Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

MPAA Sues Usenet, Torrent Search Sites

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

February 24, 2006, 12:00 PM

The Motion Picture Association of America has found a new target in its war against piracy: search engines providing links to copyrighted material. Although they distribute no files themselves, such sites are a critical piece of the infrastructure that enables movie piracy, the MPAA says.

Lawsuits were filed Thursday against: BinNews.com, Torrentspy.com, IsoHunt, BTHub.com, TorrentBox.com, NiteShadow.com, Ed2k-It.com, NZB-Zone.com, and DVDRs.net. The suits mark the first time the MPAA has gone after Usenet related services, which have largely been spared in the crackdown on illicit file sharing.

Unlike P2P networks, which facilitate content swapping between users, Usenet operators host the content directly on their servers. However, because they do not regulate what files get uploaded, such companies have avoided legal attacks through protections offered to Internet service providers.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act affords similar protection to search engine operators, as long as they are not aware of infringing content and remove the links when notified. The MPAA signed an agreement with BitTorrent.com last November in which the search site agreed to take down links to feature films.

However, the sites sued Thursday benefit financially from such links and the MPAA says it sees no distinction between those providing the content and those linking to it.

"Website operators who abuse technology to facilitate infringements of copyrighted works by millions of people are not anonymous – they can and will be stopped," said John Malcolm, Director of Worldwide Anti-Piracy Operations for the MPAA. "Disabling these powerful networks of illegal file distribution is a significant step in stemming the tide of piracy on the Internet."

The lawsuits come just days after the MPAA successfully shut down a major server known as Razorback2 used in the eDonkey2000 network. Razorback2 was accessed by millions of P2P users on the network and served as an index of content shared by users, similar to the search Web sites.

The MPAA claims the movie industry lost $1.9 billion in 2005 due to Internet piracy. Nonetheless, the organization boasts that it is making progress, and has shut down 75 BitTorrent and eDonkey sites in the last year alone.

Add a Comment (138 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By PAvery

posted Sep 18, 2006 - 11:44 AM

AtHome confess your RIAA affiliations, & that other lackey whatsisname.. All you idiots use the same tacky propaganda catch words and phrases. Sharing a file has nothing to do with stealing, but you just don't get it. You just keep pushing your mindless BS hoping to eventually brainwash at least some, and to make honest people feel guilty. We all know who the real criminals and thugs are. It's a pity life is just a big bowl of deception to you isn't it? But that's showbiz, an act; pretending to be something you're not. Like children at play, you never grow up. You even try to convince yourselves of the propaganda you peddle. You will never win the war despite your illegitimately obtained wealth. The world will have ended first, and how will your billions save you, and who will get it, and will it be worth anything then? How do you sleep worrying about all your assets? I have little but sleep fine, without pills. My conscience is not bothered one bit by file sharing. Never has been, and neither am I dishonest. When you reduce the price of media to reasonable amounts, people will consider that alternative, otherwise they will do what is most resourceful, not what is "cheap", like you cheap hoods.

Score: 0

By nailzer

edited Feb 26, 2006 - 7:40 PM

GOOD! FINALLY! Piracy is finished! Why good? Because the MPAA and it's members can no longer blame piracy for their billions of dollars lost. Maybe now they'll finally see that the unoriginal (remake after remake)crap they produce is the reason.

Score: 0

By Sinister

edited Feb 27, 2006 - 12:07 PM

The solution is damn easy. Just make somebody kill a couple of tрose MPAA bas****s and say that they had disturbed his mental stability. Everything will settle itself in a few days. =)

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 10:45 AM

Yeah, guys - - the hunt is on - open season . . .

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 9:53 AM

The only real winners here are the lawyers. They get paid....

The MPAA is engaged in a mostly symbolic and PR centric campaign. There is no real effect other than maybe some deterrant to site operators and larger "facilitators" to piracy. The plain facts are that they are playing "whack-a-mole" and as fast as they chase down and close one site, others rise up. They can sue only a miniscule fraction of the sites/users/developers that are doing this. They know it...some of us know it.

The recent Razorback story is a good example. This is touted as a victory, but they did not tell you that it did not have any real effect on the Emule traffic other than bringing attenttion to the resiliency of the protocol and its lack of a centralization.

The futility of using lawsuits to stop this is plainly evident but if they can sow enough fear and doubt in the users they can at least make some progress.

There is some irony to the fact that I use a TimeWarner ISP and therefore their Usenet server. From this server I download Timewarner films...you might say then that they are giving me their content as they indeed have a right to do...as for the others...

I generally download the movies that I already have on DVD that way my sister can borrow my DVD and freaking lose it like she always does and I can still watch it when I want. We have over 500 DVD's and I have only downloaded about 100 of them in Divx/xvid...am I a criminal?...Probably, but not because I download movies that I already own.

This whole thing is really a non-issue. We will soon see technolgy make these current efforts more irrelevant than they already are. The networks are moving underground. They are not willing to invest the $$$ and resources to make a real impact on Piracy. They are a paper tiger that likes to grab headlines and try to scare 13 year olds.

