Posted: Desember 3rd, 2009 | Author: earlhardy1986 | Filed under: Tech | Tags: civil liberties, content acta, copyright infringement, disconnection, disquiet, freedom of expression, g8 nations, global trade rules, internet service providers, new scientist, non disclosure agreements, obama, privacy invasion, record labels, sleuths, talktalk, thicket, trade delegations, western democracy, wikileaks | No Comments »
Continue reading page
|1 |2
“THIS is the kind of snooping you'd expect in China, not a modern western democracy. It raises huge questions over privacy invasion and freedom of expression.” So says Andrew Heaney – who is not, as you might imagine, a civil liberties campaigner, but a senior executive at TalkTalk, one of the UK's largest internet service providers. Along with other ISPs, his company faces the prospect of being forced to spy on its customers' downloads for signs of potential copyright infringement.
Heaney's disquiet is shared by web campaigners worldwide, as the measures contained in a controversial international copyright treaty (New Scientist, 5 July 2008, p 24) are slowly being translated into national laws variously tipped to bridge, distract from or widen the gulf between the entertainment industry's desires and those of the millions who share copyrighted material over the internet.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), suggested by the US administration in 2007, aims to redefine global trade rules. The intention is to stem losses from counterfeiting and internet-mediated piracy of content like music and movies.
It will do that by penalising internet service providers and websites that carry, or help people to find, pirated content. ACTA has quickly proved a hit with G8 nations, the European Union, South Korea and Australia, who are all using it as a basis for future national laws.
ACTA is still being worked up in secret by trade delegations from the many nations involved. But a series of leaks to the Wikileaks website reveal that it will require ISPs to become technological sleuths who monitor their customers' internet use to “deter unauthorised storage and transmission of infringing content”. Infringers will face a “graduated response”, with disconnection as the ultimate sanction.
The Obama administration's plans to implement ACTA are still hidden in a thicket of non-disclosure agreements with movie studios and record labels. The UK's Digital Economy Bill, unveiled in last month, is clearly inspired by ACTA.
The bill stipulates that people who share copyright-infringing content should receive two warnings by post, after which they will face punitive “technical measures”. These may include having their internet connection filtered to block attempts to download copyrighted material, “throttled” to slow downloads to a crawl, or even cut off entirely. Spain, Ireland and France have similar plans.
ISPs are wary of being seen to invade customers' privacy by sifting through their personal data – and of the potential costs involved – though Nicholas Lansman, head of the European ISP Association, insists that they oppose illicit file sharing.
“Monitoring every single packet going across our network for the fingerprints of hundreds of copyrighted files will require tens of millions of pounds' worth of computer systems,” Heaney warns. Without that extra computing power, internet access will slow to a crawl.
ISPs would have to scan the contents of every chunk of data, using what is known as “deep packet inspection” technology, which is used by China and Iran to monitor and censor internet communications. But even if ISPs install such technology, identifying infringers will be far from straightforward. The EU has ruled that before anyone can be sent a warning letter, rights holders must take an ISP to court to get the name and address of an alleged culprit.
ISPs would have to scan every chunk of data with the sort of software now used by China and Iran
There is evidence that such threats will deter some people from illicitly sharing content (see “Copyright conundrum”). Others, though, will simply seek ways of carrying on regardless.
Freeloading on an unsuspecting neighbour's Wi-Fi connection is one option – and is possible even if the connection is secured. YouTube carries videos on how to use free software to “sniff” the passwords of protected connections. The ease with which people can “borrow” Wi-Fi in this way undermines the assumption that the owner of a connection can be blamed for everything downloaded by it. “The government knows there is a wireless hijacking risk but they haven't proposed a process by which people can be assumed innocent until proven guilty,” says Heaney.
The mobile broadband connections provided via cellphones or computer USB sticks offer another loophole to the disconnected. Mobile providers do not assign IP addresses to users as fixed line providers do, so it's not possible to track file sharing to individuals.
These problems are exacerbated by changes in sharing technology. BitTorrent, the most popular file-sharing protocol, used to depend on central websites to host “trackers” – small files that tell software where to find particular files. The Pirate Bay site in Sweden was the most popular tracker host, but it recently shut down after a refinement to the BitTorrent protocol allowed tracking tasks to be shared out among users.
With the disappearance of tracker hosts, ACTA has lost one of its main targets, although rights holders can still track alleged infringers, says Danny O'Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. Investigators can join a network and spy on its users from the inside, he says.
Is Ignoring RIAA Lawsuit Cheaper Than Going To Trial?
from the isn't-that-what-they-count-on? dept
A bunch of folks have been sending in Nate Anderson's article about how ignoring an RIAA lawsuit may be “cheaper” than going to trial. It makes for a nice storyline, but it's really not entirely accurate. It's based on the fact that Judge Gertner, who was the judge in the Joel Tenenbaum trial, just handed out some default judgments against people who never bothered to respond at all to an RIAA lawsuit over file sharing. In each case, Gertner chose the statutory minimum of $750 per song, much less than Jammie Thomas got in her two trials and Joel Tenenbaum received in his trial.
But, of course, these aren't apples-to-apples comparisons (not to mention that we're dealing with a classic “small sample size” problem). Specifically, the three trials involved a combination of poorly argued defenses that made the defendants look worse, combined with defendants themselves who both admitted to lying. And, add to that the fact that they're jury trials, where juries tend to give out larger awards than a judge does, and it's really not a huge surprise. If you had defendants who actually had a real case, combined with a defense team that actually argued the specific points, things might have been different. But, it looks like, with both Thomas and Tenenbaum, the goal was to create a bigger case that can get attention at higher levels to take on certain aspects of copyright law itself.
And, of course, as an addendum on the article notes, it's still probably cheaper to settle up in the first place, but that's exactly how the RIAA intends things to be. It's the same principle on which an extortion scam works: it's cheaper to pay up than to fight it. But, that doesn't mean it's right to just shut up and pay — especially if the accused is innocent. As much as the RIAA must love Anderson's article, because it encourages people not to fight its lawsuits, the reality is a lot more complicated.
10 Comments | Leave a Comment..
A Look At The RIAA's Copyright Propaganda For Schools
from the why-does-anyone-use-this-stuff? dept
It's back to school time, and our friends over at the RIAA have a blog post up excitedly talking up its special “curriculum” for teachers. But, of course, that “curriculum” is laughably biased and at times outright wrong. And it makes me wonder: why would any educational institution accept a one-sided curriculum written by the industry that's clearly designed to promote that industry's own business? Do schools use science curricula provided by Exxon or Monsanto? As for the actual content included in the curriculum (which, by the way, the RIAA links to incorrectly twice), it's almost a joke. Check out the RIAA propaganda. Fair use doesn't exist — at all. Reading through the main document, I find not a single mention of it. But what does exist is all sorts of bogeymen about how evil file sharing is, how it exposes your hard drive to viruses and reveals your tax return info.
Oh, but the best part, is that the RIAA is pushing for a new totally made up term called “songlifting” which is the central theme of every single lesson. Sounds like “shoplifting,” right? That's the idea — though the RIAA cleverly tries to pretend that it didn't make up the word. In fact, it presents it as if it's a common term. Of course, the curriculum doesn't happen to mention the Supreme Court's Dowling decision, where the court specifically talked about how very different infringement is from “stealing.” Of course, the RIAA also mentions the Grokster ruling — but is misleading there as well, claiming that the law is clear that parents could be found liable for their kids sharing unauthorized files.
The actual exercises are ridiculous propaganda. The first one is supposed to be about “math” skills for the lower grades and “spreadsheet” skills for higher level students. Guess what the “math” is?
This part of the activity should help students
recognize how songlifting, though it might seem
harmless at first, can quickly become a largescale
problem. Have students complete the calculations
on the worksheet using
spreadsheet software or a calculator.
If time permits, repeat the
first calculation by having students
choose a realistic number
of songs they would take if they
could get them all for free. Adding
desire to the equation in this way
can further dramatize why
songlifting can have an enormous
economic impact.
Answers
Total number of songs lifted
= 7,800,000;
Total cost
of songs lifted =
$7,722,000.
$926,640,000 (i.e., nearly
a billion dollars).
Hmm. If we're simply making stuff up for propaganda purposes, how about “total number of new listeners a musician gets thanks to such sharing?” And then “total amount those musicians make when those new fans go to concerts or purchase merchandise thanks to hearing the songs for free.” Might change the math a bit, but what do I know? I'm not an industry lobbyist, so my “industry” math isn't up to par.
Then there's propaganda about job losses:
Ask students to
name some people who might work in this
part of the music business (e.g., machine
operator, printer, packager, truck driver, store
manager, cashier, online order handler, etc.). Talk
about how these people might be affected by
songlifting, then have students work individually
or in small groups to list other music makers
unnamed in the story.
Ok. Why don't we talk about the jobs on the other side of the equation? How about all of the people employed by technology companies that the RIAA has helped put out of business through lawsuits? Or students that the RIAA has bankrupted via lawsuits? Have students put together a list of just how many lives and jobs the RIAA has destroyed. Point them to the story of MP3.com. And Napster. And Launchcast. And Grokster. Tell them how the RIAA tried to have the iPod (or, more accurately, its predecessor) banned, and have them think about how different life would be without it. Tell them how the RIAA is fighting hard to tax radio stations, putting so many radio people out of business. Tell them the story of the MIT student who the RIAA suggested drop out of school to pay a fine. Talk about how all of these people might be affected by the RIAA's overreaction to innovation and new technologies, and its own inability to embrace new business models. Then have students work individually or in small groups to list other tech companies making lives better that the RIAA has threatened, sued or put out of business.
Highlight the variety of career opportunities
available in the music industry by having
students research one behind-the-scenes
music maker and write a brief description of
that job.
Highlight the variety of career opportunities available in the tech industry thanks to new innovations that the RIAA has tried to kill. Then highlight the career opportunities in the music industry itself that have finally opened up now that the major labels are scrambling to learn technology.
Next, draw the copyright symbol (©) on the
chalkboard. Ask if students know what this
symbol means and where they might have seen
it (books, posters, CDs, etc.). Explain that the
copyright symbol is used to identify the owner
of a piece of intellectual property and serves
as a reminder that it is illegal for anyone to
copy or distribute that property without the
owner's permission.
Next, explain fair use, and how the above statement claiming that it's illegal for anyone to copy or distribute without the owner's permission is not necessarily true at all. Oh wait… that sentence isn't in there.
You might also
inform them that our nation's Founders included
copyright protection in the U.S. Constitution
(Article I, Section 8), believing that it would
encourage creativity by giving the creators of
intellectual property an exclusive right to profit
from their artistic talents.
You might also inform them that those Founders were highly cautious about this issue, and had stated their worries that these monopolies would do more harm than good, and that they should be greatly limited and monitored to avoid such harm. You might also want to point out that the RIAA seems to have forgotten the “limited time” part of this, but I guess you can be forgiven, since they (and their friends in the movie industry) have pretty much convinced Congress to ignore that part.
Then there's this fun list of “brainstorming ideas” with some responses/corrections/clarifications after each one:
- Songlifters take millions of dollars of
music each year.
Actually, file sharers don't “take” any money. This is a flat out lie.
- Songlifters hurt all kinds of music
makers, not just the stars.
Those who have embraced file sharing in combination with smart business models have found it works for all kinds of music makers, not just the stars.
- Songlifters keep new artists from getting
their chance at stardom.
Many up-and-coming artists are finding that giving away their music is a large part of how they build their fanbase and become stars.
- Songlifters are breaking the law.
In many cases, those who share unauthorized files may have violated copyright law, though it's a civil issue, not a criminal one.
- Songlifters can get other people in
trouble by sharing illegal music.
Because the RIAA isn't very good with data, it's been known to sue the wrong people
- Songlifters can get computer viruses
when they illegally download online.
Doing things online when not careful can result in getting viruses. That has nothing to do with file sharing. Careful users can avoid viruses.
