended. When a studio throws hundreds of millions at some flick which has a decent plot, then $10/ticket is a no-brainer. In case of downloading the movie you are just cheating yourself.

    For dialogue based movies which do not feature explosions, sophisticated camerawork, etc it would be fair to say they will suffer more piracy than action-based ones.

    Due to this inevitable trend, studios usually have no choice but to upping the action movie production [boxofficemojo.com] quota just to be more profitable in the box office.

    The thing that irks me with the market today is the lack of diversity [boxofficemojo.com] (below each title it shows how many screens the movie is playing on). Every theatre features the same pictures in proximity of 20 miles from each other. (HEY! Sort of like RIAA's with music distribution). The smaller, more thought out movies are not even on the radar. Take Man on The Train [apple.com] for example. I live in Hollywood, CA and would have to drive 300 miles north (Merced, CA) to watch this movie. That's the closest. But finding a theatre playing Legally Blonde 2 or Bruce Almighty would be easier than finding a Starbucks around here.

    Then, we have the international opening dates sometimes several months away from each other. Hey MPAA, get a fucking clue. This isn't the 1920's anymore. When I talk to my friends in Holland, I should automatically assume they have the same roaster of movies playing at their theatres. We are connected globally nowdays. Bumping release dates of movies hurts the cause and encourages piracy.

    So in conclusion,
    music sharing = death of 1 hit/1 track wonders
    movie piracy = death of dialogue based movies.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      "movie piracy = death of dialogue based movies."

      This is wrong. A good director (or, more precisely, cinematographer) can make a dialogue based movie have more powerful images than any action flick. And the precision of the details will last longer than any 'hulk'ing green marshmallows that will be rendered in real-time on the next generation of video cards.

      Just look at your own evidence:

      "I live in Hollywood, CA and would have to drive 300 miles north (Merced, CA) to watch this [non-action indie] movie.
  • Gaaaah, the irony... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya@LISPgmail.com minus language> on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @06:12PM (#6505205)
    The amount of commercials and other crap before a movie in a theater is staggering already. Only a few years ago, there would be few previews and nothing else -- now I am forced to see 20 minutes of commercials (having paid 9 bucks for the movie!)

    This is similar to showing the unskippable FBI warning on frigging DVDs. People who pay are further annoyed, pirates do not notice this at all. Great idea!

  • by daveschroeder (516195) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @06:29PM (#6505465)
    ...that someone would have taken the opportunity to take a jab at the MPAA and point out the error in the big splash graphic: "You're threatening the livlihood (sic) of thousands" [respectcopyrights.org], but then I realized that it would imply that the typical Slashdot reader would

    a. have read the article, and

    b. know how to spell

  • by freeweed (309734) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @06:47PM (#6505699)
    The local cable companies have been running this ad for the past few months:

    A young boy goes into a grocery/convenience store, and pockets some candy. He leaves, the shopkeeper catches him, and the next shot is the cops bringing the kid home. So Dad and Junior are having a heart-to-heart, Dad is asking "where did you learn to steal?" Junior replies: "But Dad! You steal satellite signals!".

    The commercial then cuts to a message to the effect of "theft is theft. stealing satellite signals is a crime. Sponsored by your local cable companies".

    The first time I saw this, I would have sworn it was going to be a commercial paid for by the satellite providers in Canada. Nope, looks like the cable co's are feeling the pinch of DTV piracy in Canada (arrr matey).

    Blatantly wrong propaganda such as this turns my stomach, but they sure have my parents convinced - they now are very nervous about the cryptography course I'm taking next year, because I told them I could use that knowledge to help decrpyt satellite signals.

    Nice world we live in, eh?
  • My Response to FUD (Score:3, Informative)

    by trueaveragejoe (615086) <trueaveragejoe.yahoo@com> on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @07:06PM (#6505935) Homepage
    Hi. As a consumer and an advocate of technology, I would like to address a few incorrect and wrong statements from http://www.respectcopyrights.org/popup/why-3.html. I would also like to explain why they are incorrect. Consider addressing them. Thank you.

