MPAA Wishes You A Merry Christmas

[Ralence]

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/14/news/fortune500/piracy/

  Apparently the MPAA filed suit against 754 more users in its efforts to combat filesharing on the internet.  This time, not only were individual users targetted, but they worked with foreign governments to shut down torrent and edonkey sites.

  There's quite a few well known sites that appear to have been hit by this, including Torrentbits.org, suprnova.org, phoenix-torrents.org, shareconnector, Finreactor, youceff torrents, dvdr-core, ac3-guru.

  I don't believe all of them were raided by police, and at least a few may have taken their sites down voluntarily in the wake of the actions by the MPAA/RIAA.

  I honestly don't see them "stopping" filesharing in any way, but I do think that this may have been a fairly smart move due to the Christmas holiday.  I'd imagine this would be the biggest time of year for DVD sales (I personally have bought at least a dozen as gifts, and I only own 4 or 5 myself, so I only buy them now) and maybe this deterrent helps them funnel a few more dollars into their pockets.  I think they realize that they can't stop peer-to-peer completely, but targetted this season seems like a fairly smart move on their part.

[Fabricated]

Suprnova is developing a bittorrent alternative with privacy to make it harder for the RIAA/MPAA to track the users. They're probably just playing possum.

Also, The Pirate Bay is still up, as are a hojillion other trackers. The MPAA just managed to scare a few notable ones.

It still amuses me to this day that the MPAA/RIAA honestly think they can put the file-sharing genie back in his bottle. Fucking retards.

[Murgos]

They sent a cease and desist to the pirate bay, their resposne was classic.  Basically they said "We know what the laws of our country are and obviously you don't."

[Krakrok]

They sent a cease and desist to the pirate bay, their resposne was classic.  Basically they said "We know what the laws of our country are and obviously you don't."

Next step: Pay the politicians to change the law.

[Lum]

It's difficult (to put it mildly) to police the Internet. There's nothing stopping websites from moving to Russia, Africa, or similar copyright-infringing-friendly domain names.

[Ralence]

It still amuses me to this day that the MPAA/RIAA honestly think they can put the file-sharing genie back in his bottle. Fucking retards.

  I honestly don't think they believe this at all.  I think it was a complete matter of cost vs. returns in this scenario.  With a ton of large blockbuster films hitting this week, as well as the Christmas DVD/music sales that happen, it's probably going to more than make up for the cost to file against the people they did, and with the "threat", a lot of places have voluntarily shut down, at least for the time being.

  The article cites that file-sharing traffic was down for a short time after their last batch of lawsuits, which is completely believable, at least to me.  If the same results happen, I'm willing to guarantee this current incarnation ends up being greatly profitable for them.  Will it stop piracy in the long run?  Not at all, and I'm sure they realize this, so throwing around lawsuits when you have the most potential for profitable gains really is logical.

  I really think it's a smart move to ruffle the P2P feathers at Christmas time, and again in late June before the summer blockbusters hit.

[Azaroth]

I'd like to know how much money these people have GAINED by spending countless expensive lawyerhours tracking down and prosecuting fourteen year olds.

[Hanzii]

hey, everytime you scare the parents of a teenager into paying a $20K fine, you can get by with selling 2K less of your crappy albums...

[Grelf]

Forgot exactly where I read it, but basically, the MPAA have lost more cases then they've won. Quite a bit more. Like...well, most of them.

Need to find where I read that.

[Daeven]

It's difficult (to put it mildly) to police the Internet. There's nothing stopping websites from moving to Russia, Africa, or similar copyright-infringing-friendly domain names.

Isn't this the basis for Preemption?

[HaemishM]

It isn't about stopping piracy. It's about stopping CASUAL PIRACY, which is a great deal different than people who are sharing 120 GB of Hollywood's shittiest and the new Eminem album. The harder or more underground piracy is, the less people who are technologically unsavvy will want to be bothered to do it when they can just rent a movie when it comes out on DVD or buy the album used.

These corporations that make up the RIAA and MPAA have attack lawyers on speed dial and monthly retainer. They aren't paying any extra to attack filesharers with C&D's because not all of them will fight the suits. If every single person who got a C&D went to court, MAYBE they'd lose a little money, but that will never happen because civil legal defense is expensive. If the MPAA & RIAA lawyers weren't doing this, they'd be doing some other retainer work, which is already built into the cost of these organizations doing business.

[Azaroth]

That's a case of other things being broken though.

[Krakrok]

It isn't about stopping piracy. It's about stopping CASUAL PIRACY

It isn't really about any kind piracy at all. It's about control. Every time you read about the RIAA/MPAA did such and such, think about how it lets them keep or get more control over the content. It will make more sense to you if you think about their actions that way. And I don't mean control in the tinfoil hat way. Control is as much about ego as it is about money.

95 year copyrights aren't about piracy, they are about control.