Score: 0

By dademurphy1507

edited Feb 27, 2006 - 7:02 AM

****!
I use all those engines!
AAAHHHHH!!!!!!

Score: 0

By rla0001

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 2:29 AM

Dan Glickman and the MPAA are becoming the "Mouse the Roared". I suppose there are many who could care less about piracy given that status quo. However, there are a lot of plain old folks who are just sick to their gills of the MPAA and RIAA whining, manipulating legislation, screwing with new technologies and the constant lawsuits. Given the choices of new technology and a free internet or another $14.00 a ticket movie...I am more than willing to sacrafice Brokebutt Mounting or the slew of lackluster movies rolling out of Hollywood.

Score: 0

By drsplodge

edited Feb 27, 2006 - 12:06 AM

Quote:
"The MPAA claims the movie industry lost $1.9 billion in 2005 due to Internet piracy".

What they didn't say is that people who pirate these movies have no intention of seeing the movie anyway so it's an unrecoverable loss. Therefore, stopping sites like those listed will do nothing for regaining profits.

Just because you can't download a movie doesn't mean that you're going to go see it in the theatres.

More often than not, if you can't download it, you'll usually go hire it from the shops when it's out on dvd for a couple bucks. You won't go to the cinema's to see it...

Score: 0

By athome

edited Feb 27, 2006 - 7:31 AM

Wrong!

They are after the loss that continues to grow each year due to these sites. If they shut them down, you are either going to have to buy the movie, rent the movie, or go to the movie. That is the revenue they are seeking - which is rightfully theirs. If you don't like the movie, you wouldn't download it anyway and therefore no point in your argument.

Downloading is one of the reasons for the increase in price - same with music. If you really want to hurt them, then don't buy or download and stop those that do download. We will all win in the end. It is a stupid argument to say that those that are downloading the music or movie would never have gone to the movie anyway! The internet has only made it easy to become a theif and see a movie that you have doubts about or too cheap to go to the movies. If you don't like the cost of the movies at the theaters, you can always wait to rent - and that is extremely cheap today by any theif's standards in today's technological world.

Score: 0

By PAvery

edited Sep 18, 2006 - 11:30 AM

AtHome confess your RIAA affiliations, & that other lackey whatsisname.. All you idiots use the same tacky propaganda catch words and phrases. Sharing a file has nothing to do with stealing, but you just don't get it. You just keep pushing your mindless BS hoping to eventually brainwash at least some, and to make honest people feel guilty. We all know who the real criminals and thugs are. It's a pity life is just a big bowl of deception to you isn't it? But that's showbiz, an act; pretending to be something you're not. Like children at play, you never grow up. You will never win the war despite your illegitimately obtained wealth. The world will have ended first, and how will your billions save you, and who will get it, and will it be worth anything then? How do you sleep worrying about all your assets? I have little but sleep fine, without pills. My conscience is not bothered one bit by file sharing. Never has been, and neither am I dishonest. When you reduce the price of media to reasonable amounts, people will consider that alternative, otherwise they will do what is most resourceful, not what is "cheap", like you, you cheap hood.

Score: 0

By uberfly

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 2:53 PM

athome is right. People will make a million excuses why what they're doing is ok, but when you call them theives they squirm and squeal and spit venom at you. The truth hurts. I've downloaded a movie or two, but there's no getting around what's really going on as you do it. Ppl - face reality for once. If the copyright holders want to fight back, good for them I say.

Score: 0

By aredo

edited Feb 27, 2006 - 11:08 AM

Don't make me laugh, really. Either you work in the entertainment industry someway or you are quite naive, indeed.
Over 10 years ago when there was a huge strike to shut down BBS Warez where there were people making a profit out of trading along with the majority earning nothing out of it, at least 5 to 6 years passed without Internet being widespread at all, very few users compared to today and sharing/trading of software (video and music weren't shared at the time, computers were still not enough powerful for many Codecs and some didn't exist yet or were only for professional use and high end machines) was claimed to be the reason why prices were high. MPAA,RIAA,BSA and the like were claiming that after the strikes prices would have fallen ... the truth is that they kept raising, products getting more and more expensive, while hardware got cheaper and cheaper. The fact is, R&D to manufacture hardware products it's far higher than that needed for software, music and movies , yet the software costs hundreds more than the hardware. If it was for those at MPAA,RIAA and BSA a PC nowaday should cost $10,000 or more.

Score: 0

By athome

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 1:27 PM

You are just too cheap and think that everything should be around 50 cents or free. You are probably pro Unix and hate MS. For it is people like you that just don't get it. This lends me to believe that you are not a business owner, but just a lemming working for the man. It is their product and they, as well as the artist. A lot goes into the music and movie that you just don't see. If you don't like the movie, don't go - simple as that. Stealing only will drive the prices up.

Internet stealing is out of control due to broadband, and the ability to surf and download anonymously is becoming ever more the norm. It is only when they are able to stop individuals from doing so, by software or courts will people change their tune. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, but you are part of the problem and not the solution. You have a choice which will ultimately have consequences - either good or bad. You take the gamble, but don't lay the load of BS that you are putting on us.

Score: 0

By pjlasl

posted Feb 26, 2006 - 4:52 PM

i think the people at torrentspy are p/o...they have thousands of movies and music in their index ... hehe

Score: 0

By wav

posted Feb 26, 2006 - 12:33 PM

So who is going to sue google, msn, yahoo, and all the other large and powerful search engines for supplying search results to website that provide cracks/cd-keys/patches in effort to unlock and register copywritten software illegally?