- Songlifters don't respect other people's
intellectual property.
The RIAA doesn't respect fair use rights, the need for a lively and dynamic public domain or the right of technology companies to innovate.
The whole thing is pretty ridiculous frankly. It doesn't even make a half-hearted attempt at talking about the rights of everyone else or the actual purpose of copyright law. The whole thing is basically about brainwashing kids into accepting that the record labels' old business model must stay in place forever. Luckily, most kids are smarter than that and can see through such propaganda pretty quickly. However, if schools really are interested in educating kids about copyright, why not use a non-industry curriculum, like the one put together by the EFF, called Teaching Copyright.
71 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Digital hoarders and literary snobs
By
a TeleRead Contributor
Editor’s Note: the following is reprinted, with permission, from Eugene Woodbury’s blog. The image is from his blog and means, in Japanese, “hot air and bluster” or a “big wrapping cloth”. Paul Biba
Jane Friedman was CEO of HarperCollins Publishers Worldwide before becoming co-founder and CEO of Open Road Integrated Media, a new company that produces and market ebooks. She discusses the future of the ebook industry in this informative lecture and Q&A at NYU.
There’s little for me to disagree with, except I think it’s a mistake to try and compare the digital versions of anything with the “standalone” physical (paper) product. Though Friedman’s suggestion of a trade paperback pricing standard is more enlightened than treating ebooks as hardcovers.
And she says up front she’s open to changing her mind if market forces so dictate.
Compare an episode of House that you can watch for “free” on broadcast TV or Hulu. You can also rent it through Netflix for around $2.00. Or pay a ten dollar premium on top of that to own the DVD. Which lots of people do, even if they’ll never watch it enough times to amortize the cost.
Renting’s fine with me. Pretty much the only DVDs I buy are anime titles going out of print. The scarcity threat. I’m sure at the heart of this behavior is a primitive pack-rat mentality about hoarding and possessing. We happily pay a premium for “things.” Not data. Owning data is like owning smoke.
If the typical trade paperback price is $15.00, then minus the ten buck “hoarding” premium puts the price at $5.00, or more in line with mass market paperbacks, which are also not intended to be hoarded. And that’s non-DRM. There’s also the “sharing” premium enjoyed by books and CDs and DVDs.
My local library rents DVDs for a dollar. Books and CDs are “free” (beyond taxes, but you bought a TV to watch “free” TV). When I was growing up, any book in the house would be read by everybody in the house, and then often donated to the library to be read by hundreds more.
And when I was in college (during the late Bronze Age), there was always a kid in the dorm who had a nice stereo system, including a high-end turntable and tape deck. So if somebody you knew had an album you liked, you bought a cassette, borrowed the album and made your own mix tape.
I wonder how much of such “borrowing” goes on with physical books, CDs and DVDs, versus the typical Kindle owner or iTunes subscriber (with and without piracy factored in).
But the most brutal realization for publishers may be that digitization has shifted the value of status seeking and signaling from the content to the device. Your album collection doesn’t impress as much as your MP3 player. Your bookshelf doesn’t impress as much as your ebook reader.
Being infinitely reproducible at almost zero cost puts the value of hoarded digital content at close to zero. Digital pirates hoard so much because the added value of each file–both in real and psychological terms–is so low, and so they end up hoarding more than they could possible consume.
Content sharing and social networking software could address that. But making that work would require a significant rethinking of the bad unintended consequences of DRM and the good unintended consequences of technologies like text-to-speech when assessing what people are really paying for.
Even the diehards at the RIAA won’t deny that pretty much the whole point of a boombox is so that other people can hear what you are listening to.
For example, combine social DRM with managed file sharing. When enabled, anybody within WiFi or Bluetooth distance could preview your stored ebooks (or your marked selections). Free advertising for the publisher while broadcasting your literary tastes and marking your social status.
This suggests a value in backlists and “classics” other than reading. I can’t help rolling my eyes when people post those “favorites” lists invariably salted with the egghead titles everybody was supposed to read in college but never actually did. Or if they did, because they had to and never will again.
I cheerfully admit to being a cynical literary populist who puts a premium on “entertainment.” But perhaps ebook publishers should stop treating their readers solely as consumers, and rather as status-seeking snobs at a tony cocktail party, who want their purchases to say (in part), “Look at me!”
And at the other end of the social spectrum, as introverted otaku desperate for electronically extroverted ways of sharing their obsessions with other like-minded geeks. Not to mention all those writers with their interminable works-in-progress who could now show, not just tell!
Verizon has agreed to forward warning letters provided by the RIAA to targeted subscribers warning them of illegal activity. While far less than the three strikes policies advocated by some in the recording industry, the move marks a shift for Verizon who previously resisted requests from rights organizations.
"We recognize the importance of copyright and the need to enforce those copyrights," a Verizon spokesman told CNET. "Without that enforcement, intellectual property won't be generated at all. At the same time, it's important for our customers to be assured that they won't have their privacy rights trampled."
Almost a year ago the RIAA announced that it would stop suing illegal file sharers and work with ISPs to shut down the activity. But to date no U.S. ISP has agreed. The letters from Verizon are part of a test by the company expected to begin Thursday. Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman, confirmed the the test but declined to comment.
As regular readers on OSNews will know, I'm quite opposed to the concept of post-sale restrictions, but also the insane countermeasures undertaken by the film and music industry against individuals who illegally download content. The reason I'm so opposed to these things is not because I approve of the act of illegal downloading – no, it's all about the slippery slope effect.
If downloading illegally uploaded content is illegal in your country – as it is in the US – then I have no problems with the authorities tying to crack down major offenders to discourage the act. The law is the law, and laws must be upheld. If you want different laws, you can vote. Your influence may be minimal, but that's just the way it is.
What I do have a problem with is private organisations taking it upon themselves to act as if they are government institutions, capable of sentencing individuals – without any form of trial. The RIAA and MPAA are prime examples of this; they are not part of the authorities, and as such, they should not be able to persecute people the way they do.
It might seem like an effective and efficient solution at first. Instead of having the often slow and bureaucratic authorities handle something like piracy, it should be done by a much more nimble and effective private organisation. This is the start of the slippery slope.
Then it gets ever slipperier. Because these organisations are not part of the authorities, there's no proper oversight. There is no democratically elected group or individual overseeing these organisations, which inevitably leads to abuse. I find it especially weird that the MPAA and RIAA have become so powerful in the US – I have this idyllic image in my head that Americans get to vote for everything, from president to crossing guard.
So, what does this slippery slope lead to? Well, people with little understanding of the MPAA and RIAA will certainly mistake them for government organisations, which is a dangerous outcome. Take the story of Coshocton, OH, a small town with free and open municipal wifi. A single movie was downloaded illegally using this wifi network – and the MPAA shut it down entirely.
Mike LaVigne, IT director, said that dozens, sometimes hundreds of people use the free service every day. On top of that, it uses a single address, making it near-impossible to determine the actual culprit.
From the story it is not entirely clear who shut the network down, but it appears that the network's administrator was spooked by the suits from the MPAA, probably accompanied by some threatening legal letters, and as a result, shut down the network.
All you people who advocate that companies like Apple or private organisations like the MPAA and RIAA should have control over your legally purchased products and internet connection: this is what you'll get. This is the world you're fighting for. I hope you're happy.
MPAA ratings: Dec. 2, 2009. The following feature-length motion
pictures have been reviewed and rated by the Classification and
Rating Administration pursuant to the Motion Picture Classification
and Rating program. Each of the designated ratings is defined as
follows under the Motion Picture Classification and Rating
program.
G — GENERAL AUDIENCES. All ages admitted.
PG — PARENTAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED. Some material may not be
suitable for children.
PG -13 –PARENTS STRONGLY CAUTIONED. Some material may be
inappropriate for children under 13.
R — RESTRICTED. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult
guardian.
NC-17 — NO ONE 17 AND UNDER ADMITTED.
Electronics makers and public interest groups are intensifying their opposition to a request from the Motion Picture Association of America for a waiver from an FCC ban on using technology to shut off streams of on-demand-movies to cable set-top boxes deemed as insecure. In a post Thursday on the Huffington Post, Consumer Electronics Association President Gary Shapiro argued that the MPAA is not really trying to combat piracy but to gain “control of your TV” by asking to use “selectable output control” (SOC) technology. “If the FCC grants Hollywood the power to turn off analog inputs soon they will return asking for permission to unilaterally disable other features and functions,” Shapiro wrote.
In a filing last week, the MPAA responded to arguments from such critics by claiming its request for a waiver for the use of the SOC technology “would be an incredibly pro-consumer development.” The group argued that by using the technology to ensure the highest-level of security, the MPAA studios would feel free to stream “high-value, high-definition theatrical films during an early release window that is not available today.”
Joining CEA's side are groups like Public Knowledge and the Independent Film and Television Alliance, both of which filed a fresh set of comments this week with the FCC in opposition to MPAA's request. Public Knowledge argued in its latest filing that the MPAA has not met the FCC's guidelines for a waiver nor has it adequately shown that using the SOC technology would provide the protection from piracy that it is seeking. The group noted that many non-MPAA studios already provide on-demand access to movies before they are released on DVD.
175 Responses
1 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:07 by d
Yet another article with pretty much the same content. MPAA/RIAA MONEY LOL WE LOST PROFITS
2 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:12 by lolz
great explaination
3 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:14 by Bryan C
ah damn, ill pearl a blunt to that
4 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:18 by Zush
I never liked Soderbergh’s movies. Now I know why: he’s not very intelligent.
5 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:20 by Anonymous
I was watching this after dinner with my parents yesterday, and I knew they were believing every word of it, unfortunately..
6 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:21 by iPeter
Lame explanation…
7 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:26 by 33333
cool model he has there, what is it 
?
8 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:28 by hg
Poore slaves. Poore Soderbergh.
9 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:33 by martin
Wake up.
Launch BitTorrent powered, paid, services.
10 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:35 by www.eZee.se
“so why not compete with piracy instead of spending millions of dollars fighting it?”
That would mean they would actually have to use their brains and do some actual work, its just easier to tell people black is white and the sky is falling… then sit back and watch free money roll in.
11 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:41 by ahaha
“See that cone there, that’s us”
that’s one m8. that cone there is _ME_ downloading _YOUR_ films
fukkin tool
12 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:42 by Crash
It looks as though the guy in the video is using Vuze (shows how clued-up he is), but I’ve never seen that view/illustration of the Peers before.
I think I read somewhere that it might be an add-on for Vuze.
13 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:45 by Xcel
TF should ask 60mins for a counter interview!..LoL
@7, if you’re serious…thats the old azureus 3D view plugin .. doesn’t work anymore, no one has updated it for the newer builds..
But so far im cool with UT 2.0…
Vuze may be a thing of the past (Still haven’t sent it to the virtual round file yet, LoL)
14 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:49 by gorehound
Soderbergh makes crappy gfilms and we all know why.he is a shithead and now we should all make sure to boycott him.i think i will just have to go and make a post on his imdb page.
anywyas i have not watched any of his newer films as none interest me and i hate the remakes he did.
and i no longer buy any new movies nor do i ever go to the theater casue i am boycotting hollywood,riaa,mpaa,etc.
i only buy used movies.screw you hollywood you suck
15 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:51 by Antinomian
I wouldn’t worry about 60 minutes. No one pays any heed to left wing “news” programs like that. Their ratings have sucked wind for years.
16 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:53 by Raisined Mind (Anonymous)
This kind of misinformation is why we all need to do our part to show our side to the uninformed. The term “piracy” refers to making copies on disk, then selling those copies at a much cheaper price than in the store. The idea that selling movies is lucrative enough for organized crime to get involve is preposterous. We are not truly pirates, though we enjoy calling ourselves pirates because it pissed the industry off. We are file-sharers, and we do our part in the ad campaign for these companies by spreading the word about their products. It can be argued that we are increasing their revenues just as easily as it can be argued we are decreasing their revenues. The far greater toll is the permanent damage done when people’s lives are summarily and permanently destroyed because of these companies. While many believe that the old “eye for an eye” is much too harsh, this is like running over your family with a Mack Truck for taking a loaf of bread.