Keeping control of the original Mickey Mouse isn't about piracy it's about control.

The WIPO treaty coming down the pipe that says radio broadcasts of public domain works become copyrights in themselves aren't about piracy. They are about control.

What is DRM? DRM is a control mechanism. They want to control every aspect of your media consumption. iTunes having DRM is the only reason it is allowed to exist.

Why don't the movie companies at least have a service like iTunes etc. yet? They don't want to lose control over distribution.

How does recording music off the radio onto a tape different than recording music off a stream onto your hard drive? It isn't but the distributers do not want to lose the control that they have over distribution.

Why do they hate PVRs and skipping commercials? Why did the TV CEO guy say not watching commercials is STEALING from the TV station? They want to control what you get to watch. PVRs give you the freedom to watch what you want to watch.

Did the parody book of "Gone With The Wind" have anything to do with piracy? No. It was about the "owners" of the "Gone With The Wind" not having control over this new work and therefore hating it.

[HaemishM]

Actually, movie companies ARE offering downloads of movies like Itunes... sort of. It's just that Netflix is easier to use and not many people actually hook their computer up to a TV, so watching movies on your computer isn't as mainstream as say listening to music on your computer while you do other things.

[Roac]

It isn't really about any kind piracy at all. It's about control.

Not to burst your bubble of insight, but it's the same thing.  Or to one up your generalization, it's not about control, it's about profit.  If "piracy" made a company mad cash, they would be happy if you did it.  Witness the internet advertising campaigns that some companies have put on, whereby they make a commercial clip with no intention of ever releasing it on TV.  Instead, it's traded around between people.  They WANT you to rip those clips to your heart's content, because every time you do so, it is money in their pocket.  Ripping their actual product, however, is money OUT of their pocket.

Something you may not understand, is that profit for a company is their blood.  Without profit, they die.  People lose their jobs.  Hence, any company which wishes to remain a company will fight like rabid dogs to protect their revenue stream.  Failure to do this is death. No, one 15yo downloading a few songs in their bedroom won't ruin a company.  They don't care about that.  They care about the market trend.  Their revenue stream isn't a couple songs, it's how people get their music (or in this case, movies).  The trend over the last several years is for hobbyist pirates to make the getting of music easier and easier.  Napster and Kazaa were making it almost idiot-proof and easier than actually going to the store to buy the CD.  

Rant about the evils of control all you like, but I promise you that the beat is very different if you're the one earning a living from a business.

[Krakrok]

You must have missed this line:

"And I don't mean control in the tinfoil hat way. Control is as much about ego as it is about money."

it's not about control, it's about profit.  If "piracy" made a company mad cash, they would be happy if you did it.

No. Piracy does make companies money. Blizzard employees have stated that in the past (as one example). Their theory though is that if they had control over the copies that were pirated they would have made MORE money.

Witness the internet advertising campaigns that some companies have put on, whereby they make a commercial clip with no intention of ever releasing it on TV.  Instead, it's traded around between people.

Viral advertising campaigns are not the same thing. However, they even like to control their advertising (see the MasterCard "priceless" campaign parodies). It was fine when people passed them around but as soon as someone started making their own parody "priceless" campaigns the C&Ds started flying.

No, one 15yo downloading a few songs in their bedroom won't ruin a company.  They don't care about that.

Actually they do. They count it as a lost sale. I wonder if they take tax write offs on it.

Their revenue stream isn't a couple songs, it's how people get their music (or in this case, movies).

And when they don't control the distribution they get pissed off. You want to see them froth at the mouth? Mention "compulsory licencing".

but I promise you that the beat is very different if you're the one earning a living from a business.

Except that it isn't. I own my own business. I write software, I sell software, I do graphic design, I create original content, and I've paid lawyers to fight copyright lawsuits.

It's about control.

[Roac]

You must have missed this line:

"And I don't mean control in the tinfoil hat way. Control is as much about ego as it is about money."

No, I didn't, and you're incorrect.  It's not about ego at all.  If giving up control over something made them money, they'd do so in a heartbeat.  Repeat after me; money is it.  Lack of revenue is death.  

Actually they do. They count it as a lost sale.

One song thieft costs more to think about for two minutes than it's worth trying to recover.  They really don't care about singular thieft.  Just like a grocery store doesn't care about you stealing a pack of gum.  They will still go after you though, not because they give a shit about the nickel loss they took, but to attack the trend and keep you from doing it again, such as by scaring your friends into considering it a bad idea.

Except that it isn't. I own my own business. I write software, I sell software, I do graphic design, I create original content, and I've paid lawyers to fight copyright lawsuits.

It's about control.

Then you haven't wisened up to strategic business practices yet.  Not to mention you took what I was talking about out of context, but that's alright.  Look at, great examples, IBM and their open source strategies with Linux, or AOL and their efforts with Netscape.  Or look at any company which outsources work, which very directly removes a lot of control.  

