p2pnet - rss feed: MPAA nails ’screener’ man
p2pnet.net News:- According to Hollywood’s MPAA, file sharers and counterfeiters, aka ‘pirates,’ are ruining the movie industry, which nonetheless somehow manages to struggle on, reporting eye-popping revenues year after year.
Johnny Ray Gasca, said to have used a camcorder to copy a movie in a cinema, was jailed for seven years after being found guilty of copyright infringement.
Rarely mentioned are Hollywood insiders with as much, if not more, responsibilty for unauthorised online appearances. But every once in a while ….
A 22-year old “male suspect” has been arrested for illegally selling and distributing Academy Awards screeners he got from his female cousin, says the MPAA.
Screeners are heavily restricted DVDs so people who vote for the Academy Awards can see the flics they’re voting for.
The cousin, also 22, was arrested for felony second degree burglary and embezzlement, says the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America).
The man, “uploaded the films to the Internet making them available to millions of people,” and then tried to sell the screeners, “to an undercover informant”.
The girl was a receptionist at an accounting firm which received Academy Award the flics for an Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) member, says the MPAA, going on, “She is accused of intercepting packages containing the screeners intended for the member, and then providing them to her cousin.”
MPAA owners Time Warner, Viacom, Fox, Sony, NBC Universal and Disney were able to arrange to have their MPAA avail itself of the services of the tax-payer funded Southern California High Tech Task Force to act as Hollywood copyright cops.
“Each screener is watermarked enabling forensics investigators to trace the source of a pirated copy which allowed investigators to identify the Academy member who was the intended recipient of the screener,” says the MPAA.
Also See:
copyright infringement - Camcorder man jailed for 7 years, December 6, 2006
Hollywood insiders - Film critic sold review DVDs, June 26, 2006
online appearances - Star Wars ‘Sith’ p2p uploader, January 26, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details.
And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
7 years in jail, whoa that’s a lot! But the fact that he tried to make a buck out of it makes him a Pirate in the word’s true meaning. I don’t support traditional piracy at all because it’s clearly done for profit.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
“The cousin, also 22, was arrested for felony second degree burglary and embezzlement, says the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America).”
Is this not defamation?
“The cousin, also 22, was arrested for felony second degree burglary and embezzlement, says the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)”
This could be defamation of the ony true type of defamation (in my opinion), that a person is falsely said to have comitted a prosecutable crime.
This shows a bias by MPAA. The cousin is just a suspect but MPAA has already tried the cousin and found her guilty. Clearly if the cousin (secretary) had been tried and found guilty, MPAA would have stated so.
Maybe the cousin is eventually not charged or in in the end it is decided there is no case against her because it turns out that her cousin stole the videos at her workplace. Anyway, the judicial system has to allow all the charged persons (including the cousin secretary in this case) to defend themselves.
Usully when people are just suspects of robbery the police does not make announcements or publicly name the suspects. That is fair, as no one should be publicly named until the person is formally accused.
Sounds like a witch hunt.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com