Score: 0

By Scary Guy

posted Feb 25, 2006 - 6:00 PM

Oh I can't wait to read what the MPAA sends off to the bay

http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php

It's some comedy gold right there.

Score: 0

By lokanetra

posted Feb 25, 2006 - 4:57 PM

To coin a phrase:

"The more they tighten their grip, the more users will slip through their fingers"

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Feb 26, 2006 - 4:26 AM

A play on a star wars line, I see

Score: 0

By roj

edited Feb 25, 2006 - 3:13 PM

OK, a couple of points.

The below was raised on another site:

"OK, someone please explain to me how the MPAA can tell who has *downloaded/leeched* anything from the usenet? Unless they can subpoena the server logs to see who connected to it and what was transferred?"

1) They can't and 2) they can't.

There is no way to track Usenet use externally and anyone attempting to do so must obtain provider records. Even then, it's extremely unlikely that provider records are detailed enough to enable the fine details necessary for prosecution ("can you prove person X downloaded a given file from your server?" "no - I can only tell that IP address X connected to the server at such and such a date and time" "so there's no non-repudiation?" "no" "oh well - case dismissed").

2) Privacy laws prohibit access to said records (at least in civilized countries like Canada)

Even in less privacy conscious countries such as the U.S., the same laws that prevent a telco from being liable for drug deal conversations made using its infrastructure prevent a provider from being liable for any content downloaded using it. This also applies to Usenet carriers.

And of course there's always providers based in France or any similarly enlightened country - the Internet knows no boundries.

One more thing:

On a paid Usenet service, it can be proven that accound X connected to the server at such and such a time - but not what said user downloaded. The logs required to track usage of that nature would be Biblical in size. So again, no non-repudiation. Furthermore, it cannot be proven who specifically was at the other end of the wire, especially if the entity at the other end of the wire was *a firewalled home network*.

So no, it's not over for Uenet and never will be.

Oh, and of course, we all know the $1.9 Billion is just a blatant lie - they might have saved some money if they hadn't paid that overrated twit Tom Cruise his uber-inflated salary to star in that overpriced bomb "War Of The Worlds". I think that accounts for a half billion right there, no?

Now I'm off to a week in sunny Jamaica to escape Canada's one and only drawback:

Winter.

Score: 0

By athome

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 7:38 AM

Question - I am not a big network guy so...

IP addresses are unique, right? Then, you can locate geographical regions and locations it was used?

Mac addresses are unique, right? Most hidden behind Cable modems and firewalls, but none the less traceable with good software?

Don't servers/ISP keep logs as to which IP was given to which Mac and kept for a period of time?

Score: 0

By eXterm

edited Feb 27, 2006 - 9:26 AM

IP address are unique but the can be spoofed.
MAC addresses "should" be unique but aren't always I have seen cheap vendors use the same or stolen MAC's. Additionaly MAC adds can also be spoofed and they rarely are broadcast a router/vlan/broadcast domain. Some ISPs use MAC addresses to control things like Cable modems. But many DSL conenctions use PPOE and therefore aren't locked to a MAC. So unless you are digitaly signing your connection protocols, then even these logs are refutable and who knows perhaps I or someone hacked your ISP and changed the logs to my neighbors because I don't like them as most are just text files for syslog servers and the like.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 26, 2006 - 12:36 PM

I agree with you 100%.

Winter sucks. ;P

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 26, 2006 - 3:19 PM

Huh? Oh, you must live up north. heh

It's been 80 all week here. ;-)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 26, 2006 - 5:46 PM

Cough blood and die. (no offense, of course.) ;P

Score: 0

By fewt

edited Feb 27, 2006 - 8:18 AM

I was in my shorts cleaning out the garage yesterday when a cold front came out of no where. I think it got down to 65 before I got the garage door closed.

I blame you.

heh

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 8:52 AM

You're welcome.

Score: 0

By vbatech

posted Feb 25, 2006 - 2:40 PM

Here's a scary thought. What if they start suing Usenet index sites? Some sites charge for their content and if they sue for the users identity, some people could get caught. Just like the RIAA getting IP addresses from providers, they can track you this way too.

Supernews, easynews, giganews .. they could all be targets. And if they keep any logs, watch out. You could potentially get sued years later for some stupid prog you downloaded today. Especially if you pay for your usenet access.

And just because the server is hosted outside the USA, doesn't mean they can't have cooperation from the local authorities and bust them that way. Just search for "Warez Raid" in google news and you'll see what I mean.

http://biz.gamedaily.com...ustry/feature/?id=11781

Here is a quote from the article:

"On the home front, thanks to the federal law enforcement undercover investigation "Operation Jolly Roger"—a Chicago-based operation of the 2005 U.S. Department of Justice anti-piracy initiative, code-named "Operation Site Down"—a Chicago federal grand jury recently indicted nineteen members of the international piracy warez group "RISCISO."

Each of the defendants were charged with one count of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, and fifteen were charged with a second count of copyright infringement. Seventeen of the defendants reside throughout the U.S., with the other two residing in Australia and Barbados.

I know what you'll say, "that was a major pirating group, they won't sue individual downloaders". Yeah right, and the RIAA won't sue someone for downloading ONE song from Kazaa. Oh, wait, yes they will. With all the focus on piracy nowdays, what makes you think foreign governments WON’T cooperate in busting up a major source of copyrighted material?