17 Nov 03, 2009 at 00:54 by SomKen
Was that fuze?
18 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:00 by meh
SHOCKING! You mean a television news show where all of the reporters were born in the 1920s or 1930s failed to properly grasp and present a modern day techonology?!
19 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:02 by .neo.styles|nvDX
I saw this and while I felt it was a little off, it basically got the basics down.
so why not compete with piracy instead of spending millions of dollars fighting it?
Isn’t it obvious? Competition is all about consumer appeal and you can’t compete with something that is free and that requires zero effort on the part of the consumer (last time I checked, clicking a few buttons isn’t hard.) But then why don’t they embrace piracy? Are you serious? Because piracy prevents any creative effort or business venture from being viable.
As Lars Ulrich said, no one works for free, so why should artists or anyone that is affected by piracy?
Their job is to manipulate public opinion in the hope that less people will engage in illicit file-sharing.
And shouldn’t it? So called illicit file sharing is not only illegal but also deeply immoral. Further more, I wouldn’t call it manipulating so much as informing, because im guessing that most people who watched the show last night didn’t need much convincing to agree that taking something without paying for it is wrong. Most people probabaly just didn’t know how rampant online piracy has become. The moral quandaries of piracy speak for themselves. Pirates are very happy to advertise their so called freedom of information and yet when information about THEM makes it into mainstream circulation, they become uncomfortable.. Why is this? Piracy is a little like a vampire. It hides in the shadows of obscure technical terminology, because once it is exposed to the light of public opinion and moral decency, it begins to wither.
These statements are both inaccurate, or at least highly doubtful.
Do we really need numbers to convince ourselves of how large piracy has gotten? We’ve all seen the numbers for the most pirated movies. They are in the millions. Now, multiply them by the average price of a movie.. say $10.. I think it should come out to something close.
It fails to ask the questions about why people download movies illegally and acts as if the movie industry is a powerless victim.
That question isn’t really necessary. As I said, piracy speaks for itself. It is implied that such people choose to pilfer their entertainment because they have no regard for the laws of society or the hardwork of others. People pirate simply because it’s easier for them.
Perhaps Hollywood should start to see the millions of illegal downloaders as potential customers instead of thieves.
If they were potential custemors, they would go out and buy movies like everyone else. Laziness isn’t an excuse to avoid payment. Furthermore, there are many legit online options available for movie and music downloading. There’s Itunes, netflix, and even xbox live.. Yet the popularity of these services is tiny in comparison to piracy.
20 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:09 by bleh
Hey guys, I’m wondering, would it be more difficult for the organized crime syndicates such as the MAFIAA if there was an option to “only connect to peers outside your country” or is there a client already like that?
21 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:12 by chestermolested
If you go and watch the whole 60 Minutes episode Soderbergh goes on to say that A list movie stars still make the same amount of money no matter how many people download movies, the real that suffer are the people behind the scenes. DER this is exact problem, the movie stars should get a lot less money and the people that work behind scenes should make more.
22 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:14 by Anon
No you dload movies for free cause you want something for nothing with no effort.
Stop trying to pretend you are an internet pioneer or you freedom to bootleg stuff is being violated.
1person selling 1million or 1million people dloading 1 copy?
net result 1million free films?
Oh yah I forgot you then go out and but it, but any movie director that disagrees with you, well autiomatically they are stupid and a dickhead and their filsm suck, guess you’ll be torrenting “100 free knitting patterns”, then?
23 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:15 by Truther
Anyone know what Vuze plugin he is using for the Pool graph? I want it, thanks 60 minutes!
24 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:19 by 0_o
I just had a bowel movement. Why is this not being reported as well? I mean its the same shit.
25 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:22 by TF propoganda
“What bothered us the most is that the item conveniently mixed file-sharing with commercial piracy, while linking it to organized crime, human trafficking and child prostitution.”
How do you think the people engaged in these acts get their films>?
They “share” them with you.
They use YOUR uploads that you crack whilst giving the finger to the man to fund illegal acts.
They mave have tried to confuse the issue by mixing “innocent” fileshare leeching freeloaders with commercial pirates, the result the same tho.
Kieron Sharp, FACT Director General, said: “The illegal factory in Southall would have been capable of generating a criminal profit in excess of £1 million per week and we know there are dozens of such factories operating across London and in other cities in the UK. FACT is working in partnership with the City of London Police and the Metropolitan Police to take out those criminal organisations and individuals who are seeking to profit from this illegal trade.”
Executive Producer of Quantum of Solace, Callum McDougall, said: “We have a hugely valuable film industry here in the UK, and we have to do whatever we can to make people aware of the impact of purchasing fake DVD’s or illegal downloads.
Kieron Sharp, FACT Director General, said: “The illegal factory in Southall would have been capable of generating a criminal profit in excess of £1 million per week and we know there are dozens of such factories operating across London and in other cities in the UK. FACT is working in partnership with the City of London Police and the Metropolitan Police to take out those criminal organisations and individuals who are seeking to profit from this illegal trade.”
Executive Producer of Quantum of Solace, Callum McDougall, said: “We have a hugely valuable film industry here in the UK, and we have to do whatever we can to make people aware of the impact of purchasing fake DVD’s or illegal downloads.
Kieron Sharp, FACT Director General, said: “The illegal factory in Southall would have been capable of generating a criminal profit in excess of £1 million per week and we know there are dozens of such factories operating across London and in other cities in the UK. FACT is working in partnership with the City of London Police and the Metropolitan Police to take out those criminal organisations and individuals who are seeking to profit from this illegal trade.”
Executive Producer of Quantum of Solace, Callum McDougall, said: “We have a hugely valuable film industry here in the UK, and we have to do whatever we can to make people aware of the impact of purchasing fake DVD’s or illegal downloads.
Obviously FACT are lying and are just paid by BFI & Hollywood to purport internet fiction, so you can feel better about your copy of Inglourious Basterds
26 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:27 by Nef
Seeders, peers? WTF?
I thought it was done wiz magic?
Non? 
27 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:29 by TF propoganda
Yes, I have to work on my copy & paste skills. Forgive me, I am a moron.
28 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:34 by Anti
Buttheads…
29 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:39 by Cujo
advertizing ,, cool ,, our swarm grows 
30 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:40 by daybrinjer
Of course no one who knows anything gets their “news” from the mass media with the invention of the internet. I still can’t believe that they said the internet was created by Al Gore.
31 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:41 by realityBytes
They lie, cheat, steal, blackmail, price-fix, bribe and spy on us without a court order…
60 minutes of propaganda is tame for the greedy MAFIAA pigs… and as usual, won’t change a damn thing!!!
Another fine epic fail by the MAFIAA!!
32 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:44 by Trek
isnt it hilarious how these morons are amazed by this simple technology.. like OMGZ.. DOWNLOAZ?
oh and he was wrong, each one of those things does NOT represent a ‘person’.
33 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:51 by TT
The anti-P2P lobby has for years been linking file-sharing to every sort of evil imaginable. Organized crime, international terrorists, child molesters, whatever.
It’s refreshing to see that TorrentFreak is not blindly swallowing the Kool-Aid as other P2P “news” sites have been known to do.
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=525
34 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:51 by Paul London UK
another stupid ad sponsered video
god I hate em
the ads are getting longer and longer at the begining. This one has another ad about a minute or so in! Sorry folks but switching to an ad-sponser model just wont cut it either, sorry to say I want it all free, now, no ads. yep news, music movies whatever! Rant over
35 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:52 by Bizarre
What mainly confused me about the original article is the idea that organised crime moving into DVD piracy in countries such as US. In the US DVD piracy in the sense of people selling copies of films on the streets is to my knowledge nonexistent. So the only thing it could be suggested that they are doing is selling wholesale to retail stores but then the article starts to talk about cams?
36 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:52 by lol
I think we should blame Al Gore, he’s the one who invented the internet.
37 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:54 by SamusK
Propaganga? Seriously? So then this place is propaganda because it shows one sided stories, information, and biased views on “their” reasons.
I like bittorrent as much as the next person. But come on, is this really news?
Is it necessary to report every little blunder by big business?
Or is this place hard up for ratings?
Must be nothing going on at the Bay… oh wait its getting DDoSed at the moment, lol!, so everybody needs something to laugh at.
38 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:56 by realityBytes
I HAVE THE SOLUTION!!!
If everyone could use BT without threat of litigation… the only place that would sell DVDs would be the shops that have legal copies, this would destroy the black market and stop any funding of organized crime.
In other words, the MAFIAA are helping piracy to be something that can fund organized crime by attacking us.
Irony.
39 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:57 by Terror1
It really comes down to the FCC looking at network neutrality. The line “the best we can hope is to slow them down” should really concern you though. Total BS if you ask me.
40 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:57 by politux
@31 If he’s right and every one of those green lines is a person then seedboxes should be given equal rights under the law.
41 Nov 03, 2009 at 01:59 by Demon
Oh! Why I am not surprised?
CBS is owned by Rupert Murder the parasite who also owe Fixed News.
This is one of the 7 corporations of parasites and criminals who must be eradicated before we can say bye bye to freedom and the US constitution.
Now things are clear concerning 60 minutes credibility and it’s relationship with Fox noise and their extreme right propaganda.
An MPAA victory?
I wonder how many people still rely on TV broadcast and cable for their news and how many still believe what the old foggy mass medias tell them.
Personally I get my info from internet since a while already.
42 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:05 by Hahaha
> Soderbergh said he wished the Internet was never invented
What more could you wish him to say? It’s honest and unveiling.
43 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:09 by Sendaii
You know, I wouldn’t have minded if they gave the actual facts. Instead, they lump us in with paedophiles. I don’t know how these people even have a shred of respect left.
I never liked the MPAA, but now they disgust me. They rank just below stepping in a fresh dog turd on my list.
44 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:09 by Demon
@21 Anon
Oh, stop changing your screen name to try to make people believe that this forum is infested by parasites such as yourself.
We know that there is only one of you.
But since you are there tell your boss that we are coming soon with the pest killer for them.
45 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:11 by e-tard
‘Soderbergh said he wished the Internet was never invented. “Piracy is costing Hollywood $6 billion a year at the box office”‘
This guy can’t be serious. I would rather have access to the internet for one month than a lifetime of access to every film ever made.
46 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:15 by Nathan
I had the displeasure of catching this segment on TV the other day. The amount of misinformation and propaganda was so overwhelming it made me furious! The scary thing is that John Q. Public is eating this up and will gladly join in todays witch hunt against “downloaders”… just as soon as they are done panicking because they haven’t been able to find someplace to get their H1N1 vaccine shot yet, like the TV said they should.
Never mind the gory details about the MPAA hitmen hiding and spying in movie theaters ready to take out anyone and their family that might even possibly be using a video camera. Boggles my mind that people still insist on going to movie theaters.
47 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:16 by nik
…adds 10 more movies to torrent downloads… lol
48 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:17 by moot
…adds 10 more movies to torrent downloads… lol
49 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:19 by BottomLiner
all i have to say is…
ITS NOT A FUCKING CONE!
50 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:27 by Anonymous
All this information coming from a show with zero credibility. Move along folks nothing to see here.
51 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:31 by Sam
If anything, drug cartels, that is if they are camming movies, should be upset with torrents, since people get free copies of the movies they cam. How can downloading a movie for free support these guys? Hint: They need money to shuttle drugs around.
(flip over for answer)
?,u?? ??
52 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:33 by Sam
Well, the upside down text failed, so here you go: It can’t
53 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:33 by me
Makes me want to seed more
54 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:34 by Bobe-On (Evolution)
@Nov 03, 2009 at 02:15 by Nathan:
We sure can take our relative knowledge, intelligence and wisdom for granted sometimes, ay?
