MPAA Sues Movie-Swappers 585
aacool writes "The MPAA has filed a first wave of lawsuits against individuals they say are offering pirated copies of films using Internet-based peer-to-peer file sharing programs." From the article: "The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any installed file sharing programs. The MPAA said the information detected by the free program would not be shared with it or any other body, but could be used to remove any 'infringing movies or music files' and remove file sharing programs."
Three words... (Score:1, Insightful)
firewall,
firewall.
I don't do the p2p thing but I'll be damned if I'm going to let somebody sniff around my system without my permission.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I rename my home movies with names like "Terminator.mpg" and then sue them when the file is deleted?
A weakness in their system? (Score:3, Insightful)
This program must have access to a master list of movie names for comparison to your filenames that is either installed locally or accessible online. Couldn't an enterprising individual just "back into" those reference names and rename his files to something that then won't trigger a flag?
Re:Three words... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe this to be an opt-in download and scan. Of course, there is no way in Hell I would run this kind of program willingly. However, as a Systems Admin, it would be nice to have this available to scan my corporate LAN. I am all for file-sharing, but I don't trust users to do so safely and would prefer to protect my servers and avoid lawsuits at work.
Just my opinion.
Good News (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
They can have my BitTorrent (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, I can understand the movie issue but I think it's a bit idiotic of them to go after filesharing in general. Oh, wait - there are no legitimate uses for filesharing, right? I see where I was wrong. I apologize humbly. I will go immediately and chop up my debian cds.
Re:Three words... (Score:1, Insightful)
> have this available to scan my corporate LAN. I am
> all for file-sharing, but I don't trust users to
> do so safely and would prefer to protect my
> servers and avoid lawsuits at work.
so how long before ISPs are going to be required to have these programs scan packets going across there networks? Once the MPAA/RIAA can show that it is fairly easy to track pirated material, they can use the internet backbone to control content. If this remains an opt-in program, then I suppose this will be one of the biggest failures next to MS Bob.
Not to worry just yet... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Three words... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I've got several thousand MP3s (and FLACs and OGGs) that I ripped from my own CD collection (really).....Do I get to sue the RIAA for the time it takes me to re-rip them after their application deletes them for me? At my billing rate, I could expect a fairly sizeable check for the time it would take me to rip and encode all of the music that I legally own.
Not that this would happen....I'm far to paranoid to allow it.
sniff out... (Score:3, Insightful)
$30,000 penalty for unintentional piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if some family member of mine uses my computer, downloads some movie using a P2P program and leaves it there in my "shared files" folder, I can be fined $30,000, or potentially more?
Whatever... hearing about this stuff just makes me want to promote the piracy of movies (and music) because of the way the record/movie industries are handling the situation. They're behaving like little kids who got their candy taken away from them... they'll bitch and whine and scream and do anything to get it back, but never even consider any form of rational reaction.
Re:Good News (Score:0, Insightful)
Roundup Ready Movies (Score:5, Insightful)
I love the law of unintended consequences.
Music? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would the MPAA release a scanner that detects pirated music files? I thought their purpose was to protect motion pictures from being pirated, not music.
The uninformed common man (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$30,000 penalty for unintentional piracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
clip from something I wrote... (Score:3, Insightful)
This will ensure that those who are using copyright's protections against people are the actual creators of the object, not some corporate giant who had it signed over to them, and is going to use it to "protect" it's investment even if the creator doesn't agree with it.
It also means we know who to buy from, and who to avoid like the plague. Who's evil and who's good. But oh no, this proposal would take away the god-given-right of companies to be treated as individuals. Tough shit.
This is getting ridiculous. Of course you know I'd proposal total elimination of copyright in favor of a system guaranteeing creator-recognition and listing works used, but not guaranteeing any type of profit, but this would get mr.right-wing's panties in a bunch, so I won't go there in this one.
This is just an addition onto an existing law, after all, most laws are. Radical changes never get made in this country because everyone is afraid of failure. Of course those who are really afraid of the change are those in control, those who lose, and those who don't know. When it's already failing, those three are one in the same.
Re:What does this have to do with our rights onlin (Score:5, Insightful)
In some us states, pounding your wife in the ass is illegal. In some us states getting a blowjob is illegal.
You can't turn and say because something is illegal, it's wrong. Take alcohol prohibition in the 1920's for example. Some hard liners in Congress felt that drinking was wrong and made it illegal. Many disagreed. After some civil disobedience, the prohibition was lifted.
What about my legal music files? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does this have to do with our rights onlin (Score:1, Insightful)
I think you make some nice general points. But look you're mischaracterizing what is going on. (Google for 'strawman' for some better examples of what I'm complaining about in your post.)
Sure, so long as (Score:5, Insightful)
That is complete bullshit. We have a very strong concept of the punishment fitting the crime in this country, it's one of the founding ideals. Our justice system is designed around that. Speeding is a small fine, drunk driving is a larger one and loss of privledges, killing someone while driving drunk is serious jail time.
More than just recognising it, it's in the fucking constution, you know, the document that all other laws are supposed to conform to. Ammendment 8: " Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Notice the part about excessive fine not being imposed.
Ok well copying a digital file is a MINOR crime. It causes little to no harm. I mean an empricial study by Harvard and UNC (http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_Mar
Yet for some reason, it is punishable by $150,000 PER FILE? If that's not excessive, I don't know what is. You would literally get off easier if you went and stole the DVDs form a store. Now that's an actual real theft, with reall loss (you took something of value they had, depriving them of it), not just copyright infringement.