I don't see Usenet going away, but I do think Usenet providers will be FORCED to drop the big binary groups at some point or face litigation.

bas****S! I knew it had to end someday.

Score: 0

By Paul Lush

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 6:50 AM

We will just see more and more usenet servers hosted out of non-American lag-dog countries like Russia, China and Algeria

Score: 0

By athome

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 7:42 AM

funny you say China

1st isn't Google now the search engine of choice, and
2nd they index everything including what is on your PC and not just what you search, but now the have all of China

You still think you are safe?

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Feb 25, 2006 - 12:45 PM

Reason the Movie Industry Is Losing Money is Precious Gems like this... http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/bigmommashouse2/

Score: 0

By slaesche

posted Feb 25, 2006 - 10:18 AM

The MPAA should sue themselves for representing the motion picture companies that make the movies in the first place. If they didn't exist, there would be nothing to be pirated in the first place. In my mind, they're facilitating piracy.

Score: 0

By some guy

posted Feb 25, 2006 - 9:27 AM

Does this mean they can sue google-yahoo-excite-msn ?
they are all search engines that can locate a torrent file.
2nd isn't China the biggest Pirate in the world?
I think I would start thier.

Score: 0

By athome

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 7:44 AM

now you are beginning to see the bigger picture.

Score: 0

By parden

edited Feb 25, 2006 - 7:54 AM

This is THEFT no matter how one looks at it. Would these same people like those in the Movie Industry tocome in and steal their livelyhood.
Would they steal the DVD player they play it on. No difference.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Feb 26, 2006 - 12:35 PM

livelyhood?

Yeah, we'd *so* be hurting poor old Time Warner's bottom line.

Their profits are in the billions. What do they do to earn that? When was the last time *you* made money on something you "licensed" 30 years ago?

Keep in mind, they don't make the movies, they don't act in them, they don't provide anything but funding....but yet after all the actors, producers, and stage-hands are paid, they get *all* the money (royalities are paid out of this, but it does not even come *close* to affecting their bottom line).

Downloading movies does not affect the actors, producers, or stage employees in the slightest.

This is their biggest lie yet, and most of you are falling for it.

Score: 0

By athome

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 7:48 AM

So, because they make billions rather than thousand like you it is OK to steal?

And the fact that they footed the bill to produce something years ago, that is still valuable today that people want is bad and they should get money for it?

Downloading does hurt them as you are hurting their royalties that would be received from the next generation of viewers.

I can't believe you are even saying that.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 8:58 AM

"So, because they make billions rather than thousand like you it is OK to steal?"

Got nothing to do with me. I don't do it. :) I'm just sayin'.

"And the fact that they footed the bill to produce something years ago, that is still valuable today that people want is bad and they should get money for it?"

Nothing should go more than 20 years before entering the public domain. Nothing. I don't care how popular it is.

"Downloading does hurt them as you are hurting their royalties that would be received from the next generation of viewers."

Who's them? Time Warner? Couldn't give a rats a** about 'em. Not going to feel one bit sorry for their great loss.

The Artists? Hardly. This does not affect their royalty payments at all, the label pays them regardless.

"I can't believe you are even saying that."

Yeah, life is like that...full of suprises. ;P

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

edited Feb 27, 2006 - 1:27 AM

Bittorrent sites aren't illegal, so there is no crime involved... the MPAA crap can't act if theres no law broken...

Torrentspy complies fully witht he DMCA

"Keep in mind, they don't make the movies, they don't act in them, they don't provide anything but funding....but yet after all the actors, producers, and stage-hands are paid, they get *all* the money (royalities are paid out of this, but it does not even come *close* to affecting their bottom line)."
This is Microsoft's biggest defense too... Point is... I don't see Microsoft or Time Warner going broke over a few lost sales.

Score: 0

By roj

posted Feb 25, 2006 - 6:02 PM

$30 for a DVD - THAT is theft. $100 for a night at the movies for a family of five - THAT is theft. If they want to reduce piracy, I'd suggest they start catering to their customers instead of Ripping Them Off.

In light of that, you'll excuse me if I laugh at the mucky self-righteous morals and say "sweets for the sweet".

Score: 0

By gedazx

posted Feb 25, 2006 - 4:46 AM

I would like to see, how they, for example, sue networks in Russia... :)

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 9:48 PM

Talk about life imitating art. This whole discussion falls right into the plot outline for Team America. I'm waiting for someone to start claiming they will use their "acting powers" to save the world and end hunger. Durka Durka!

Score: 0

By Tw!sT-DeaD

edited Feb 24, 2006 - 10:42 PM

We already do " ds0934 " Big Arnie The Terrminator

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 7:31 PM

If MPAA,RIAA,BSA are going to start a war against Usenet news services worldwide then they will surely waste a lot of money because many of those got a very large business nowadays and can fight by paying as many expensive lawyers as needed, especially if they create a consortium to fight against the insane people at MPAA,RIAA and BSA that want to oblige every single citizen to buy expensive products and not own them since the license it's already no more than like renting the product instead of owning it.

If Usenet news services get cracked down and disappear then hardware sales will fall to the worst level ever. No more blank CDs, DVDs, DVD writers, HDUs and new hardware will be sold because the industry it's surely not going to start selling products at a fair and honest price which should be up to 20 times lower, like them majority of professional software that has no reason to cost more than a movie or a piece of hardware.