    Italicized are quoted from: http://www.respectcopyrights.org/popup/why-3.html

    Have you ever had your computer crash and had to replace it or reinstall all the files due to a virus or other such problem? The nature of "peer-to-peer" file sharing sites like eDonkey, Gnutella, KaZaA, etc., open your computer to destructive viruses and worms and annoying pop-ups. Common Viruses: Apher, Benjamin, Backdoor, Duload, Fizzer, Hantner, Klez, Neuer, Nimda, Livra and Magic Eightball

    The nature of peer-to-peer is NOT to "open the computer to destructive viruses and worms and annoying pop-ups." This is a common misconception. Peer-to-peer is a tool and technlogy. Peer-to-peer is a techology that is designed to evolve the distribution channel from the traditional server-client to client(also a server)-otherclients(also servers). There are advantages since it relieves bandwidth from the server. Peer-to-peer is a useful tool of distribution especially when the distributor does not have the manpower to distribute their work. It can especially be useful for independent musicians and amateur directors who do not have the resources. Since peer-to-peer is a technology, it can also be abused. I agree with that but peer-to-peer technology offers tremendous outcome. Though in many people's minds, peer-to-peer is linked to pirating, peer-to-peer is NOT pirating. It is simply a technology. The nature of peer-to-peer is not to open the computer for viruses/popups. Though Kazaa and several other programs do include malware/spyware into their programs, they are not the total of one technology. They are only one implementaiton of a technology. Kazaa also has many legal materials and offers an efficient method of distribution. Second, Gnutella is NOT a peer-to-peer site. Gnutella is a peer-to-peer network. Programs that implement Gnutella such as Gnucleus and others are programs. There are also many Gnutella clients out there that are open source such as Gnucleus. You can inspect the code to see if there is any relation of viruses or spyware.

    You also become a distribution source for illegal downloading of movies, music and more, which makes you just as responsible if you had downloaded the movie yourself. Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc. Is the theft of your personal information worth the free movie?

    Please show evidence of this. I do not have any knowledge of this. Most file sharing programs that implement peer-to-peer technology has limited access to the hard drive (usually a specified directory). Unless the user specified to share the files related to their personal information or there are no bugs in the file sharing program, I do not understand how they have a backdoor.

  • by Temsi (452609) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @07:19PM (#6506080) Journal
    This just goes to show how completely and utterly out of touch with reality the MPAA is.

    I AM a starving artist in the film industry, and it's not because of piracy, I can tell you that much right now.
    Nobody has stolen my work. Frankly, I wouldn't mind if someone did, because at least I'd be getting exposure...

    The main reason why artists in the film industry starve, is pretty simple:
    THE STUDIOS ARE IN IT FOR THE MONEY, NOT ART.
    So, they will hire those who make the most money, not the best artists. Why else do you think Michael Bay gets to direct? It's not because he's an artist (Far from it). It's because he knows how to stage action, and action sells tickets.

    It's the same bullshit story as with the music industry. A handful of people get promoted to death so the corporation that they have a contract with can make as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time.
    In the meantime, real artists, whose appeal isn't as bland and generic (read: mainstream) are left to fight for the crumbs.

    So, these commercials do nothing to end the starvation of artists. They are primarily designed to further the wealth of the few that are already getting paid more than they're worth.
    I'd go so far as to say they have a better chance of increasing the number of people who starve.

    It's not because of piracy that movies lose money. Movies lose money if they don't have a marketing blitz promoting it. Even the biggest bombs at the box office still break even for the studios through video sales. The only movies actually LOSING money are independent features that might have something to say other than "hey look at that explosion, isn't that cool?".

    The studios are not STARVING... not by any stretch of the imagination. The ones starving, are the people the studios screw over.

    The attitude here is "we could be making more".

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...