Stewie Griffin has been freed.

[Shockeye]

Family Guy: The Leak Story

July 25, 2005
Michael Ingram

The movie studios received one of their biggest blows today with the news that a high quality copy of the Family Guy movie is spreading rapidly around P2P networks, months before its home theater release.

According to the information file published by the release group Angelic Evolution, the movie has been ripped from an “exclusive DVD premiere.”   

The film, based on the TV series “Family Guy”, is not due for release until late September.

Titled Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story!, the movie follows Stewie, the family’s maniacal baby genius, who sets out on a road trip to find who he believes to be his real father.

The release comes despite the studios successful campaign for increasingly draconian copyright protection laws and high profile arrests, leaving the industry and spectators with the questions as to how much can really be done to stop movie leaks.

[schild]

Nothing can be done. They need to stop spending money to prevent piracy. Doucetards.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I heard about a great movie you can download on the net.

Edit: I say this in completely and utter awe - looks like the whole dvd made it to the net. Someone needs to work on their weak hollywood investigation skills.

[Samwise]

So the movie is completely finished and they're not going to let me buy it until September?  How am I supposed to NOT download it when the alternative is waiting more than a month?  It'll probably show up in my email unbidden before that time is up.

[CmdrSlack]

So let me get this straight.  Someone leaks (read as: pirates) an upcoming DVD release, and for some reason the fact that it's available way before it's supposed to be available is good?

Or did you  two forget to use the green sarcasm text?

Shit like this is what the RIAA and the MPAA feed upon.  If people wouldn't be stupid with shit like this, P2P networks wouldn't be getting the shit they're getting (i.e. the Grokster case).

People need to realize that if they want more freedom, they can't be INT4RW3B R00tz R4Wk R3b3lz and hope that their virtual robin hood personae won't be taken as utter bullshit by those with the money and political clout. 

[Samwise]

Odds are very good that I'll end up seeing this movie one way or another before I can pay to see it, which I'm glad for because I like instant gratification.  Odds are even better that I will pay for it regardless come September, which the MPAA should be glad for because it means they get their goddamned money.  Crossing fingers and hoping that nobody will leak highly coveted media, or hoping that when highly coveted media gets leaked nobody will download it, isn't likely to get either of us anywhere, because if crossing fingers and hoping for things worked, I'd be Emperor of the Universe and none of this would matter.

What I'm hoping is that stuff like this keeps happening and that the industry is forced to cope in an effective manner (and by effective I don't mean sending the Gestapo after students).  If file sharing stops in reponse to the MPAA and RIAA's use of intimidation tactics (which is a gussied-up name for terrorism when you get right down to it), it'll just encourage more of the same in the future.  I want these knuckleheads to see that what they're doing isn't working, and try something else, something that will be beneficial to everyone involved.  Like maybe coming up with something that gets me my instant gratification AND gets them their goddamned money.

[schild]

The Stewie Griffin DVD will probably be one of the best selling DVDs in the history of the world despite this. So, frankly, I don't give a damn. I'll buy it and when they double dip it with episodes I'll buy it again.

Frankly, if you have something worth buying, pirates will download it and then buy it. It's just How Things Work.

[Triforcer]

What I'm hoping is that stuff like this keeps happening and that the industry is forced to cope in an effective manner (and by effective I don't mean sending the Gestapo after students).  If file sharing stops in reponse to the MPAA and RIAA's use of intimidation tactics (which is a gussied-up name for terrorism when you get right down to it), it'll just encourage more of the same in the future.  I want these knuckleheads to see that what they're doing isn't working, and try something else, something that will be beneficial to everyone involved.  Like maybe coming up with something that gets me my instant gratification AND gets them their goddamned money.

Its terrorism to enforce the law?  How the hell is suing over piracy or prosecuting criminally any different than enforcing the law in every other area?  Do you regard every attempt to enforce every law as terrorism?

[Evangolis]

Its terrorism to enforce the law?  How the hell is suing over piracy or prosecuting criminally any different than enforcing the law in every other area?  Do you regard every attempt to enforce every law as terrorism?

Well, yeah, but I never did manage that God and Country Merit Badge in Boy Scouts.