If hardware had to be priced as high as MPAA,RIAA and BSA want software and media contents to be at then a single CPU should cost around $50,000 at the very least.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Feb 25, 2006 - 2:11 AM

You're forgetting that SONY/BMG (Columbia Records/Columbia Pictures) is one of the biggest sellers of CD/DVD burners and blank discs. God only knows just how many illegal bootleg copies of music and films were made with SONY hardware.

Not one brain dead Amerikan politician questions this hypocrisy. Are the rest of the worlds governments this stupid? godd*** the Pusher.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 25, 2006 - 9:25 AM

Oh please. Like there are no legitimate uses for a blank CD. Give it up.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

edited Feb 27, 2006 - 5:55 AM

Morons cannot read! I said that RIAAA/MPAA member companies, have no godd***ed business selling the means to pirate their copyrighted materials to thieves, if they wanna 8i+ch about it.

Plextor, TDK, NEC etc are not owned by a movie studio or a damned RIAA member record company. Use their stuff to make your legal photo albums. Fools who use Dan Glickman's hardware are stupid.

Now you give it up, a$$hole...

Score: 0

By aredo

edited Feb 25, 2006 - 4:36 PM

They would sell 1% of what they sold so far and keep selling if there was no "piracy".
True piracy is when someone is selling a copy, but sharing for free being considered piracy it's a shame since the only truth is that it's what makes the IT market a success.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Feb 26, 2006 - 9:07 PM

And...

You are an apparently mathmatically challenged.

1%??

So what, the 3% of the global population that pirates illegal software/music/movies buys 99% of recordable media?

Give me a break.

Backing up the computer, making MP3 CDs out of CD's I own so I can listen to more than one album without swapping CDs, or...god forbid, not have to listen to *all* of the songs on a CD I like one or two songs on, stripping the extras and warnings from DVDs I own and putting multiple "Barney" DVD's on one for my Daughter...

All legitimate uses, all legal (for now), all require recordable media...

I do each and every one of the above.

I am *not* a pirate (though I have been known to wear an eye-patch and holler 'Yeeeeaaarrrggh!!" on occaision).

Get a clue. Thanks.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 10:03 PM

Funny how those idiots despise the very technology that grew their wealth and prominance.

Score: 0

By Secret Agent Man

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 6:52 PM

The MPAA claims the movie industry lost $1.9 billion in 2005 due to Internet piracy.

Can't blame the general loss of quality of the movie industry, no sir. It must be someone else's fault.

Score: 0

By Skizelli

posted Feb 25, 2006 - 4:17 AM

Yeah, boohoo. Like anybody wants to pay $10 per ticket to see a s***ty movie.

Score: 0

By athome

edited Feb 27, 2006 - 8:21 AM

Then why are they downloading it? Because they just didn't want to spend their cheap-### money on the flick to begin with.

If you don't like the movie, because you think it is s***ty, then there would be no reason to download. It is just stealing with a cover of a cheap personality. The same person complains that the cost of music is too high and the RIAA makes enough money already, so it is OK to steal it for free from the Internet.

OH, and Yeah, it isn't stealing or piracy because I didn't pay for it.

You know, alot of people complain about the high prices and are the same ones that have high end equipment to steal the movies and music. They have their cable modemes and T1-3 lines coming into their homes. They have Plasma TV's and high end players/recorders. All the digital channels for their sports or movies, and the car that is equipped with expensive sound systems, rims, wheels, and lights.

To me, it is all about being self-centered and the anonymous downloading/surfing habits that are the draw. It isn't about the money per say, but the image people are trying to maintain.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 9:01 AM

"To me, it is all about being self-centered and the anonymous downloading/surfing habits that are the draw. It isn't about the money per say, but the image people are trying to maintain."

Sorry, that was too good.

I agree that excuses are just that, but the image thing?

Anonymous downloading to maintain an image....it's anonymous, right? :P

Just sayin'.

Score: 0

By athome

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 1:32 PM

I was referring to them spending their money on other things(car, stereo, etc) rather than the cost of the music or DVD. Trying to keep up with the joneses. The Internet has made it easier to do those things you would not have done previously. You wouldn't go into a store and steal the CD from the shelf would you? I think not. It is the same thing though.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

edited Feb 25, 2006 - 2:20 AM

Hey they lose money; when retail stores buy, sell and trade used merchandise. My local video chain store sells their rentals after people stop asking for them. Three flicks on DVD for 25 bucks US every week. They have several large racks full of them. Just weeks ago those same films sold new for about 25 bucks each.

Simple math says that they MPAA's profits are down. An idiot blames this on file sharing; which is nothing compared to the massive volume of used releases in national chain stores...

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Feb 25, 2006 - 1:20 PM

For renting those movies you paid more money to MPAA in the first place, so their profits are up since they are the one telling multinationals to keep way higher prices on copies meant for renting (which usually are the same retail product anyway).

Score: 0

By PC Rat

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 6:19 PM

...

File-sharers continue to be sought out ...regardless of where they hide... and brought to justice.

Bottom line on all this: 'Crime ~doesn't~ pay !'.

Let's get people who download movies without paying off the streets, and renditioned to nameless foreign countries which claim they don't torture prisoners.
...