The world is rife with “John/Jane Q. Publics”. We see it every day. That’s in part why our world is the fucked up way it is.
I wish I could live for about 500 or so more years just to see if our race lasts that long, because I have my doubts. :/
55 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:35 by a/s/l
LEARN TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONE AND A CYLINDER YOU MISOGYNISTIC BUMSPLAT
56 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:40 by Anonymous
Complaint filed: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtml?tag=ftr
57 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:43 by Canadia
God forbid they make 19.9 billion dollars if they made 20 billion last year…Greedy fuckers
58 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:44 by lol
did he just advertise for downloading movies “You can get a full feature length movie in just minutes” Hmm ex MPPA telling us that must be good 
59 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:44 by mu57i11
I’ve just finished downloading up for my family, does this mean that we are all involved with child prostitution?
60 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:46 by pirateprideWW
Just keep up the boycott, folks. They can engage in all the hand-wringing they want, just don’t reward their lies and attempts to change the laws of entire societies to fit those lies.
61 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:52 by Cordelia
POOR, POOR AMERICANS – Most are brainwashed into believing that they live in the “land of the free”…. But nothing in the country is free, not good healthcare, no university. All big media controlle by the corporations.. Hollywood and constantly fed lies and propaganda news and false information about other countries. All while the whole world hates America more everyday.
Thank goodness there are some sensible people from the US on this site.
62 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:55 by crying
after my dad saw this he took away my computer, saying he doesnt want me involved with drug trafficing and prostitution. how retarded are these people.
63 Nov 03, 2009 at 02:59 by SomeoneElse
Call me an idiot, but how is the movie industry supposed to compete when the alternative is to get movies for free? I’m not being snarky, I really want to know.
64 Nov 03, 2009 at 03:02 by Bob Sagget
Whole 12Min Interview Without Commercials.
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=BJ2GPXWZ
65 Nov 03, 2009 at 03:03 by knux
@9
Yes so we pay to use our bandwidth to share the files for their own purposes… If I’m gonna pay for then they better be setting up seed boxes that support atleast 4Mb/s connections and thousands of peers at once. Otherwise they should pay us a portion of our internet fees or lower the price of their movies to compensate.
66 Nov 03, 2009 at 03:07 by MS September
BLAME AL GORE ITS ALL HIS FAULT!
67 Nov 03, 2009 at 03:08 by sam
Thanks to 60 minutes, millions of people who never knew anything about file sharing are now downloading movies. LOL
68 Nov 03, 2009 at 03:08 by Anonymous
I have to admit I liked his explanation. It was simple and effecent. I showed my friend this who is always asking me about this shit.
69 Nov 03, 2009 at 03:15 by Xcel
@22
http://azureus.sourceforge.net/plugin_details.php?plugin=3DView
It DOES NOT WORK WITH VUZE, you will have to find and DL the Az build it does work with if you want to use it…
@58
how did you manage to log on to TF to tell us that your dad took your computer??
@59
“Idiot”
(Sorry couldnt resist. to did ask for us to call you one!)
70 Nov 03, 2009 at 03:18 by thesaint396
Thanx No53 for the feedback link I have just sent them this:
your recent programme on Torrent’s and downloading was very disappointing, if you were going to just spout off MPAA propaganda instead of facts you could have just said so, using already debunked reports that they funded themselves anyway and only having one side of the argument was bad enough but to lump torrent users in with organized crime and paedophiles is a disgusting act, and very close to the lies and propaganda of Nazi Germany against the Jews, to be honest I know you don’t care what I write I am just sad that some of you may have started your careers wanting to help and inform the people but now you just roll over and feed whatever crap your bosses tell you to feed to the public, you are PATHETIC.
71 Nov 03, 2009 at 03:19 by Anonymous
Here is link to 60 minutes http://www.mininova.org/get/3110962
72 Nov 03, 2009 at 03:33 by torrentzbutt
stupid maffia they never know when to stop.
73 Nov 03, 2009 at 03:46 by Me
Who would pay 5$ for a pirated movie when you can get it for free on the internet. i cant believe there is business in writing cams to disk.
74 Nov 03, 2009 at 03:59 by Paps Schmir
Eerrr, please explain the logic? Since torrents are free, how did the so called organized criminals and terrorists make money?
Baffles the mind don’t it? hehe
75 Nov 03, 2009 at 04:15 by Ruh Roh
Steven Soderbergh wishes that the internet had never been invented? what a complete hack asshole. Can you imagine a world where there was no internet & the only entertainment options were watching Steven’s consistently shit movies? boy, oh, boy would I love to shove my foot up his ass for even daring to have such a completely lame & moronic opinion as that.
76 Nov 03, 2009 at 04:16 by ukxenon
After people at the cinemas wanted to frisk my 3 daughters i refuse point blank to go to a cinema ever again.
I am now tempted to start to download the films and watch them at home and i dont see why the movie industry does not offer this kind of service.
BUT all in a they can go and swivel i will not be treated like a criminal when i was a paying person.
77 Nov 03, 2009 at 04:41 by whoa
Hey, how about a new take on 60 minutes crap?? I’m a mom, 53 yrs. old and was through with hollywood, excessively high prices and crappy product long before embracing bit torrent. There are many average citizens out there that may not be tech savvy who don’t exactly bleed for the “industry’s” losses. Could be the MIFIAA has shot itself in the foot again. Unfortunately for the greedmongers, people aren’t as stupid as they think. Out here where the world is folks still have common sense. But then, the MIFIAA wouldn’t recognize that trait.
78 Nov 03, 2009 at 04:53 by Anonymous
pirate bay and publicbt appear down.
79 Nov 03, 2009 at 04:56 by jamie
they sound like they really dont know what there talking about. this is proven by one guy saying that praters aren’t looking for quality, they ether didn’t want to mention or didn’t know about dvd rips. the only thing they focused on was recorded movies. oh and im guessing they didn’t want to talk about sonys little rootkit virus.
80 Nov 03, 2009 at 04:57 by Anonymous
@19
“Because piracy prevents any creative effort or business venture from being viable.”
See http://nastyoldpeople.blogspot.com/ for refutation.
“Further more, I wouldn’t call it manipulating so much as informing, because im guessing that most people who watched the show last night didn’t need much convincing to agree that taking something without paying for it is wrong.”
That’s the lovely thing about downloading: nobody *takes* anything. Nobody *steals* anything. When a person steals a car or a loaf of bread, one person gains a car/loaf, and the other person loses it. When somebody downloads a film, the seeder and Hollywood producer still have their originals.
Nobody takes, but a lot of people receive… and you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that receiving something without paying for it is wrong. Grinch.
“Pirates are very happy to advertise their so called freedom of information and yet when information about THEM makes it into mainstream circulation, they become uncomfortable.”
Mixed metaphors.
“Do we really need numbers to convince ourselves of how large piracy has gotten? We’ve all seen the numbers for the most pirated movies. They are in the millions. Now, multiply them by the average price of a movie.. say $10.. I think it should come out to something close.”
Hardly a question of how many films have been downloaded… that’s largely irrelevant. Using those numbers to explain revenue loss falsely assumes that people are downloading movies *instead* of going to the theatre, when a pretty large number of people who download films probably wouldn’t have gone to see the movie at all had that been their only option.
Last time I was in a theatre a few weeks back, it was packed right full of people. Being lucky enough to live in a place without MPAA police, I rather enjoyed myself there. So did most of the others. It was a good film and I was happy to pay the admission fee.
“If they were potential custemors, they would go out and buy movies like everyone else.”
Bingo. So if they’re not potential customers… why is the movie industry worried about them?
81 Nov 03, 2009 at 05:11 by Soundwave (Have A Cigar)
We must expose them publicly. They use dirty politics, and they need to be called on it.
They belong in jail, and I don’t feel safe with pathological liars lose on the street paying off politicians, and handing out propaganda pamphlets and comic books filled with lies and misinformation, intended to brainwash our children.
These scum are the lowest of the low – SHARKS and Gangsters, playing victim.
Would you like to the Police?
Would you lie to the FBI/Interpol?
Would you lie to an Judge?
No wonder you got the name “MAFIAA”, when you lie to the public, the politicians, including the U.S. President and his elected staff?
Lying to the president is not punishable? We need to change a few laws. Get involved.
Now you may or may not agree with me on everything, but you have to agree, that lying to the President and his staff should be against the law.
82 Nov 03, 2009 at 05:20 by That.
@ 15
Yeah, let’s all go watch fox!
I agree that 60 minutes is terrible, but I disagree that considering it left wing (which it isn’t imo) doesn’t make it inferior. And it would be stupid to associate anti-piracy with the left. :/
83 Nov 03, 2009 at 05:25 by diarRIAA
I’m waiting for someone to release the video featuring subtitling that actually explains the facts.
Of course 60 minutes is going to offer a one sided view. I’m sure all of the record executives, lawyers and “stars” wined and dined the people that work with the television program and brain washed them. They do this all the time with politicians, lawmakers, etc.
Naturally, if the RIAA/MPAA were on the program and if 60 Minutes actually featured a balanced news program, the RIAA/MPAA would’ve bailed out and threatened to sue them because they were promoting piracy.
It’s all nonsense. Someone please torrent the program with subtitles that actually explains the true facts. We all need to see this.
84 Nov 03, 2009 at 05:38 by Ben Jones
@diarRIAA
Working on one, and have been all night. who knows when it will be ready though.
85 Nov 03, 2009 at 05:40 by Eng
@neo.styles|nvDX
You had me until you said this:
‘As Lars Ulrich said, no one works for free, so why should artists or anyone that is affected by piracy?’
Lars by his own admission in the liner notes (and through interviews) admitted to making illegal copies of “classic albums” that the lead singer had by copying them to cassette tape. His excuse was, “I was poor.” So it’s ok for him to break the law but it’s not ok for someone else?
You should also remember that the reason why the band had such a huge following was they allowed people who attended their concerts to record them. (Think Greatful Dead, the same band that didn’t release a new album for like 10 years yet was making millions touring even though people traded tapes and got to hear other shows for “Free”.) This allowed trading and that got more people to hear them play. Read: Free advertisement by word of mouth. The RIAA got into their heads and their self destruction tour commenced. They are now a shadow of their former self, blaming their entire demise to theft.
It should also be pointed out (via this site) that alot of the money collected by the RIAA the artist have yet to see.
Sorry but the RIAA needs to die. I stopped buying their product years ago and now only support independent/creative commons artists.
86 Nov 03, 2009 at 05:54 by mpaa idiots
The mpaa still doesn’t get it, I want to view programs when I want to in my home on demand, I don’t want to be forced to watch my program of choice months after it has been released in it’s country of origin on my Cable/Terrestial TV. My TV has been unplugged for years. I subscribe to the sports that I LIKE only, and get my news online, which is more varied and I can decide which biased news reporting to believe.
I don’t have to download movies ’cause my domicile is a third world country where ROM’s are 50 cents a pop, these ROM’s are often hawked right next to police stations, I love democracy, besides that’s what hollywoods crap is actually worth. The biggest pirating nations excluding internet, are in Eurasia, Middle East, Far East, South America, and Africa, I don’t see the mpaa/riaa making any issue in these countries of the 50cent ROM’s.
Besides there’s much more interesting non fiction programs to watch on youtube and the Net, i.e. Richard Dawkins on evolution, Christopher Hitchen’s wonderful oratories on the evils of religion, much more interesting than hollywoods crap.
so my middle finger is firmly extended to the stupid business model of the mpaa/riaa mafia extortionist idiots
87 Nov 03, 2009 at 06:02 by Rboy
Without the internet we would have three choices.
1) Buy Movie
2) Rent Movie
3) Never Watch except if it happens to be on TV
I will always opt for 2 or 3 I have never bought a movie. I may have bought a few Disney flicks out of the bargain basket for the kids in the VC days but have never bought a mainstream movie on disc and have not bought a music cd in over 20 years.