Enforcement of laws does involve a sort of bullying, no matter how genteel.  And it is ultimately doomed to fail, because you really can't Make People Behave.  Better if you can find a way to get people to want to do it your way.  But that, to quote the old saw, is HARD.

[Samwise]

What the RIAA is doing with file sharers (bringing lawsuits against them that are designed to ruin their lives) is the modern equivalent of impaling people on pikes over the gates of the city.  It has nothing to do with enforcing the law for that particular violator, or getting restitution for their perceived wrongs against the RIAA (because I'm honestly not convinced that copyright violation has any sort of detrimental effect on their business, other than the money spent on their clumsy attempts to stop it), or even deterring that particular individual from doing it again.  It has everything to do with terrorizing everyone else into compliance. 

That's a far cry from giving someone an inconvenient parking ticket to make her think twice about parking in a blue zone again, or locking up a dangerous murderer to keep him from murdering again.

[CmdrSlack]

So why shouldn't people comply with copyright laws?  You can argue that they never did once the cassette tape was put into mainstream use, but I doubt the "piracy" going on there was as easy to track or as pervasive.

Give me a good reason, founded in something other than, "I hate the RIAA/MPAA" for why people SHOULDN'T be expected to comply with the laws.  "They're stupid," is not a good reason.

And just to provide perspective, I'm not a fan of the RIAA or the MPAA, I just don't see how pirates are going to force them to change anything they're doing.  I'd love to see those industries truly explore electronic distribution methods that are cheap and provide quality product at the same time.  I just honestly don't see the impetus for this change coming from some sort of E-Robin Hood. 

Following similar logic, it just seems like I could steal all of my food from large, corporate grocery chains and if I ever got caught, basically say how it's unfair that they charge such high prices for food and if they didn't want their food stolen, they should have found a better way to distribute it.

[Samwise]

The way I see it, the basic intent of copyright law is to make sure the owner of the copyright gets their fair share of money.  It is my belief that downloading a couple of songs or a movie leak over the Intarweb, in and of itself, does not interfere with that.

Most of the music I've bought, I've bought as a direct result of having sampled it beforehand in some way.  I generally won't buy an album if I've only heard one song from it (which is all they usually play on the radio), and in the absence of some easy way to preview an album, I'll just about never feel compelled to shell out money for it.  Therefore, when the RIAA says "don't download music," I hear "we hate money, don't give us any."  I consider this stupid.

I challenge you to explain how stealing food from Safeway helps them.  The difference between copying content and stealing physical goods is that when you steal physical goods, the previous owner no longer has them and is therefore impoverished by some amount, however slight.  Copying content in and of itself does not impoverish anyone in the slightest, which is why copyright laws have "fair use" clauses permitting copying under some circumstances.

[CmdrSlack]

The Safeway analogy is bound to be flawed because it's brick & mortar vs. the virtual.  Stealing from Safeway doesn't help them.  It also, most likely, doesn't hurt them.  Grocery stores toss out all kinds of stuff every day.  I guess that's the attitude that example was geared towards. 

Arguably, you downloading a few songs here and there doesn't cost the RIAA any money.  You also assert that you buy albums.  Great.  Maybe your practices help the RIAA somewhat.  The problem is that this is a war of public perception.  As long as the laws stay as they are, P2P music file sharing (and movie file sharing) will be prohibited.  The problem is that if people want to change the laws (and I personally think that the whole life + 70 years duration on copyright is just the first thing that needs to be changed), they need to also toe the line a bit.  If people persist in downloading songs and sharing out hard drives with tens of thousands of songs on them, the industry can still point to them as "bad people." 

Unfortunately for those who want to freely share music, most people aren't savvy and/or informed enough to truly appreciate the complexity of the issues involved.  They will only hear the RIAA talking points parroted on the news and by the current administration.  If the file sharing "movement" is truly about bringing about a change to the industry (and not just, "whee! free shit!"), it has to, for lack of a better phrase, win the hearts and minds of voters.  The RIAA/MPAA is a strong lobby.  Continuing to prod it with pointy sticks only makes it lash out more, and continue to resist change. 

Should we treat certain kinds of media differently than others?  Probably.  Are the copyright laws just a bit too strict these days?  Most definitely.  Should they be reformed?  Absolutely.  Is the file sharing community at large doing much to help change them?  Signs point to no, IMO.