For you it may well be about control, and that's been my experience with most programmers - they view their work as "theirs" even when they're employed by another company.  Even more broadly than that, people tend to be territorial about "what they do".  Except that for a businessman, "what they do" is make money.  If you have control issues, your company would be doing a lot better if you'd quit thinking like a dev, and think more like a business.

[Krakrok]

stuff

All you've done so far is parrot copyright cartel propaganda. If I wanted to read that I would go to their websites. Your post added nothing new to back up your assertions in the discussion which means you're basically trolling at this point.

I could continue listing various examples but you don't seem to have an interest in actually discussing it.


It's possible that until someone has X amount of money they can't comprehend a time when money ceases to be the only driving force.

[Roac]

Your post added nothing new to back up your assertions in the discussion which means you're basically trolling at this point.

I listed several counter examples to your claims.  You and anyone else is welcome to read up on them.

It's possible that until someone has X amount of money they can't comprehend a time when money ceases to be the only driving force.

No, I even alluded to other motivations in my post, I just pointed out that they're shitty businessmen.  You could write a library on the enumerations of motivations behind people's actions (and some have), but when you're talking about business in general, specifics don't count.  Businesses that work, work because they make money.  Period.  Whether that's by hoarding contorl or giving it up - or a strategic mix of both - is entirely secondary.  The primary motivating factor behind businesses is, and always will be, money.

[Righ]

The place where this all falls down is that the music and film industries have regularly been mismanaged and poorly operated, fuelling egos before the bottom line. There are countless cases of recordings that will never be issued because of spats between the concerned parties. You could buy the whole freaking music industry with the slush fund of a real company, its so worthless. Selling 100 times as many recordings would not be a challenge for any serious businessman. However, a bunch of arrogant cock strokers currently hold the reins, and they don't appear to want to make money.

[Roac]

Selling 100 times as many recordings would not be a challenge for any serious businessman.

That must be why the majority of sales are from the indi groups.

/sarcasm

[Righ]

Selling 100 times as many recordings would not be a challenge for any serious businessman.

That must be why the majority of sales are from the indi groups.

/sarcasm

The four major companies operate a cartel, charging exorbitant membership fees to independant labels that wish to buy into their control of the distribution and promotion chains. The purpose of the RIAA legislation and the Induce act is to shut down the promotion and distribution system that has allowed the independant labels to make significant gains.

[Krakrok]

same stuff

The reality is quite different than what you imagine it to be.

[Sky]

The four major companies operate a cartel, charging exorbitant membership fees to independant labels that wish to buy into their control of the distribution and promotion chains. The purpose of the RIAA legislation and the Induce act is to shut down the promotion and distribution system that has allowed the independant labels to make significant gains.

Yes. And piracy is giving tham all the legal muscle needed to further their goals.

Nice fucking work, assholes. And by assholes I mean people pirating music. You're only hurting the indies and giving the riaa more control in a time when they should be becoming marginalized. But hey, keep up the good work. Freedom and all that, right? Just grab that music, and screw the consequences, because you get yours, and nobody is hurt, right?

I'm against the riaa (I was a professional musician, after all), but I'm caught in the middle between their bullshit and piracy. At least the labels pay a few cents per unit.

I don't see how we can move into a new age of distribution, when people just take it if they feel like it and don't have to pay for it. It's nice to think the 'honor system' works, but in reality, it does not. And as I said, it exacerbates the situation by empowering the assholes we all want to get rid of (the riaa/clear channel/etc).

[DarkDryad]

I thought you werent gonna speak on this anymore Sky. I fully agree with ya but you KNOW whats gonna happen.

[Sky]

Oops. You're right.

[Shavnir]

In other news I won a $20 bet that said it would be the MPAA that shutdown suprnova.  They had me nervous, I thought the RIAA was gonna beat 'em to the chase.

[Krakrok]

the MPAA that shutdown suprnova.  They had me nervous, I thought the RIAA was gonna beat 'em to the chase.

I could be wrong but I think the RIAA already learned their lesson about sueing link sites.

[eldaec]

I'd like to know how much money these people have GAINED by spending countless expensive lawyerhours tracking down and prosecuting fourteen year olds.

Depends how you define 'these people'.

I'm sure plenty of corporate hacks have very significant 'achievements' listed on internal CVs as a result of chasing down p2p sites, and I'm certain these people have used these 'achievements' to justify promotions and pay rises.

As regards the companies shareholders, yeah, I imagine they're getting hosed.

To understand corporate behaviour of a sinister global megacorporation you have to understand one thing, it's not about profit, it's about hundreds of thousands of individual careers & egos, and about making your megacorp (and hence you) look big, powerful, and important. Profit is merely what companies are legally required to say they are chasing, and a level of profit is a convinient way to gain resources.