The industry may lose a small amount to potential buyers but no study can assess that because the correlation between download and lost sale is not known.
Even Google makes money off of traffic searching for downloads so they and all their stock holders also part of organized crime?
No cash is directly changing hands in file sharing I wonder who pays the rippers, up loaders, seeders, website costs etc. I spend plenty of time looking for, downloading and unpacking content so if your time is worth anything even file sharing is not really free.
What the RIAA and MPAA will have to come to realize is that in the digital age, content has become a commodity and commodity pricing applies the days of premium pricing for discs be it music or movies is over.
88 Nov 03, 2009 at 06:03 by Grundy Mundy
@15
60 Minutes is “left wing”? What bizzaro universe do you live in?
@71
He he he.
89 Nov 03, 2009 at 06:03 by lj
How can you feel bad for ANYONE wearing a suit? Are you fucking serious? You made SLIGHTLY less PROFIT? Didn’t even lose money, but made slightly less PROFIT. You pieces of shit. I make practically nothing each month, struggle to get by. While I’m getting free couches off craigslist you’re sitting in 1000 dollar ones. Fuck you, I hope you’re financially devastated so much that you’re at least brought down to my level you sick fucks.
How can anyone feel bad for these rich piece of shit businessmen?
90 Nov 03, 2009 at 06:33 by Krlll
3D view works fine with Vuze at least when using the classic UI.
60 Minutes look like the sellouts they obviously are with this “report”.
Another artcile on 60 minutes lameness.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20091101/1818186751.shtml
91 Nov 03, 2009 at 07:04 by z
I wonder what the trend is for profits on movies from previous years. How much did movies made prior to 2004 make in 2004? How much did movies made prior to 2009 make in 2009?
I have a theory that the availabilty and ease of DVD rentals/purchases, PPV and legal downloads, as well as being able to watch them in increasingly higher quality at home (better TVs, sound systems, no ridiculous theater prices, and no full body search), have caused a significant increase in profits for older movies and therefore for movies in general.
My point being that how much money a movie makes in it’s year of release may not be as relevant as how much it makes overall. Box office earnings may not be all that relevant anymore.
Anyone know?
92 Nov 03, 2009 at 07:52 by .neo.styles|nvDX
What ulrich said may have made him a personally a hypocrite, but his point stil stands. How can anyone make any money if people just download their stuff at no cost? This is why payment was invented. Jesus, probabaly the most obvious thing here..
93 Nov 03, 2009 at 08:12 by Anonymous
Burn Hollywood Burn.
60 Minutes go to hell.When did you guys start running INFOMERCIALS for Big Corporations?
94 Nov 03, 2009 at 08:19 by hmm
Sadly, that’s true.
Filesharing and organized crime go together.
There’s no P2P network safe from MPAA/RIAA/IFPI’s criminaly organized damage nowadays.
95 Nov 03, 2009 at 08:28 by Black EAGLE
MPAA/RIAA
didn’t they have a movement in a place – called “JONESTOWN” Guyana some years back …
just a few of MPAA/RIAA followers … just drank the Koolaid or were shot because they didn’t believe.
Line ‘em up …
96 Nov 03, 2009 at 08:44 by Anonymous
HE TOOK HIS FAMILY TO A MOVIE?
THAT RAT BASTARD
97 Nov 03, 2009 at 08:54 by Carefully Watching
Honestly if I was a non techy person watching 60 minutes.. They sold me on the idea. Seriously the guy made it sound like its all these people doing it, then BAM you got a movie in minutes. So why the hell am I buying movies now?
Good job MPAA convert the rest and we will have more followers
98 Nov 03, 2009 at 09:50 by peroo
let´s call it a cone from now on,gets them even more confused.
99 Nov 03, 2009 at 10:25 by Banacek
I think it shows how out of touch 60 minutes is if they think people still buy bootleg tapes off the street. Because you can get bootleg’s for free on the internet, sales of bootleg DVD’s have to be almost zero. People that used to buy bootleg tapes in the 90s either use bittorrent now, or netflicks.
100 Nov 03, 2009 at 10:28 by kewlness
great vid! mpaa knows their stuff!
101 Nov 03, 2009 at 10:43 by WAKE UP
I can’t believe that Hollywood employees are so narrowminded to see the huge potential of bittorrent technology. Instead of embracing this revolutionary piece of technology they try to transform it in something evil and illegal. Are you insane people. Right now I’m looking at the figures on btjunkie.org and they say like this:
Todays Torrents: 1,265
Total Torrents: 4.03mil
Total Trackers: 15,245
Total Seeders: 41.47mil
Total Leechers: 31.38mil
Do you even bother to read this numbers. Don’t you think that this is a bussiness opportunity and not some global crime movement. Do you not create your movies for the people? Than why don’t you adapt to the way people choose to watch this movies?
You give your money to the MAFIAA organization instead of investing in signing deals with the ISP all over the world. I won’t mind paying another 20-30% to my monthly internet subscription if this allows me to download from you the movies I like. You will have than tens of millions of new customers and your so called loses will turn in huge earnings. Don’t you see that the MAFIAA is not defending you it’s just shielding you (hollywood)from investing in this technology because then their part will be over. WAKE UP HOLLYWOOD AND DON’T LET YOURSELF DECEIVED ANYMORE!!!!
102 Nov 03, 2009 at 10:46 by w00t
Thanks to the RIAA/MPAA-asses for promoting Bittorrent. Let’s smoke a spliff to it, and seed some torrents
103 Nov 03, 2009 at 10:48 by Ozymundaneus
First of all, you have the wrong greedy bastard Aussie owning CBS – Murdoch owns FOX. Sumner Redstone owns CBS / Viacom / Paramount.
And I’m sorry, all of you who want to say that a download is just the same as somebody buying a bootleg DVD off the street, are full of crap. It’s nowhere near the same. Every independent study that’s not being funded by a trade protection group shows that the people who download music & films actually spend MORE money than the average person who doesn’t download those things. They tend to be more aware consumers, that’s it. Not the same as buying a pirated DVD that secretly funds the Yakuza’s white slavery operations at all.
104 Nov 03, 2009 at 11:09 by Cordelia
Who even CARES if Hollywood and the big record companies go bust…???
There’ll always be indie stuff made — and people who are artists because they love art, not to get filthy rich.
Less Hollywood propaganda and less commercialised Junk-music will be GOOD for the world.
Maybe people could then even start thinking for themselves and develop some good taste.
105 Nov 03, 2009 at 11:11 by bleep
User A has downloaded 40 movies this year. Lets punch numbers because he would have bought them if torrents were not available. Delusional Idiots. It’s not black or white.
106 Nov 03, 2009 at 11:12 by Anonymous
@101
+1
107 Nov 03, 2009 at 11:49 by SteveO
I watched this and it sounded positive, he said we cannot stop it, only slow it down. And the millions lost are from people who make copies and covers and sell them on the street for $5. Also he commented on the quality is what suffers, that the cams are not good quality, but admitted people that buy them for $5 dont care about quality.
108 Nov 03, 2009 at 11:56 by Paul London UK
idea / food for thought…
if a small public domain document lets say a BIBLE were distributed in as many future torrents as possible…
how would this affect those bit torrent monitoring companies?
i ask because joining a swarm would then not necessarily mean that you were after the REAL content, additional monitoring by them would be required. a bit like downloading the familiar demonoid text file.
extending this concept further, having mega packs containing many REAL and FALSE content could be the way to go.
In addition I think falsely nameing torrents such as johnsholidaypics could provide more plausible deniability
109 Nov 03, 2009 at 12:29 by Anonymous
@62
“after my dad saw this he took away my computer, saying he doesnt want me involved with drug trafficing and prostitution. how retarded are these people.”
sucks to be american
110 Nov 03, 2009 at 12:36 by Anonymous
The program he use is Azureus (Not Vuze) with this plugin: http://azureus.sourceforge.net/plugin_details.php?plugin=3DView
I can’t get it to work with Vuze, so you need download an old client to use it.
111 Nov 03, 2009 at 12:37 by lulzz
hahaha…just watched the 60 min special. I like how they go right to “drugs, etc..” profiting off these movies. Then it goes to the internet saying its in the same both. How would a drug dealer profit off uploading movies to the net??
112 Nov 03, 2009 at 12:41 by Brink
Was there a cone inside the cylinder? or can’t this man recognize basic solids?
113 Nov 03, 2009 at 12:48 by BunchoBS
“Perhaps Hollywood should start to see the millions of illegal downloaders as potential customers instead of thieves.” Next time a shop owner should not call the police but realize he is dealing with a ‘potential customer’ When someone breaks into your home, you should realize he is ‘a potential friend’ or even a ‘potential neighbor’ When someone steals your iPod, he could potentially become the worlds greatest DJ. Give him your iTunes account login info too…
114 Nov 03, 2009 at 12:50 by Kelly
all criminals are potential buyers, husbands, rock stars, rocket scientists. So love em. Love em all!
115 Nov 03, 2009 at 13:00 by sadcat
best bittorrent howto ever
116 Nov 03, 2009 at 13:01 by koko
WELL,
- downloading the movies etc. in question is illegal by current law, but isn’t it at the same time ‘right’ for people with too little money?
AND:
- it is legal, when some people (f.e. in hollywood) make millions a year, while others make so little that they can hardly survive. that’s the current law… but is this law ‘right’, then?
117 Nov 03, 2009 at 13:13 by jon7272
6 billion in losses from piracy could have something to do with little thing called a recession and loss of jobs why would you spend 50 bucks taking the family to the movies when you cant pay your mortgage and food bills mpaa propaganda at its best lol
118 Nov 03, 2009 at 13:39 by Power2All
“Who want to watch these camcorder movies ?”
“Cause they don’t want to give out any money for it”
I laughed here when they also started about buying cammed movies.
I mean wtf, nobody is gonna pay up for a cammed movie on DVD.
I laughed at those fall-ins at DVD piracy.
We have BitTorrent for god sakes, who would still buy crooked DVD’s >_>
Or they’re really sneaky, or really outdated.
It’s all about BluRays too now xD
119 Nov 03, 2009 at 13:40 by Power2All
@111
In Europe, we are _allowed_ to downloading music and movies.
Games is illegal here though, but mostly I buy my shit legal anyway.
We use cracks to play multiplayer at my home anyway.
120 Nov 03, 2009 at 13:48 by koko
@61:
“POOR, POOR AMERICANS – Most are brainwashed into believing that they live in the “land of the free”…. But nothing in the country is free, not good healthcare, no university. All big media controlle by the corporations.. Hollywood and constantly fed lies and propaganda news and false information about other countries. All while the whole world hates America more everyday.
Thank goodness there are some sensible people from the US on this site.”
You are right, but it is not that different in other countries… if it comes to brainwashed people. (But you know this, i am sure)
121 Nov 03, 2009 at 13:50 by TheTrollWithLessOomph
@19 .neo.styles|nvDX
‘Competition is all about consumer appeal and you can’t compete with something that is free and that requires zero effort on the part of the consumer (last time I checked, clicking a few buttons isn’t hard.)’
Monopolies don’t compete for the sole reason that they are monopolies.
But if they want to get file sharing piracy to manageable levels they actually have to compete, what with the mindset already being firmly set to virtually free and cheap substandard quality.
‘But then why don’t they embrace piracy? Are you serious? Because piracy prevents any creative effort or business venture from being viable.’
Disregarding the less then stellar technic of answering your own question, you at least ought to answer it correct.
Piracy as in illegal file sharing, is only illegal because it’s not legal, in some countries. That doesn’t mean it could’ve staid legal, but administered and controlled by media corporations, especially considering the supposed fact, one that you’ve trumped before, that all them “illegal” file sharing sites are making tones of cash from ads.
‘As Lars Ulrich said, no one works for free, so why should artists or anyone that is affected by piracy?’