The Computer Rodent

...

Score: 0

By roj

edited Feb 25, 2006 - 6:14 PM

File sharing isn't illegal - sharing copyrighted material may be. The definition of what constitues coopyrighted material varies from country to country. Fortunately, some countries are actually more enlightned in that department than Oceana, er, the U.S. (aside: I wonder if he's intelligent enough to understand the inference... probably not).

Flight time is now HOURS away!!!! I can FEEL the sun already!

Score: 0

By athome

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 8:28 AM

Oh, please roj! No one says that file-sharing isn't legal, but the context in which they are file-sharing is. The sharing of copyrighted material with or without monetary gain is illegal and I know that you know that.

Look at any P2P program's license agreement and you will see that statement made very clear. Though they know that is the main reason why someone would use their product, they say the program wasn't developed for it.

Sorry, it is, and only reasonable for the RIAA/MPAA to go after them for making it easier to access and atain that content. If it were your program or music they were stealing, you would have a different opinion. All countries do recognize the urgency to protect such content and have laws in place - though their pockets are not hurt at this point to make any changes in their policy. That wave of ignorance is changing.

Score: 0

By eXterm

posted Feb 28, 2006 - 8:29 AM

i use bit torrent for World of Warcraft updates, www.onlinetvrecorder.com files and large linux isos and a few other legal means but not for downloading illegal stuff not as if anyone cares heh

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 9:05 AM

"and only reasonable for the RIAA/MPAA to go after them for making it easier to access and atain that content."

Come on... If I made a program to share files with my friends and it became insanely popular for reasons other than my original intent I should stop improving it?

Why are we so concentrated on going after these sites? Why aren't they going after, say... the groups themselves? (LOL, Deviance, Fairlight, etc...)

Wouldn't that, ya know....actually make sense?

Score: 0

By athome

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 1:35 PM

They are making them for the purpose of downloading mp3s and DVDs. come on! We both know that. The orginal concept wasn't even considering music or movies, but the Internet broadband and P2P programs are making it a lot easier. P2Ps main purpose is movies, pics, and music today.

I don't want them to throw away the programs in what they were intended to do, but they could be tailored to not see these file types altogether.

Score: 0

By joesnow

edited Feb 24, 2006 - 8:26 PM

why don't you go be the MPAA's PR?
I hear they're hiring.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 3:19 PM

Next up. Sue anyone, entities or gov't that has a download speed greater than 28.8 kpbs. This will stop 99.9% potential illegal download.

Score: 0

By athome

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 8:29 AM

Yeah, and after an hour you will automatically be disconnected from the ISP to further thwart the efforts.

I would hate that!

Score: 0

By jshurst

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 3:14 PM

How about just stop paying actors and actresess so much. Don't get me wrong I don't download movies, but what they get paid is crazy. Is it really that hard of a job?

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 9:44 PM

Holy cow! Talk about a digression from the source topic! A few more posts and we'll be arguing world politics and global warming.

As far as actors being paid too much: We control that. Vote with your dollar. If you feel they're overpaid, DON'T PAY FOR THE MOVIE.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 6:31 PM

THEY aren't paying, YOU and I are paying them.

These huge companies make billions from movies. Think about it, there are 10,000 theaters across this nation. Even if a movie only does OK, that's 30-40 million opening weekend. Over a period of a month a little more, a movie can make over 100 million. Multiply that times hundreds of movies a year, and you have a multi-billion dollar company.

Actors/Actresses are getting a percentage. Not up front, but they have a proven track record. There are ONLY a handful of actors/actresses that even make millions per movie, Pierce Brosnan, Bruce Willis, Samuel Jackson, Gena Davis, Drew Barrymore, Julia Roberts, Cameron Diaz, and some others..

I think there are probably less than 50 that make 2 million plus a picture, because when you put their name on the marque that movie will INSTANTLY make 30 milllion, or so, just by the actors alone, not all the time, but usually, that's why you pay them big bucks in the first place, to get the attention.

So it works out to be a percentage of the draw. You can't simply punish them for doing their job.

Is it really that hard of a job.. hmm. I can tell you have NO show business experience, so I will break it down.

Ever tried out for acting in your school? Can you memorize a entire poem and make it convincing to an audience? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't be asking this question.

All you see, is some man or woman on the screen for a couple of hours, and they put on a few costume changes, and wham.. 10 million dollars.

Well, you DON'T see months of preparation, 12-18 hours a day, 7 days a week of rehearsing, practice, costume design, stunts, shooting, change sets, doing scenes hundreds of times until they get it right.

Truth be told, even if you got the job as an actor RIGHT NOW you would suck. Period. You simply lack the talent and time it takes to be that good, and yes they are *THAT* good.

So you can pretend to believe you can do their job and believe that its soooo easy, but you are WAY wrong. There are hundreds of thousands of people that compete just to get an acting job for a few hundred dollars a week, so don't think for one minute acting is simple, because its not.

Those people EARN their money, if you don't think so, I DARE you to apply, and you will be laughed off the stage, you will see just how hard it IS.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 9:46 PM

Don't even try to argue the diffulty or complexity of acting as a basis for their net worth. That argument is stupid and doesn't work for anything. In mathematical terms it's a false axiom. I could argue that many industrial jobs are far more difficult to learn and continue doing. That doesn't seem to garner the same valuation in your view. Bad reasoning makes bad decisions.

