MPAA to sue file sharers
p2pnet.net News:- Now George W. Bush is safely re-ensconed in the US and with him, attorney general John Ashcroft, the major studios are about to follow the deeply flawed example of their Big Music cartel compatriots by suing p2p file sharers.
Music industry efforts to use similar legal strong-arm methods to halt p2p file sharing have failed, doing little more than to alienate potential customers, different academic studies show.
Nonetheless, in a “hard-line tactic,” the major movie studios will announce today, “that hundreds of copyright infringement lawsuits will be filed against people they allege are illegally distributing feature films online,” as the Los Angeles Daily News states the case.
And the first onslaught will target nline movie fans, “who share digitized versions of films over peer-to-peer networks,” says the story —— not the massively successful organized crime gangs which sell hundreds of millions of counterfeit DVDs in blackmarkets around the world.
New MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) boss Dan Glickman will be joined by, “studio executives, legislators, filmmakers and others at the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television this morning, where he will address the digital piracy threat and outline the organization’s plans,” says the story.
“It was rumoured that the organisation’s former chief, Jack Valenti, had resisted the idea of individual lawsuits during the last months of his tenure,” says another report in Britain’s Guardian Unlimited, continuing:
“By contrast, new president Dan Glickman is reportedly more enamoured of the tactic.
“Individual lawsuits were first pioneered by the music industry as a means of tackling people who make music available on P2P (peer-to-peer) networks. Thus far it has resulted in upwards of 3,000 prosecutions, although critics claim that the prospect of major labels suing individual music fans is bad PR that ends up alienating the public.”
The MPAA, still recovering from a recent debacle featuring Grind (Warner Bros) and Twisted (Paramount) and having been caught red-handed trying to use a strictly American law to threaten people in other countries, claims it’s losing billions to piracy.
On the other side of its face, it’s reporting record profits. US box office takings alone passed the $1 billion mark in June for the first time.
It also recently tried to use a spurious study to claim nearly a quarter of Net users have illegally downloaded a film.
OTX, which compiled the MPAA’s shock-horror “25%,” study has interesting people working for it.
===================
See:-
hard-line tactic – Piracy suits to be filed, Los Angeles Daily News, November 3, 2004
enamoured – Film industry to sue online pirates, Guardian Unlimited, Novermber 4, 2004
recent debacle – MPAA cock-up in Australia, p2pnet, September 21, 2004
threaten – DMCA League of Nations, p2pnet, August 30, 2004
spurious study – MPAA’s shock horror study, p2pnet, July 9, 2004
interesting people – MPAA file share travesty, p2pnet, July 13, 2004
November 4th, 2004 at 5:18 pm
i downloaded SAW before it was out in theaters, but i liked it a lot, so i went to see it in theaters later when it came out. One download does not equal one lost sale.
November 4th, 2004 at 8:51 pm
In your case it could have even been an Increase because you might not have otherwise seen it at all…..
MPAA/RIAA logic doesn’t seem to compute that digital media (imho) tends to increase sales, not decrease….
_-Jile-_
November 6th, 2004 at 12:22 am
If we had only put forth a greater effort to boycott music CDs after the RIAA lawsuits started over a year ago, that would have halted the RIAA’s and any other lawsuits dead in their tracks.
But instead, album sales increased in the last year since their lawsuit campaign started. This only encouraged the RIAA to file even more lawsuits, and now the MPAA has ‘followed suit’ with its own plan to go after thousands of movie-sharing P2P users.
Because of the RIAA lawsuits, I completely stopped buying CDs. Now if the MPAA carries out its threat, I will also boycott cinemas and DVDs. If only more people would do the same this lawsuit madness would stop.
http://www.boycottriaa.com
November 6th, 2004 at 1:27 am
This list of priorities from the FBI’s own web site:
1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack.
2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage.
3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes.
4. Combat public corruption at all levels.
5. Protect civil rights.
6. Combat transnational and national criminal organizations and enterprises.
7. Combat major white-collar crime.
8. Combat significant violent crime.
9. Support federal, state, county, municipal, and international partners.
10. Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI’s mission.
Intersting to note that file sharers (”high technology” crimes?) rate as a higher priority than “public corruption”.
Even better, “significant violent crime” rates as NINTH..”let’s get those file sharers lest the murderers and rapists get there first!”..
And of course, protecting civil rights rates right behind throwing 12 year olds in jail to protect David Geffen’s salary.
Hey, you voted for these people. Good going.
November 6th, 2004 at 2:17 am
(Milford, Conn.) November 5, 2004 – Subway ® Restuarants spokesperson Jared Fogle announced today that the restaurant chain will join The Society for the Preservation of American Sandwich Making (SPASM) in pursuing lawsuits against all entities infringing on their copyrighted “sandwiches”.
“We estimate that the industry loses over $1 billion every year in sales lost to home users alone” said Mr. Fogle, referring to the practice of placing meats and vegetables between two slices of bread. “This practice endangers both the livelihoods of our ’sandwich artists’ and indeed, the art of sandwich-making itself. Allowed to continue unchecked, sandwich-making would likely die as an art form altogether.”
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, alongside Mr. Fogle for the announcement, unveiled a poster designed to focus awareness on the protection of intellectual property. 50’s TV homemaker Donna Reed is featured among a panoply of sandwich-making items, including Wonder Bread, sandwich meats and various condiments, admonishing young mothers to “leave the work to the professionals” rather than risk prosecution. “We will leave no stone unturned, no greasy lunch bag uninspected.” said Mr. Ashcroft. “If you think that you’re not being watched, you’re WRONG!”, he exclaimed, wagging his finger at the group of schoolchildren in the front row.