Disregarding the fact that even famous artists do charity work, so does millions of other people including the less known artists, and for most, especially for people in the open source community and all content creators that want their stuff in digital format to get pirated, piracy, as in “illegal” file sharing, is positive.
122 Nov 03, 2009 at 13:56 by @neo troll
neo troll:
“Isn’t it obvious? Competition is all about consumer appeal and you can’t compete with something that is free and that requires zero effort on the part of the consumer”
Quick! Go tell that to Apple so they can start making iTunes fail! Because its success invalidates your argument. And we can’t have that.
neo troll:
“no one works for free”
Yes. Why, just for example, the concept of freeware is actually a clever hoax.
neo troll:
“And shouldn’t it? So called illicit file sharing is not only illegal but also deeply immoral”
A lecture on legality and morality is amusing coming from some one who is paid by the copyright industry to troll filesharing sites with the same small and extremely flimsy collection of lies ad infinitum. Not only is file sharing LEGAL in many regions, making it squarely not illicit, but sharing is considered to be a rather classical moral virtue.
This is in stark contrast to the greed, lies, and extortion practiced by the industry you are a mindless shill for.
neo troll:
“If they were potential custemors, they would go out and buy movies like everyone else.”
If they went out and bought movies like everyone else* then they would be normal customers, not potential ones, you amazing specimen of density.
*Hmm… But according to you, I thought everyone else was downloading them?
neo troll:
“How do you think the people engaged in these acts get their films>?”
How gullible do you think we are? Commercial pirates get their films the same way they did before the BitTorrent protocol was ever an idea in the back of Bram Cohen’s mind. It wouldn’t matter to them if filesharing ended tomorrow. Even if you’re willing to believe FACT’s laughable BS that commercial piracy is oh so profitable(if it actually were, the film industry would adopt the same low price high volume model, among other things).
123 Nov 03, 2009 at 13:58 by Dee Gardner
I liken this to a hurricane that is bearing down on their beach front property. They refuse to leave and the houses they have built on sand are going to be washed away.
124 Nov 03, 2009 at 14:33 by icy-flame
We’ve freed the slaves and the women, its about time to free the knowledge.
125 Nov 03, 2009 at 14:48 by gn
@19
you’re a capitalistic whore who only think about one thing… MONEY MONEY MONEY. No wonder that with millions like you walking around, the world is progressively becoming controlled, restricted, “managed” all for your own benefit and a bunch of printed papers you call money. You cannot restrict or control information. The moment you try to do so, you become a dictator. Instead of changing your “models” to fit the new technology, you try to wage war on information flow and dictate who is or isn’t allowed to have it. Sounds like the exact similar situation when the printing industry was first invented and idiots like you tried to control its information flow. We all know how hard it failed and this is no different
126 Nov 03, 2009 at 14:48 by lmao
that was f*cking hilarious
127 Nov 03, 2009 at 14:49 by Thomas
Why is everyone getting their panties in a twist over this? The people who actually WATCH 60 Minutes anymore are not much younger than Morley Safer, and more than half of them don’t even have a computer. So the industry message fell almost completely on clueless, aging ears.
128 Nov 03, 2009 at 14:50 by DJ Sketch@133X.org
so let me see if i got this straight…..if i download a movie, i am helping to rape children????
hmmmmmm…….what about terrorism? cant we be linked to osama bin laden too?
or maybe we could be in league with the late john gotti becuase we download.
ohhhh and i bet satan is involved somehow too. lol, what a crock.
129 Nov 03, 2009 at 15:01 by hi folks
i’m not from the u.s and i have to say that if i didn’t know more about p2p than i do i would have certainly be scared by that prog.
because it was actually REALLY scary.
they make you think that the people using p2p networks are ALL dangerous criminals,that after you’ve downloaded a film you would go down the street to kill/rape/abduct someone,or you would sell drugs to kids.
for someone who doesn’t know anything about the subject,it’s going to scare them to death…really!
i just hope that prog isn’t followed by a lot of people over there.
peace to all.;)
130 Nov 03, 2009 at 15:35 by T.H.E. S.W.A.R.M.
haha cool video
131 Nov 03, 2009 at 15:51 by Tigger
Lol!
Flamed @19!
I could sit here and refute every statement you made, but unfortunately i have to go to WORK!
Despite the fact I work bloody hard, i could never afford to watch every new movie i wanted, or play every new game i wanted. I cant believe your still making the same retarded point about every pirated copy being a lost sale =P
Various Artists have also started releasing they’re own content online…for FREE!! Trent Reznor for example – but there are plenty of others as well! Do your research muppet!
132 Nov 03, 2009 at 15:54 by Nob0dy
This isn’t the first time 60 minutes has covered piracy….
everybody, look for a clip labeled “Who Stole Superman?” from 1979. The MPAA was paranoid back then about people using VHS recorders.
133 Nov 03, 2009 at 16:58 by NeoZiggy
If they put out anything worth seeing, I’d be happy to shell out 10-15$ for it. Only thing worth paying for recently is Zombieland.
The rich people are just afraid of loosing money to the people that they have made poor. Cry me a f-king river, I can’t wait for some 70 year old to come and ask me to get em a copy of some John Wayne movie now. LOL
134 Nov 03, 2009 at 17:04 by Cygnus
I was flipping through channels and saw this come on so i did watch it. It was amusing when they talked about how the “behind the scenes” hollywood workers were the ones taking the hit from piracy. They admit flat out, that they care less about these people than about the actors (rather than everyone taking a paycut).
I find Netflix to be the best alternative. The movies aren’t pre-release content, but at least you can still rip dvd’s to the computer. About the same price as a VPN and the mailman saves me my bandwidth for d/ling games. Any word on BluRay ripping?
135 Nov 03, 2009 at 17:26 by Comeoncomcast (aka Andrew)
@19
your basically an idiot, or CBS reporter who needs to pull his head out
@25
Stop Trolling
136 Nov 03, 2009 at 17:37 by robbieowallace
comment #19, neo styles, among other comments says file sharing is illicit and immoral.. wow, must be nice to always be the smartest one in the room… and it’s immoral too.. not only are you the smartest guy around you are the one we should listen to for moral guidance..Listen up Numb Nuts..File sharing has been around for as long as there has been an internet!!! the free exchange of thoughts and ideas is what built the world wide web.. We are a better world through sharing.. It wasn’t that many years ago the Hollywood Moguls were forcing out the smaller studios, even using hired thugs to destroy sets and threaten families.. Now the Major Studios are owned by people that make refrigerators and TV sets, magazine companies, and amusement parks.. so you tell me..Which is the bigger crime?
137 Nov 03, 2009 at 17:41 by pissed off
Wow what retarded junk.
Besides, if people don’t pay for movies, THEIR MONEY GOES SOMEWHERE ELSE. It’s simple mathematics. If you have to choose between a movie and another product (not “intellectual property”), would the economy be worse if you choose the latter?
Why?
Of course it would be worse to the corporate shitfucks in the intellectual property industries who want to get money for nothing, since redistributing movies is CHEAP AS HELL. Revenue is almost the same as profit for those fucks.
But it would be better for the manufacturer of the second product, so the economy DOES NOT go down.
Those pieces of shit need to realize that the economy does not equal the MAFIAA’s revenue.
Fact is, people SPEND their money ELSEWHERE, and what’s having both products going to hurt anybody? It’s not like they could even HAVE paid for both… so having both (due to piracy) doesn’t hurt anyone, except the shitfucks who live in a delusion.
If you have to choose for a movie and something else to part with your money, and you choose the latter, the MPAA won’t get your money, so what’s pirating going to hurt them?
People spend their money. FACT. Whether they spend it on the MPAA or something else is irrelevant.
138 Nov 03, 2009 at 17:42 by drmike
And the news industry wonders why most folks get their news from the Daily Show instead of actual news broadcasts.
@127 Re: “So the industry message fell almost completely on clueless, aging ears.”
The problem with that though is those folks are the ones more likely to call up their congressmen and depend something be done.
139 Nov 03, 2009 at 17:44 by Anonymous
BTW you right-wing advocates, it’s the left wing who has valued more freedom than your beloved right-wing dumb fucks like McCain who want to censor the internet. Figure that out, huh?
140 Nov 03, 2009 at 17:46 by drmike
Oops, forgot to mention that I would love to see all torrent trackers drop their collections of 60 minutes from their database. Either that or recategorize them as Comedy.
141 Nov 03, 2009 at 18:25 by cando22
Lets all weep for Sony and Disney and Time Warner, perhaps there is federal money available, oh wait, the insurance companies and banks were already invested in the motion picture industry, how bout a 60 minute edition on how the major studios scammed the American taxpayers out of bailout money because their motion picture projects tanked at the box offfice!!! Soderberg says small indies will suffer… Join the real world moron… thats what happens when you turn out a product that SUCKS.. its called free market competition.. funny how that fickle consumer says “take this crap and shove it”… they just don’t understand the “artistic process” Why would we expect anything different from the MPAA? By the way I see Nicolas Cage had to sell his castle in Bavaria and he is now discounting several homes in the USA cause times are tough… those poor movie stars, whats next? No private jets? No Limos? might have to shop for themselves and learn real world economics!!!! OMG
142 Nov 03, 2009 at 18:27 by zqft
I like how he admitted that the US has shitty broadband.
143 Nov 03, 2009 at 18:28 by Anonymous
I never watch 60 Minutes, it’s so biased on everything it reports and besides, it’s a boring show anyway.
144 Nov 03, 2009 at 18:50 by Trelew
To Neo Styles
After so many of tirades posted by you and your fellow corporate troll, Reasoned Mind; I have to conclude you are both very naive or corporate stooges paid to troll sites like these to spread your corporate propaganda.
“Because piracy prevents any creative effort or business venture from being viable.”
Internet file sharing has been proven several times that they actually promote creativity and increased sales; as most file sharers are of the “try before you buy” variety.
“So called illicit file sharing is not only illegal but also deeply immoral. Further more, I wouldn’t call it manipulating so much as informing, because im guessing that most people who watched the show last night didn’t need much convincing to agree that taking something without paying for it is wrong. Most people probabaly just didn’t know how rampant online piracy has become. The moral quandaries of piracy speak for themselves.”
Internet file sharing is only being called illegal because Big Business wishes it so. Unfortunately, they have corrupted governments around the world that they can get what they want. For the most part the majority of the public are ignorant on the aspects of file sharing. So unfortunately they take anything at face value when spouted off by Big Business and politicians in the media about the so-called evils of internet file sharing.
What this piece on 60 Minutes shows (and on our local news media too) is that there is no integrity in journalism today. It has been bought by Big Business to manipulate the public to doing what they want.
145 Nov 03, 2009 at 19:29 by Capn
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtml
USE IT
146 Nov 03, 2009 at 20:19 by Anonymous
this is all bullshit mpaa can suck a dick
147 Nov 03, 2009 at 21:37 by Nizzy
Great read, lol at some of the comments.
US isn’t about freedom anymore it’s only about money.
<3 from europe.
148 Nov 03, 2009 at 22:26 by reacto
thats some crappy journalism
http://piratesagainstpedos.co.cc/
149 Nov 04, 2009 at 00:03 by No Name
These 60 minutes dummkopf forgot to factor in the miscellaneous losses from other media. With the rise of videogames and online flix streaming (Netflix), people now have a variety of means to access their entertainment.Organized criminals and terrorists get their money elsewhere, such as prostitution, people smuggling, drugs and Wall Street.
150 Nov 04, 2009 at 00:48 by 000
Wheres the torrent for this? I wanna watch…
151 Nov 04, 2009 at 01:02 by pimpdoubt@gmail.com
that’s called a cylinder dumb bastard.
152 Nov 04, 2009 at 02:10 by dan
i think they assume they deserve money for every download of any of their material. they think that if everybody stops pirating any of their work, that everyone will pay for all of things people were downloading and their profits jump.
I don’t think the MPAA really understands who can afford to pay for all they are downloading.