Score: 0

By athome

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 8:33 AM

I don't see your reasoning. You don't think that people should or could be paid differently based on their specific gifts or abilities?

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 6:04 PM

In a free market they get paid roughly what they are worth (or else they'll choose to star in the competitor's movie that year, or not work at all, and the cheap movie studio lost some cash on a would-be blockbuster).

Being a successful actor is like winning the lottery. You could be a great looking guy with lots of acting talent who does everything just right and never make it to Hollywood. Competition is just too tough and many "unfair" variables come into play.

What I dislike about actors is their arrogance. Like Bruce Willis once complained that he gave X millions dollars in tax money to the government that year, as if he's doing us a favor. He feels he's inreplaceable in the market. Trust me, Bruce Willis is not someone who if was not born any of us would notice. His contribution to mankind is not unique and there are thousands of actors who probably could do even a better job than him if they "got discovered" first, or plainly given a chance to shine...

They're MOSTLY lucky folks, like many other OVERLY successful people.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 6:40 PM

Lucky? Yeah its lucky they started when they were 4 and beat out everyone else in their class to achieve recognition. Its lucky that they continue to achieve above everyone else in a world where, like american idol, they compete against thousands upon thousands every year, and still every year they are stand outs.

you know what's lucky? Is that YOU have a job. That's lucky. For a very few, they EARN it, for you, you are fortunate that McDonalds was hiring that day.

I can tell by the tone of your message, you don't have much ambition, and that's everyones problem, you want to be GIVEN what they WORK for. You want a million dollars, go out and PROVE you are worthy. The only thing that will eventually happen to you is, you MIGHT get a raise, then you will be lucky. Lucky enough to keep your job.

Score: 0

By extremely well

edited Feb 24, 2006 - 10:19 PM

LOL

Lemme cook a hamburger for ya, my malnutritioned friend... ;)

[...feeding the troll...]

Score: 0

By 11001001

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 3:51 PM

My mother has brought up a good point: People should be paid according to how their jobs benefit society. Your neighborhood garbage man would have a wonderful salary, because of the job he does. Actors and acresses just...act. Acting doesn't unclog my sink, nor does it deliver my mail.

Score: 0

By ehn

edited Feb 25, 2006 - 2:32 AM

Acting may not unclog your sink, nor will it deliver your mail, but I am convinced that the garbage man is not going to help you in those matters either.

What society of antiquity have you studied, and have not studied art along with it?

There are immediate duties that need to be done in order for a society to function, but it is art that gives society its character, and it is art that outlives it.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 6:35 PM

Your mother thinks like so many other people that have no concept of success. Its jealousy. That's all it is. Envious behaviour.

Oh yeah, sure, people will say I don't need that much money, why is that? Because they will NEVER get to that point, so of course its easy to pretend to be happy with what we have.

You mother probably only aspires to be a stay at home mom, and probably doesn't have much ambition, other than to "see her children grow up strong and well".

that's great. Everyone has their place, but don't belittle the actors/actresses for getting paid to do something VERY VERY few have the talent for.

Score: 0

By rustik_one

edited Feb 24, 2006 - 9:09 PM

This person's mom may have a good point, if you stop passing your judgements and superimposing whatever passes for your value system on someone that feels differently than you, and consider her point of view:

Some people simply aren't big on movies and television, others could care less about the Top 40 Pop Charts... especially people that have lived the majority of their lives in earlier eras, or rural/agricultural communities, where day-to-day life was/is far less physically sedentary and far more time and energy consuming.

It's also possible, however unlikely you deem it, that people CAN be truly comfortable, and yes, even happy, without an over-abundance of material posessions, or global recognition, or monetary wealth. Some people gage success in other ways. They feel no need to "pretend to be happy," because they are happy. For them, winning the battle for survival for themselves and their offspring, and achieving more modest levels of comfort (the goal for which most mammalian life strives) - is all they need to fulfill themselves. Oh, and then there's that whole post-manual labor euphoria, involving sweat and physical accomplishment. But I detect from your opulant tone an extreme disdain for that, so let's at least hope you visit a gym regularly.

You, on the other hand, seem to draw at least a portion of your satisfaction from electronically recusing others, and imposing your views upon them (and us) through the jaded lense of your own ill-formed and contemptuous ideals. I hope anonymously belittling someone else, (and their mother), has in some way made your day a little brighter... It has mine, because once more I get to chuckle at someone like I would a mistaken child, whose world view is defined by what they're without, and not by what is within.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Feb 27, 2006 - 12:33 PM

as the unintelligent masses of quasi-nerds say "0wn3d!"

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 3:55 PM

Actors and actresses provide entertainment, which you may not think is a critical part of life but I'd like to see your hapiness level with only the "essentials"...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 6:04 PM

Bah!

Happiness is fleeting. Greed, Gluttony, and Lust are the only real, lasting pleasures.

If it were otherwise, do you think the world would be in the condition it is now?

[/sarcasm...kinda]

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 6:42 PM

you forgot wraith, envy, pride and sloth.

7 deadlies...

Happiness is what you make of it. If you are not happy, then you won't be.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 26, 2006 - 5:52 PM

Wait..wraith?

What?

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 9:25 PM

And hope.