EDIT -- to address "copying does not impoverish anyone" -- Even if that's true, it takes a lot to combat the stats and spin that the RIAA & MPAA like to puke out.  Even if YOU personally buy albums after downloading tracks, the perception is that most people don't buy albums, they have already downloaded them (sometimes with cover art and liner notes) for free.   

[schild]

Yea, but here's the problem. If these TEENAGERS and lazy dorks couldn't download the album, would they even bother paying to get it? Probably not. Given the revenue in all media industries right now, I don't think they can disprove that.

[CmdrSlack]

Yea, but here's the problem. If these TEENAGERS and lazy dorks couldn't download the album, would they even bother paying to get it? Probably not. Given the revenue in all media industries right now, I don't think they can disprove that.

I guess it depends on which bands you're talking about at that point.  Certainly there are plenty of inputs from popular media, especially aimed at teens, that tell them which bands to like and albums to buy.  I spent a ton of cash on albums in my teenage years, well before music downloads were even out there. 

At any rate, any logic along the lines you're arguing will just be counter argued by a much stronger lobby as, "Well, if they can't download it, they'll have to buy it, just like before."  That argument is just as flawed since cassette tapes made it easy to share music before the advent of the mp3 and the CD burner. 

So far, there's really been nothing new from the "free music" camp.  The party line seems to be RIAA is bad.  Sadly, any creative solutions seem lost amongst the flood of angst.  The RIAA is no better.  Their party line is "downloads are bad."  Once again, any creative solutions are lost.

I guess it's all a matter of time to see if the RIAA "wakes up" to the "obvious" solution being touted by the free downloads crowd.

[Samwise]

Raving techno-hippy lunatic time:

I think the real problem is that the RIAA is basically obsolete.  Their job isn't to make music, it's to distribute music, and both the artist and the consumer pay through the nose for that service.  Once everyone starts figuring out that 95% of the profits get signed away to do something that any jackass with an Internet connection can do for free, the entire industry is going to change.  I'm not sure exactly how yet, but I think the iTunes store is a small step in that direction.  Since the iTunes store opened, all the music I've downloaded has come from there instead of P2P networks.

[CmdrSlack]

Raving techno-hippy lunatic time:

I think the real problem is that the RIAA is basically obsolete.  Their job isn't to make music, it's to distribute music, and both the artist and the consumer pay through the nose for that service.  Once everyone starts figuring out that 95% of the profits get signed away to do something that any jackass with an Internet connection can do for free, the entire industry is going to change.  I'm not sure exactly how yet, but I think the iTunes store is a small step in that direction.  Since the iTunes store opened, all the music I've downloaded has come from there instead of P2P networks.

See, I think iTunes is also a step in the right direction.  I'm by no means pro-RIAA, I just don't see how the "illegal" file sharing will really change things.  At the same time, I am really put off by the RIAA and how it handles licensing to various media types.  For instance, the iTunes model is nice.  The RIAA is largely transparent to the end user, because they just see themselves paying iTunes 99 cents a song.  For internet radio, on the other hand, the licensing stuff is a bunch of garbage, imo. There are restrictions on how the stations play the music they are licensing.  For instance, they cannot take requests.  They cannot play two songs by the same artist in a row.  This is stuff that broadcast radio can do.  The difference, as I see it, is that the RIAA/ASCAP/MPAA are afraid of the digital model. 

I also agree that the RIAA is an outmoded means of distributing music. 

I think they know that, and that's why digital distribution solutions/methods scare the bejezus out of them.

[Samwise]

And the place that illegal file sharing comes into it is this: if you can provide a service that people want (cheap and easy digital distribution), and you won't sell it to them, they're likely to find a way to get it without your help (P2P) rather than paying you for a substandard alternative (overpriced and overmarketed physical media).

[CmdrSlack]

Right.  But that still doesn't stop the RIAA from flipping out about it.  I just don't see them ever making The Switch To Digital Distribution until the illegal downloads stop.  Think about it.  iTunes, the new Napster, etc. are all making good cash for the RIAA using their model.  It sure seems that now, the industry is selling that digital distribution cheap and easy.  I bet that's how the RIAA sees it.  Therefore, all non-paid downloads are bad.