153 Nov 04, 2009 at 02:11 by Bobe-On
Is 60 Minutes part of the industry though?
Is the Oscars Awards like giving yourself an award?
Anyway, the last time I was in a theatre (about 5 years ago– and it was sort of an “indie reperatory”) the volume seemed a bit too cranked.
From what I understand, many who attend loud concerts and clubs, etc., actually lose some of their hearing.
Speaking of movies, and old ones, recall the Ship of Fools: Well, I often feel like I’m trapped on one in everyday life… I get the feeling that some people would be more than happy to have everyone be a slave for them and have them do precisely what they want.
Something to think about that as you work your 9-5.
America was founded in part on slavery.
Imagine that.
154 Nov 04, 2009 at 02:15 by Bobe-On
…and many other instances of slavery around the world and far back in history.
Can you even reason with people like those?
155 Nov 04, 2009 at 02:45 by Pook
I for one always remember to import a 3rd world sex slave for every 10 movies I download….
Is that enough to please the MPAA or do I have to try harder?
156 Nov 04, 2009 at 03:13 by RMind
You can’t compete with free
157 Nov 04, 2009 at 03:18 by chisophugis
I can’t seriously listen to a guy that can’t tell the difference between a cone and a cylinder.
158 Nov 04, 2009 at 07:24 by ken-adams
Well, shit, i think one of those green things on the outside was me
159 Nov 04, 2009 at 07:40 by eav
so is anything being done to get 60 minutes to retract that misleading piece? or at least to get them to show the other side of them?
just kinda curious.
160 Nov 04, 2009 at 09:20 by Soundwave (Have A Cigar)
“I for one always remember to import a 3rd world sex slave for every 10 movies I download….”
Holy hell, that’s hilarious.
161 Nov 04, 2009 at 10:23 by Lars Ulrich
@20 and @92
Lars Ulrich is a complete tool-bag anyways, who cares what comes out of his stupid ass mouth
162 Nov 04, 2009 at 13:21 by fusseltier
piracy doesnt stop creativity. that is just an excuse.
the problem isnt in the west, the problem is in asia, there are so many poor people, and in china they make dvds with 16 movies on a dvd anad sell them all over aisa for $1.50
but its easier to go after americans and europeans that are nothing compared to what is goingon in asia.
163 Nov 04, 2009 at 14:16 by Anonymous
“You can’t compete with free.”
BZZZZT, wrong! Care to try your luck again?
AllOfMP3 proved conclusively that it is without a shadow of a doubt abso-friggin-lutely possible to compete with free.
If that isn’t enough, I’ll just say what I’ve said a thousand times before. I’M A FILE SHARER AND I WANT TO PAY FOR MY ENTERTAINMENT! All the industry has to do is fulfill the consumer demand that has always been there and be willing to stop overcharging for everything.
Can’t compete with free? More like they don’t want to, even though they easily could if only they would put in a small modicum of effort. Laws instituting a sort of business welfare system is what their really after though, so more lies and baloney is all we’re going to see out of them for the foreseeable future.
164 Nov 04, 2009 at 14:17 by dan
The MPAA apparently assumes that people who download will not pay for content, which is grossly incorrect.
In response to fusseltier, while people profiting from piracy is the worst of all possible worlds, it might be more beneficial to the industry than they’ll ever admit. Selling bootleg copies exposes a different sector of society to a product, they could not otherwise see. Particularly if the material isn’t even released in the country, which happens more often than not.
165 Nov 04, 2009 at 14:32 by Kickass_Sid
They took our Jobs(c)South Park
166 Nov 04, 2009 at 20:48 by D2LV
THANK ALL THAT IS GOOD FOR TORRENT FREAK. Without you, a major part of internet freedom would be lost.
167 Nov 04, 2009 at 22:54 by imerebus
Just downloaded that episode
lots of points were inaccurate and false…..obviously the segment was financed by the MPAA….i don’t support selling DVDs on the sidewalk but including us file-sharing people with them is complete ignorance on the part of those people….
also liked the way the hostess of the show was surprised by the “gee-whiz” technology called bittorrent!!
168 Nov 04, 2009 at 22:57 by Taj
169 Nov 04, 2009 at 23:48 by aerger
university campuses are the dumbest places to do any p2p use on
170 Nov 05, 2009 at 03:40 by Anonymous
Guy, please send your comments and frustrations to CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtml
Also, check this: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091103/0303386776.shtml
This crummy episode is getting bad press, lets keep it up.
171 Nov 05, 2009 at 14:58 by United Hackers Association
ya think truly CBS gives a shit
you need another hole in your brain.
Think these are seasoned people and reporters they been around look at past stories. Since the owner of that show died its gone right stupid.
too bad used ot get the odd ep that had an interesting story now its just tabloid hollywood crap like everythign else these days.
LIKE the politician dying on stargate i was like SPACE THE BASTARD they fuck us all the time…..
172 Nov 06, 2009 at 06:35 by eliphant0723
@62
WOW. Sucks.
I’m gonna have to see that airing now.
Another note: On occasion when I do grab a torrent of some movie (I mostly torrent tv episodes, books, and audio books), usually I watch it and then end up seeing it in the theatre with the GF or some friends…I wonder how common this is?
173 Nov 07, 2009 at 14:23 by Brudda
I’m glad 60 Minutes aired this piece. If file sharing is the uncontrollable wave of the present and future, then more exposure is a good thing.
Every time the MPAA opens its mouth, it harms itself. This prime-time piece is a good thing. It will bring more members into the fold.
174 Nov 08, 2009 at 23:30 by Nic Schweitzer
Is there a link so I could download the whole report? I’d love to watch that again and again and again…
175 Nov 16, 2009 at 00:03 by Guilherme Bellia
MPAA is evil
Piracy is good
MPAA sues regular people and make them pay millions of dollars for 30 mp3s
Piracy gives cultural access to poor people.
John Malcolm makes more than 20k a month fighting piracy.
These guys uses #lies to fight pirates likes here:
http://blog.brokep.com/2009/10/08/fail-in-nl/
These guys DONT WANT OUR GOOD
These guys JUST WANT TO MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
These guys dont want FREE BLOGS LIKE THIS
These guys wants a WORLD THAT WE DO NOT WANT ANY MORE
These guys wants a WORLD THAT WE DO NOT BELIEVE ANY MORE
and now we all can join forces trough the internet AND FIGHT THEM BACK
we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end,
we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the ef-nets and darknets,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,
we shall defend our Internets, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the baywords.org,
we shall fight on the /. and on the digg,
we shall fight in the courts;
we shall never surrender,
p2pnet news view | MPAA:- MPAA boss Dan ‘The Joker’ Glickman, about to re-enter the hinterland of obscurity, says SOC is the option for people to enjoy movies in a more timely fashion.
If Hollywood is behind it, it’s a foregone conlusion it can’t be good for us, and so it’ll come as no surprise to learn (Soc) is just a DRM consumer control rose by another name.
If the FCC agrees, the MPAA and the movie studios it represents (Paramount, Sony, Fox, Universal, Disney, and Warner Brothers) would be able to `turn off` any output plug they choose, like those on the back of consumer electronics devices of an entertainment system, during special video-on-demand movies on cable television, said p2pnet, quoting a 2008 Public Knowledge post.
If you use a TiVo, any Slingbox, or a TV manufactured before 2004; connect your TV to your cable box with analog cables (either component or composite); or, have a TV without a digital connection, such as HDMI, you`ll probaby have to replace much if not all of your existing entertainment system, said the story.
Why would they need to put a SOC into it?
To plug up the Analog Hole, of course.
And that’s because a “great harm” is devouring the motion picture industry.
The Huffington Post has an OpEd by Gary Shapiro, president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, part of which goes like this »»»
Four years ago, the motion picture industry convinced the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing to explore what Hollywood studios claimed was rampant piracy of movies occurring through the so-called “analog hole.” (For non-engineers, the “analog hole” is the movie industry’s term for any content-playing device connected to a TV through the red, blue and green multi-use port on the back of millions of TV sets.) The industry’s trade group, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), argued that a great harm was devouring the motion picture industry: that consumers would export movies through the analog output, stealing content and sending it out over the Internet.
By the end of the hearing, Committee leaders did not appear convinced that such analog connections on TV sets were in fact leading to piracy. In fact, as the transcript of the hearing reveals, Committee Chairman Arlen Specter challenged the head of the MPAA, Dan Glickman, to provide evidence in support of the alleged problem:
“Chairman Specter. Mr. Glickman, lots of information about piracy from you and from the Department of Justice, but can you quantify any direct connection between piracy and the analog hole?
Mr. Glickman. We have just completed a major study called the LE case study which estimates that our companies lose about $6.1 billion a year in piracy, and as part of that–
Chairman Specter. OK. I mean from analog — I have only got 5 minutes.
Mr. Glickman. OK, $1 to $1.5 billion in what we call noncommercial copying of movies for family and friends. We believe a big part of that is due to the analog hole.
Chairman Specter. How do you arrive at the figure of $1.5 billion?
Mr. Glickman. The firm did worldwide and national piracy study focus groups. The methodology we considered to be quite good.
Chairman Specter. Well, let me ask you to supplement your answer with the specifics as to how you come to that conclusion.
Mr. Glickman. Sure, be glad to.
Chairman Specter. We would like to see the methodology because before we really tackle the problem, we want to know – before we really look for a solution, we would like to have a specification of the problem.
Mr. Glickman. We will get you that, Senator.”
And, “what of that methodology that MPAA’s Glickman said was quite good’?” – Shapiro asks, adding:
“It turns out it wasn’t quite so good. Rather than provide the evidence requested by Congress, the MPAA was forced to confess that due to ‘human error’ they ‘got the math wrong’ and were unable to properly quantify piracy ‘losses’ from analog TV connections. Forced to admit the much-ballyhooed study exaggerated the losses due to piracy, the MPAA repudiated its own analysis.
“Now, having failed to make its case to the Senate, the MPAA is back — this time, before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – asking permission to disable lawfully purchased HDTV-capable TVs. Using an obscure procedural mechanism, MPAA is asking the FCC for authority to use “selectable output control” (SOC) to shut off TVs that do not use the motion-picture industry’s preferred digital connections. (Again for the non-engineers, SOC allows content providers to shut off the video stream to any TV that is receiving content over a non-favored connection, such as analog.)”
Remember when the MPAA claimed 44% of Hollywood’s domestic ‘piracy’ losses were down to file sharing students?
It turned out 3% was a more likely statistic.
Human error was to blame, but not before the studios had wrung every last PR ounce from the mistake.
Again.
No need to stay tuned.
Follow p2pnet on Twitter.
Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes becomes a MPAA shill
I’ve got a suggestion for Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes fame.
Stay the hell away from technology stories because you are coming of looking like an idiot who doesn’t have a clue. Not to mention that you also start sounding like some shill for whichever organization will benefit from the scare tactics you are using in your segments.
The last time you tried to instill fear in everyone was when you were reporting making up shit about the horrendous Cornflicker virus that was going to take down the Internet in one fell swoop. It didn’t matter one bit that the virus would only infect Windows computers. Nope this nasty little virus was going to destroy the Internet.
To make matters worse the security software company she talked was some dude from Symantec and in the end the whole segment ended up sounding more like an ad for Symantec.
This is a video of that show
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Now fast forward to tonights show where once again Leslie is doing a segment of the incredible evils of movie piracy and how it was costing the movie industry billions of dollars and taking food out of the mouths of hard working actors and movie crews. She even had Steven Soderbergh in the interview chair going on about how bad this piracy thing was.
Of course this was all tied in with organized crime and people using their family to shield them while they filmed the movies playing in theaters. Now anyone who has even watched an illegal downloaded movie will tell you how bad these CAM movies are yet these are the very same movie that industry representative say are killing the movie business.