Never forget hope.

'Tis nothing but the denial of reality.

Score: 0

By ds0934

edited Feb 24, 2006 - 3:14 PM

The $ USD losses claimed are estimates based on adjusted ticket sales (inflationary) multiplied by the "estimated" download traffic volume per given period (funny, they don't state a specific period, must be Enron accountants they have).

Ok, so even if you flip the coin and look at the media reported gross earnings per movie release, that's NEVER adjusted by inflation, so the "blockbuster record-breaking" sales of today are usually not even close to the same in terms of ticket volume 20 yrs ago. The movie industry is suffering badly of their own doing. Not piracy. Piracy is just a scapegoat.

I still haven't seen any Jerry Lewis telethon's to help save the poor, starving actors.

Score: 0

By eXterm

posted Feb 28, 2006 - 8:35 AM

yep and statistics can be used to prove almost anything.. btw most large film companies hedge thier films with insurance incase they dont sale what they expected to sale... so it isn't even a "loss" persay its just less profit

at least they are making a profit still how many companies out there are not..... and yet they complain ahahah

Score: 0

By grivad

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 11:13 PM

I wish I could find the article, but I read one once regarding how they estimate these losses and how they arrived at the loss in record sales for 2004 or something like that.

The RIAA lumped in to the sum the decrease in sales of singles, which was substantial. What they failed to mention when they came up with this magical number, though, was that record companies have been manufacturing less singles, and that single sales have shifted towards legal pay-per-track (iTunes, Napster) download services.

Essentially, they lower production and opt for legal online distribution, which results in lower single sales by their own doing. However, they tell everyone that the drop in single sales is due solely to piracy in an attempt to justify their marauding lawsuits.

What they also don't mention is that although single sales have dropped, album sales have INCREASED, and are actually at an all-time high and have been steadily increasing. All these numbers of "losses due to piracy" are based on single sales, which is their own doing (as described above).

In some cases, what the MPAA and RIAA do is justified.. but their inane greed and propaganda like this really make me have absolutely no respect for them and what they're doing.

Score: 0

By plumlipstick

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 2:19 PM

I wonder how they arrived at this number. How can they claim a loss with such a nice, impressive number and then turn around an report record-breaking revenues for some of the 2005 movie offerings? Are they assuming that they lost this much money because sales didn't hit their projections, or do they actually have data to prove such a big loss? I ask these questions because Hollywood is famous for bantering about impressive numbers without being able to provide hard data to back up the claims. The RIAA is using the same strategy, and I have yet to find anyone who will give me a reason for these numbers beyond the standard press release. Since lawmakers and other people continue to accept these numbers as fact rather than guesses, the string of lawsuits will continue.

Score: 0

By ThaCHEESE

edited Feb 24, 2006 - 4:54 PM

i work for a theatre, and have for quite a while, it is true that attendance has dropped a lot for the past few years. i would honestly attribute much of this to s***ty movies, but not completely as there are plenty of crappy flicks that make good money. what you may not realize is how much money they make from adveretising while you are there. i'm sure those numbers are overexagerated, but i'm also sure someone or a team of people spends a lot of time studing trends in the business, and profitability. most businesses have and will increase sales every year, not decrease as i have seen 1st hand. also a part of why they rely on adveretising, and increase prices.

Score: 0

By Kompressor

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 2:06 PM

Perhaps they'll sue Google next, and the U.S. government. And maybe even Al Gore for inventing the Internet in the first place.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 2:26 PM

And maybe even Al Gore for inventing the Internet in the first place.

Please, for whatever you hold holy's sake, can we officially pronounce this joke dead?

Really, I'm begging here. It's just so darn not funny anymore.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 3:00 PM

Yeah, we have a couple of people where I work, they contanstly bring up this fact, and I am tired of it myself. I try not to even mention the word "internet" for fear it may "trigger" an Al Gore outburst.

I feel your pain, it was funny for a small chuckle immediately following his quip, but like you said, its so damn not funny anymore.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 6:03 PM

Is it you or me? Something is seriously wrong with one of us if we're agreeing on something.

Time to get my head checked. ;)

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 6:42 PM

Hey! just what are you implying?

-snicker-

Score: 0

By Natrunner

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 1:26 PM

Up next, suing those that think about providing links and those that have heard about others thinking of providing links. Also, those that have family and friends that have provided links or thought about doing it. When will it ever end?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Feb 24, 2006 - 1:04 PM

The suits mark the first time the MPAA has gone after Usenet, which has largely been spared in the crackdown on illicit file sharing.

No.

They are still going after websites. They have yet to touch the actual USENET. Likely due to the fact that 90% of the major USENET hosts are either out of the country, or large enough and profitable enough to foot the bill for a nice legal defence.

They have yet to target an actual USENET host. Until this happens (and I am sure it will), the usenet is safe.

Right now, they're still only targeting the web.

lemme put it this way:

I use the USENET daily, quite heavily. This does not affect me, or any groups on the usenet. It affects search-sites on the web only.

This is exactly like their attacks on Suprnova. they are attacking the sites that lend themselves to misuse of the network, not the network itself.

I just hope to God they don't go after the hosts eventually.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Feb 24, 2006 - 6:44 PM

I disagree.. there, your head is fine.

Happy now? Oh wait, if only for a moment.. because happiness is fleeting..