Now if you meant FREE and easy distribution method, that's a different matter.  Suffice it to say, it seems that iTunes et. al. is working just fine for the RIAA.  I don't know how much cheaper or easier you want it to get, so now I'm left a bit dumbfounded as to what more you want.  If not you, then what more does the P2P crowd want?  Is the selection uber shitty on iTunes et. al.?

Or is 99 cents/song too much to pay?

Or is it that the copyright laws need a major overhaul?

[AOFanboi]

Here we have a consequence of the industry's manic release/hype machine that has created a mass of consumer zombies who crave instant gratification. (Cue George Romero Was Right placards among the audience.)

Well, surprise, the Internet has become far better than the industry at satisfying that craving.

The industry created the monster and now they cannot kill it. Only they really don't want to kill either the zombie hunger for the next thing, nor the channel where they can sell music at CD prices without having to deal with manufacturing or distribution of physical product.

I guess Orrin Hatch will have some more "campaign contributions" coming his way soon.

[Samwise]

Now if you meant FREE and easy distribution method, that's a different matter.  Suffice it to say, it seems that iTunes et. al. is working just fine for the RIAA.  I don't know how much cheaper or easier you want it to get, so now I'm left a bit dumbfounded as to what more you want.  If not you, then what more does the P2P crowd want?  Is the selection uber shitty on iTunes et. al.?

The selection is mildly shitty on iTunes, and their DRM is occasionally obnoxious.  That said, I personally am by and large satisfied with iTunes, which is why I haven't spent much time looking for music on P2P networks since it came out.

Of course, since it came out several years after the P2P networks, people in general have had plenty of time to get used to P2P as a way to obtain music, and aren't as likely to go seek out iTunes since there's a working solution already in place.  Once services like iTunes shape up a bit more and are actually more convenient to use than P2P (broader song selection and no DRM bullshit are two current advantages of P2P), they're likely to get broader acceptance.

That said, illegal downloading will never stop completely, especially if the alternatives are all unappealing (and again, iTunes is a big step in the right direction there).  If the RIAA's plan is to come up with more appealing alternatives AFTER the illegal downloading is gone, they've completely backed themselves into a corner.

[CmdrSlack]

It seems to me like both sides are backed into corners.  Until they're willing to come together to find a solution that is best for everyone (read as: flying pigs in an icy hell) I think we'll have more of the same until something happens to make the clue bat smack a few people.

Wow, and this hasn't been moved to politics yet.  It's like sometimes we CAN have nice things.

[Triforcer]

Wow, and this hasn't been moved to politics yet.  It's like sometimes we CAN have nice things.

I haven't contributed enough.

[CmdrSlack]

Wow, and this hasn't been moved to politics yet.  It's like sometimes we CAN have nice things.

I haven't contributed enough.

I said Politics, not the Den.

[schild]

Wow, and this hasn't been moved to politics yet.  It's like sometimes we CAN have nice things.

I haven't contributed enough.

I said Politics, not the Den.

To rerail: The movie was good, had some truly hilarious moments that simply couldn't have been on TV - and a slew of incest jokes as well that aren't really appropriate for anything.

[Strazos]

Question:

Can I download in sweet OggVorbis format?

If not, it still sucks balls. iTunes is missing tons of the type of music I listen to.

[Ezdaar]

I started out on the side of the people enforcing the copyrights even though I thought they were a bit draconian. I've seen so much whining and fud from the **AA though that my new attitude is fuck them. If the music business isn't profitable enough get out of it. No one is entitled to make a profit when times change and they can't keep up. Things have changed and will continue to change. The ability to make infinitely many copies at zero cost has given us a whole new playing field and they need to find a way to turn a profit under the new rules. I feel a bit sorry for the smaller musicians but I'm of the belief that the people who want to make music will find a way to do what they love and be rewarded for it. They may not be multi billionaires as a result but I don't see why they should be in the first place. I'm more than happy to support music I like by buying it, either from something like iTunes or cdbaby.com. I hope the RIAA and all of the major record companies wither and die a slow painful death and the people who love to make music embrace this new world and are rewarded for it.

I feel almost like a /.er now but I'm honestly just absolutely fed up with the current situation. I think the industry needs to die and be reborn in order for things to get better.

[schild]

If not, it still sucks balls. iTunes is missing tons of the type of music I listen to.

I thought so to until I switched my itunes music store to the german portal.