An FBI spokesman estimated that over 300 citizens will be served with subpoenas this week. They will initally be charged as “John Does” until legislation forcing schools to identify the makers is passed by noted crimefighter Orrin Hatch. U.S. Code provides for a fine of up to $150,000 per infringement, although out-of-court settlements are expected to range around $3,000 per defendant.
SPASM is a consortium of legal sandwich-making entities, including Subway ® Restaurants, Quizno’s ® Restaurants, Blimpies ® Restaurants and international megalith Sony BMG Universal Industries.
November 6th, 2004 at 8:41 am
Absolutely true. I feel guilty every time I slap together a sandwich at home instead of going to the gourmet sandwich shop and shelling out $10 per sandwich. I admit I have even stolen their intellectual property every time I create at home a copy of one of their high-dollar sandwiches.
Maybe a tax on bread and meat sold at grocery stores should be implemented to protect the professional sandwich makers’ livelihoods, with the proceeds going to the often-robbed sandwich industry.
Just think of the $billions in lost income that people are stealing from these restaurants and delis every time they make their own sandwiches.
November 7th, 2004 at 6:41 pm
Get Netflix. Rent them, record or watch them, send them back as fast U can. See all U want for $17.99 per month.
Is this where bootleggers get there rips?
Is it just me or that’s where people are getting the DVD files?
November 8th, 2004 at 6:35 am
doesn’t matter who you vote for. think this would’ve stopped if kerry were elected?? I don’t think so.
November 8th, 2004 at 11:12 pm
most downloads seem to be done by people who were not planning on seeing the movie in the first place. A others download to screen the movie, then pay for it. Nothing is the same as a cinematic experience. MPAA is going down the wrong road here.
November 8th, 2004 at 11:13 pm
Previous post by TOO, I miss you JILE!
November 8th, 2004 at 11:16 pm
I agree with senor Jile. People are not settling with pirated copies of movies, they are horrible, maybe the mpaa need to see them. Used more to see if you want to see the movie. If people want to see a movie, they will not settle for some crappy pirated copy.
TOO – (misses Jile)
November 9th, 2004 at 3:09 am
Take a look at this Dan Glickman???? What a weiner!!! Know wonder the MPAA started suing people. What’s it with all these Org.????? The heads of these outfit’s are some really ugly looking SOB’s I guess thats what you get when Money is your God!!!!!
November 9th, 2004 at 3:05 pm
MPAA
RIAA
Well IDGRA, ( i don’t give a rats ass )
You can record from radio satelite and tv. Copy rented movies DVD and Tapes. Maybe they should all get together and kick in everyones doors and confiscate all the VHS and Audio Cassete tapes people have been copying for years.
They make it sound like everyone who has a pc downloads movies. I know hundreds of people with computers and only one of those download movies ( and he uses Kazaa so he doesn’t get what he wants 90% of the time anyway. They $ they claim to lose probably wouldn’t amount to a corporate dinner.
S76MultiMedia
November 9th, 2004 at 3:36 pm
haha, that is the greatest thing I have ever read, props to you my friend, I couldn’t have said it any better
November 10th, 2004 at 7:03 pm
There are many cases where I know ppl have rented/bought/gone out to see movies that they’ve d/l’d…… avi/mpg dont compare (in most cases)….. *sighs* But they like getting their money’s worth out of their attorney’s trigger-finger so they will just sue their potential customers instead.
———
Let’s not flood p2pnet’s nice site with unrelated stuff. lol
Just pm me on the cv forum if you want to talk.
(It would be nice if this site supported pm’s – just a suggestion)
_-Jile-_
November 11th, 2004 at 4:51 am
RIAA, MPAA,
I HOPE YOU READ THIS. I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER MOVIE OR PIECE OF MUSIC AS LONG AS I LIVE IF YOU CONTINUE THESE LAWSUITS.
Stealing movies and music is wrong, I agree. However, you have been raping the consumer for years upon years. Sue yourselves! You have brought this upon yourselves. Paying $13-18 for a CD with 1 or 2 good pieces of music is STUPID to be non-vulgar. To pay $8 or more to sit in a theater is STUPID, again, to be non-vulgar.
I work hard for a living, have a small family, and simply cannot afford to WASTE my money on that crap. Stop blaming your problems on pirates (they usually wouldn’t buy your defecation anyway) and start blaming the correct people: yourselves. The reason: Overcharging for CRAP. Get this: the rest of the world went through a depression. What? You think you are immune? LOL, no, you just saw a way to make a profit during the depression by suing people! You nitwits weren’t doing anything until the depression caught up to you too. CAN YOU SAY SCAPEGOAT?
You are all thieves and whores. You disgust me. I will never support your industries. Suing people is a cheap shot. You are no better than the thief who was injured while robbing a house and sues the house’s owner because he got hurt.
Shove it all up your rear ends,
A PISSED-OFF, SOON NOT TO BE, CONSUMER OF MOVIES AND MUSIC
November 12th, 2004 at 4:11 pm
Yes, this is my fault. I posted and it didn’t show for a few minutes, and I posted again. Too bad you can’t delete or edit your posts (just a suggestion).
I just don’t see how this action by the MPAA will help their revenue. If anything, it will hurt their image and less people will be willing to go to the theatre. Until they take down the big people behing this, it won’t make a dent.