That's why I can't support these orginizations in their crusade against sharers. They bribe congress in to passing unconstutional laws, and then use them to beat people in to submission. Even those that are innocent are forced to settle because the amount they stand ot lose is to large to bear.
A person sharing 20 movies should not be a case for a major multi-million dollar civil suit. It should be a matter of a grand or two in small claims court. Enough money to make it a punishment for doing it, but not so much as to ruin a person for life for what is really a piddlyshit crime along the lines of speeding.
Amazing Tool for Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
Afraid that you could get nailed for sharing a movie? Run the tool and see if any of your movies show up on their radar. If not, and the movie isn't brand-new, you can be fairly secure that you won't get caught for it.
If it does show up, edit what you can until the hash value changes and the movie no longer shows up as a known pirated film.
This is a boon for pirates.
Re:clip from something I wrote... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a good idea, but it's not without issues....
Re:Sure, so long as (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I know, the MPAA/RIAA/etc have been unable to interest the Attourney General of the United States or any District Attourney in bringing criminal charges against casual internet file traders. That makes sense since it is not in the interest of the Justice Department to persue individual casual users.
Re:Completely anonymous P2P? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or (and this is just a wild idea) you could stop breaking the law. Then the 10% of use that use P2P services for anything legitimate can get on with our lives.
Re:Sure, so long as (offtopic, sorry) (Score:2, Insightful)
Now this is something that always troubled me : what's the difference between a drunk driver and a drunk driver that kills someone? The only thing I can come up with is that one is a lucky bastard, and the other is not. Why do we fine the unlucky one more? Skill is not involved and intent as nothing to do with it. Why fine more? I thought that the end didn't justify the means. Why does it justify the fine?.
Actually.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Trackers come a dime a dozen, but without the resources for most users to track the trackers via pretty user-submitted (or automated) listings, all the trackers in the world are useless.
I should know. Got a cease and desist for parsing an indexer's data and then publically displaying it, myself. Much as I would have loved to tell them to shove it, being financially ruined by their high priced lawyers didn't sit well with me; it was quickly removed.
In a somehow related note, I often wonder just how their automated systems work -- or rather, don't. For example, a lot of torrent trackers display publically a list of connected IPs. Do their systems pull these, check the netblock for contact info, and mail the ISPs?
The reason for asking is simple. If they do this, how can they prove you were involved in anything, other than being connected to the tracker? Using this logic, how do they prove the file is infringing material to begin with?
Not to condone or belittle the "crime", but really. Something has to be done to keep the little guys (us) safe from these greedy corporations who would just as well ruin us, than have us buy their next CD/DVD release.
Re:So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Finally!!!
I've often wondered when someone would invent a "cross P2P network search tool." It not only tells you who has what movies, but what they're using to share them!
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure, so long as (offtopic, sorry) (Score:2, Insightful)
Digital Movie Quagmire (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. It's like the Anti-Spybot. I get the feeling their servers will just meltdown as fast as this program will get downloaded.
Honestly, who runs this organization, because they always manage to hit the wrong trend at the wrong time with the wrong solution to the wrong problem. For cryin out loud, it wasn't tough to see the movie download tidal wave building years ago, and this is the best they can come up with? Lawsuits and self-serving software?
Well, one of these years somebody is going to ake up and realize their product requires a new method of marketing when it is effectively easily duplicated and free to obtain. I would suggest adding something of physical value (ie; not easily duplicated, collectible, etc) to the purchase, but the MPAA obviously has better ideas.
Had to happen, it worked so well for the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh? It has stayed pretty much the same? Can't be. The RIAA says it did. Oh they are a bunch of lying weasels who turn every figure around to suit their current agenda even telling different things to different audiences at the same time?
Aren't ticket sales up and DVD selling like hotcakes?
In many ways this reminds me of the war on drugs. Apparently america still got that three strikes and your out rule. While I think in itself it ain't a bad idea, if you are to criminal/stupid to learn not to steal/murder/rape after two warnings then you can rot in jail for life, it doesn't seem to work with drugs.
Relativly harmless dopeheads are costing a fortune because they are to stupid not to carry weed after being caught twice before. Sure sure it is the law but is justice really being served by live sentencing stupid but harmless people? Even if a drug user feeds his addiction with a little car stealing give them a slap on the wrist. If you want justice give the chair to the people that buy stolen cars. Kill the buyers and the suppliers will go out of business.
I did however think of something. It is very tinfoil hat but bear with me for a moment.
You got some black activists claiming that the war on drugs is a war on blacks. They may be onto something but in a different way then the immidiate impact of making a fast majority of the blacks criminal. A few years in jail in holland is different then a few years in jail in america. In holland if you come out your a citizen again as far as I know. Not so in america. Criminals loose the right to vote. Now if you read a figure that tells you that the majority of black males have been in jail for tiny drugs related offences does that also mean that the majority of black males has lost the right to vote?
If this is true then a conspiracy can't be far off. Blacks are traditional democrat voters, uncle toms like powell being the exception. Make blacks into criminals and you remove a powerfull voting population.
As I said very tinfoil had BUT now think about laws like criminal charges for filesharing or recording a movie with a camcorder. Can this be an attempt to reduce the voting population?
Of course this all depends on wether everyone who goes to jail really looses the right to vote and I am to lazy to check but if it is true then all this legislation may be nothing else then removing the poor from the voting population.
After all the rich can settle out of court. The poor will just have to go to court and get their sentence.