[Strazos]

Ah ha....may have to give it another look then.

[Triforcer]

I started out on the side of the people enforcing the copyrights even though I thought they were a bit draconian. I've seen so much whining and fud from the **AA though that my new attitude is fuck them. If the music business isn't profitable enough get out of it. No one is entitled to make a profit when times change and they can't keep up. 

But they ARE trying to keep up by prosecuting people who commit crimes.  If it got a lot easier to commit bank robberies because criminals all had teleporters and lasers, would you advise the banks to just lay down and accept that all their money would be stolen?  Your entitlement to a "profit" doesn't get taken away because thieves innovate.

 

Things have changed and will continue to change. The ability to make infinitely many copies at zero cost has given us a whole new playing field and they need to find a way to turn a profit under the new rules. I feel a bit sorry for the smaller musicians but I'm of the belief that the people who want to make music will find a way to do what they love and be rewarded for it. They may not be multi billionaires as a result but I don't see why they should be in the first place.

I was wondering when this justification would come up.  Most RIAA haters have moved to ERobin Hood style justifications, but its nice to see an old-time Age of Aquarius "music shouldn't be about profits, it should be about expanding your SOUL, maan" argument.  Sorry, but just because you romanticize music and believe its so precious that it shouldn't be soiled by commerce doesn't make it so. 

[WayAbvPar]

If not, it still sucks balls. iTunes is missing tons of the type of music I listen to.

I thought so to until I switched my itunes music store to the german portal.

$.99 Scheiße videos?

[Samwise]

Triforcer, your arguments all seem to be based on the premise that copyright violation = profit loss.  Would you say that copyright violation is bad insofar as it results in lost profits for copyright holders?

[CmdrSlack]

While his analogy is certainly aimed at profit loss (a bank robbery is obviously $$ lost), the problem lies in the fact that we're trying to define "theft" as being related to an intangible.  Technically, the way copyright laws treat things, there is some kind of economic harm implied from someone else making "use" of your IP.

It does a lot to muddle discussion and highlights why the copyright laws need a significant overhaul.  The DMCA was NOT a step forward.

[Ezdaar]

Bullshit on both of your arguments Triforcer. The first one is stupid and the second one mischaracterized what I said.

Let me go through this again for you.

The ability to make infinitely many digital copies for zero cost means that the old idea of a record company producing the media and distributing it is obsolete. What they need to do is find a way to make a profit that doesn't involve bundling up media and sticking it on shelves. It's no different than when mass cheap automated printing came out and all of the people copying books were now unemployed or like in 30 years when we've moved off of petroleum and all of the gas/oil companies will be obsolete. You can try and outlaw using new technologies but it won't work. They need to change or die.

The "Music should be free!" argument is completely different than what I said. I said without the big bucks of the major labels and the RIAA I still think that musicians will make music because it's what they like to do and they'll make a profit because people enjoy it and are willing to pay a fair amount for it. They may not be able to snort coke off of Mary Kate and Ashley's asscracks in the back of their limo anymore but I won't lose much sleep over it if they have to become somewhat mundane like the rest of us.

 There's no Robin Hood fantasy here, I have zero pirated copies of songs in the 5 gigs of music I have on my iPod. I'll pay for things that I believe are at a price that reflects their value, if I disagree with the price I won't pay and I won't pirate it. Others are not as scrupulous as I'm sure you know and will continue this trend of copyright violation as long as it's cheaper in both time and money to download a copy of it off a P2P network or whatnot. The RIAA can keep suing grandmas and 11 year old girls for a hojillion dollars but it will just drive us quicker to technologies like Freenet or Tor.

[Triforcer]

Triforcer, your arguments all seem to be based on the premise that copyright violation = profit loss.  Would you say that copyright violation is bad insofar as it results in lost profits for copyright holders?

Yes.  And given the slump of the music industry in the last few years (double digit % sales losses) I think its hard to argue that hasn't happened.

[Samwise]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Speaking from only my own experience (since I haven't personally conducted any more studies on this than you have), since the advent of P2P file sharing networks, I have spent probably 100x more on music than I did before they were around.  By that logic (which is about as skewed as yours), recording companies should be PAYING people to download their songs off the Internet, the way they pay radio stations to broadcast their songs over the airwaves.