The one man that Stahl used in the segment was caught with a large amount of burned CD and computer equipment that had been used to upload these “industry killing” versions of movies. This apparently is where the real money is made according to Stahl and interviewees. The only problem is that no-one told Stahl that you don’t have to pay anything to download the movies just as you don’t pay to upload them for distribution.
There is no substance to this segment other than following the “industry representatives” lead on how terrible this all is and how the whole industry is losing money because of these evil people.
Substance like the fact that this has been one of the best years on record for the industry at the box office and it’s not even over yet.
Substance like the fact that the chances are that those terrible people who are downloading absolutely crapping versions of movies probably wouldn’t pay to go and see them in the first place.
Substance like the fact that those big budget movies that are losing money are general crap that no-one wants to see in the first place.
Substance like interviews with people like Cory Doctorow, Michael Mesnick, and others who have been following this subject for a long time and unlike the industry flack that Stahl was fawning over they actually have real figures to defend their arguments.
>In the end this 60 Minutes segment came off just as biased and stupid sounding as her piece on the infested Internet. So here’s a suggestion Leslie. when it comes to technology stories I strongly suggest that you run in the other direction because you – and or your production crew – don’t have a damn clue.
Here is tonight’s segment on how the movie industry is being killed off by evil pirates.
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Related posts:
- Well cry me a river – people are pirating stuff
- Boondock Saints 2 out Friday, watch the first 5 minutes
- Wolverine, Star Trek and how piracy destroyed them both
- Lily Allen claims music pirates killing new talent
- Movie industry meet your new viral marketing department – it’s those nasty pirates
What are the consumer protection issues of online social media sites and what’s the right regulatory balance? That was the focus of today’s Northern Virginia Technology Council (NVTC) event called “Social Media and Consumer Protection: Finding a Balance.” The breakfast event featured Tim Sparapani of Facebook, Pablo Chavez of Google, and Ari Schwartz of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT).
But the event wasn’t about consumer protection (in the traditional sense), it was about privacy. Privacy online is today’s issue du jour, whether it is marketing to children or collecting and sharing data for targeted ads. The FTC has devoted a series of roundtable discussions toward privacy, with the first one beginning Dec. 7.
Privacy’s getting so hyped-up that I believe it to be the next “online safety” sort of issue where isolated and particularized incidents become sensationalized in the media and among regulators, creating counterproductive techno-panics that other commentators have described. This shift is apparent as many policymakers and advocacy groups become increasingly hostile toward targeted online advertising.
But are social media and privacy at odds such that there needs to be a “balance”–whatever that entails? While this question was never explicitly asked, it is clear that Ari Schwartz would say yes because he asserts that consumers don’t know what information is being collected and that users need help to gain control over their own data.Ari acknowledged that when it comes to privacy, lawsuits would be filed and that the courts might rule differently on whether social media sites or their advertiser would be liable, depending on the circumstances. The case-by-case approach in the courts is something that many pro-market advocates would support–but it flies in the face of CDT’s public comments for next week’s FTC Privacy Roundtable.
A cornerstone recommendation in CDT’s comment is that “he FTC should encourage Congress to pass general consumer privacy legislation that is based on a full set of Fair Information Practices. Self-regulation cannot adequately protect consumer privacy when it is not girded by legal standards and more direct oversight from the FTC.” It’s a sweeping statement that ignores the unintended consequences of a general, one-size-fits-all privacy law.
The Maine law regulating “predatory” marketing to children that passed this year is a great case study on the pitfalls of general privacy regulation. The law prohibits the collection of personal and “health-related” information from minors without parental permission, and bans outright its use in marketing to teens.
Because the law was not specific to a particular harm, it was way overbroad. Legitimate advertising and information sharing was now illegal, violating the free speech rights of both advertisers and teenagers. Thankfully, a legislative committee voted in October to recommend repeal of the law.
You often hear privacy advocates rail against the sectoral approach of the U.S. toward privacy, where we have particular laws specific to financial and health care information. They’d rather see a European model of general consumer privacy regulation. But there’s no one-size-fits-all to something that is as highly contextual and personal as one’s privacy.
At the event we heard Pablo Chavez say how hard it is to convince consumers to click on display ads. Online publishers and service providers are constantly thinking of new ways to show relevant and compelling advertising to consumers. It is this experimentation and innovation that, by making ads more relevant, keep paying for the free services we all use on the ‘Net. When this experimentation goes too far and some consumers get harmed–which will undoubtedly happen as it does in any other commercial context–consumers can sue and the FTC can enforce.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into Ari’s acknowledgment that litigation and FTC enforcement will likely figure this out. CDT is an influential and respected organization, so it would be nice to see them acknowledge the pitfalls of a one-size-fits-all solution and talk more about how targeted enforcement can help to weed out any bad actors in targeted advertising. I hope CDT might agree that we need more FTC enforcement and private lawsuits, not new legislation.
Tagged as:
behavioral advertising,
targeted advertising
What are the consumer protection issues of online social media sites and what’s the right regulatory balance? That was the focus of today’s Northern Virginia Technology Council (NVTC) event called “Social Media and Consumer Protection: Finding a Balance.” The breakfast event featured Tim Sparapani of Facebook, Pablo Chavez of Google, and Ari Schwartz of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT).
But the event wasn’t about consumer protection (in the traditional sense), it was about privacy. Privacy online is today’s issue du jour, whether it is marketing to children or collecting and sharing data for targeted ads. The FTC has devoted a series of roundtable discussions toward privacy, with the first one beginning Dec. 7.
Privacy’s getting so hyped-up that I believe it to be the next “online safety” sort of issue where isolated and particularized incidents become sensationalized in the media and among regulators, creating counterproductive techno-panics that other commentators have described. This shift is apparent as many policymakers and advocacy groups become increasingly hostile toward targeted online advertising.
But are social media and privacy at odds such that there needs to be a “balance”–whatever that entails? While this question was never explicitly asked, it is clear that Ari Schwartz would say yes because he asserts that consumers don’t know what information is being collected and that users need help to gain control over their own data.Ari acknowledged that when it comes to privacy, lawsuits would be filed and that the courts might rule differently on whether social media sites or their advertiser would be liable, depending on the circumstances. The case-by-case approach in the courts is something that many pro-market advocates would support–but it flies in the face of CDT’s public comments for next week’s FTC Privacy Roundtable.
A cornerstone recommendation in CDT’s comment is that “he FTC should encourage Congress to pass general consumer privacy legislation that is based on a full set of Fair Information Practices. Self-regulation cannot adequately protect consumer privacy when it is not girded by legal standards and more direct oversight from the FTC.” It’s a sweeping statement that ignores the unintended consequences of a general, one-size-fits-all privacy law.
The Maine law regulating “predatory” marketing to children that passed this year is a great case study on the pitfalls of general privacy regulation. The law prohibits the collection of personal and “health-related” information from minors without parental permission, and bans outright its use in marketing to teens.
Because the law was not specific to a particular harm, it was way overbroad. Legitimate advertising and information sharing was now illegal, violating the free speech rights of both advertisers and teenagers. Thankfully, a legislative committee voted in October to recommend repeal of the law.
You often hear privacy advocates rail against the sectoral approach of the U.S. toward privacy, where we have particular laws specific to financial and health care information. They’d rather see a European model of general consumer privacy regulation. But there’s no one-size-fits-all to something that is as highly contextual and personal as one’s privacy.
At the event we heard Pablo Chavez say how hard it is to convince consumers to click on display ads. Online publishers and service providers are constantly thinking of new ways to show relevant and compelling advertising to consumers. It is this experimentation and innovation that, by making ads more relevant, keep paying for the free services we all use on the ‘Net. When this experimentation goes too far and some consumers get harmed–which will undoubtedly happen as it does in any other commercial context–consumers can sue and the FTC can enforce.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into Ari’s acknowledgment that litigation and FTC enforcement will likely figure this out. CDT is an influential and respected organization, so it would be nice to see them acknowledge the pitfalls of a one-size-fits-all solution and talk more about how targeted enforcement can help to weed out any bad actors in targeted advertising. I hope CDT might agree that we need more FTC enforcement and private lawsuits, not new legislation.
Tagged as:
behavioral advertising,
targeted advertising
The hospital had a victim that had been on the news and according to this article there were individuals looking at the patient’s chart when they should have not normally had access.
I did an interview a few months ago with Dr. Leo from Long Beach Memorial Hospital and he explained the “break the glass” routine to me on how this helps with electronic medical record access and privacy for the patient. I have included a few paragraphs below that are worth reading. If an employee who normally would not have access want to view the chart, they have to document first and say why they need access and all these requests are reviewed. You may get access but will be called on the carpet later if it was deemed you did not need access.
I mention this as one individual in this case stated she was helping a doctor locate friends and family of the patient, and if that was the case and if they have a procedure as do most Epic systems in hospitals, the story would be there, and then there’s also substantiating the story with the doctor too by asking him as well. The physicians in this instance come from Baylor University. Everything with electronic records today has an audit trail when it comes to access. I don’t know if this hospital has an EHR or not, and tracking paper access is no doubt a lot more difficult. BD
“In the news of late we keep hearing stories of patient files being accessed at hospitals without authorization by clinical staff members who are not directly involved with a particular patient’s chart, records or care, none of this at your facility, but if I were a patient at your hospital, can you tell me what safety measures you may have in place to avoid this situation?
That is a good question and yes we do have measures in place with the Epic system to avoid that situation. No one can access a medical record without signing on to the Epic system, which creates an audit trail that can subsequently be tracked. For patients for whom an extra measure of security is needed (such as employees or physicians on staff), Epic has an additional layer of security called “Break the Glass.” For these patients, anyone attempting to access the patient chart has a procedure that needs to be initiated before the patient records are available to view.
In this process the employee or physician must first explain “why” they are accessing the chart. The screen at this point flashes a security reminder, which should provide a deterrent to anyone desiring to access a medical record inappropriately. In years past there were no safeguards in place with paper charts, and anyone could pick up a paper chart and read whatever they wanted to know. But today that is not the case with our advanced technology. Whenever someone “breaks the glass”, that fact and their reason for doing so (which might be quite valid) are included in an e-mail message to our medical records staff who can monitor these actions and request further review by the medical staff office or others, as appropriate.
A full audit trail is created along with a reporting system that allows us to see all aspects of the chart, so even if an individual began the process of accessing the chart and stopped at the “why” screen, the audit trails will identify the employee who wanted to access the patient chart. The system has full audit trails with a reporting system that allows us to keep patient record security in the forefront and monitor access as authorized for patient care. On the other hand, there will be occasions where an employee will need legitimate access to the records, and that is all tracked and shown with the audit trails. In short, insuring complete maintenance of patient privacy and limiting access strictly to that which is appropriate for the care process is a top priority for us. If there is someone in the chart who we deem should not have access, the reporting systems and queries run are capable of letting us know and allowing us to take pro-active action.
The “Breaking the Glass” feature, as well as the standard procedures required for chart access, really make an individual stop and think about why they need access to a particular patient’s chart. All employees are aware of this process and know their tracks will be traced and audited, so preventing unauthorized access to patient charts and protecting patient privacy has been handled in this manner and is working well. The recent Kaiser experience with the octuplets and their actions in dealing with staff that inappropriately accessed those charts was facilitated by their use of the same Break the Glass functionality and we hope sent a good message to everyone about how important that privacy is.”
The Harris County Hospital District has fired 16 employees, accusing them of violating patient privacy laws, a hospital spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday.
District officials would not offer more details on the employees' actions. Most were fired on Friday.
A county employee who asked not to be identified told the Houston Chronicle that two high-ranking administrators told him the fired employees had looked at the medical records of Dr. Stephanie Wuest, a first-year Baylor College of Medicine resident assigned to Ben Taub General Hospital.
Harris hospital district fires 16 over privacy | Front page | Chron.com – Houston Chronicle
Attention, thrifty PopWatchers: It turns out beloved home of full-lengthy goodness Hulu is not going to start charging after all.