NationStates Jolt Archive

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/07/04/mpaas-media-defender-sets-up-fake-site-to-catch-pirates/


Don't get caught up in the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) latest sting. Media Defender, a company which does the dirty work for the MPAA, has been caught setting up 'dummy' websites in an attempt to catch those who download copyrighted videos - entrapment comes to mind.

The site, MiiVi.com, complete with a user registration, forum, and "family filter", offers complete downloads of movies and "fast and easy video downloading all in one great site." But that's not all; MiiVi also offers client software to speed up the downloading process. The only catch is, after it's installed, it searches your computer for other copyrighted files and reports back.

ZeroPaid, acting on a tip from The Pirate Bay, found MiiVi to be registered to Media Defender using a whois search. Shortly after, the registrar information was changed, but the address still reflects Media Defender's address at 2461 Santa Monica Blvd., D-520 Santa Monica, CA 90404.

Not 10 hours after the site was found to be registered to Media Defender, the site went dead. There's no telling how long it was up; however, the domain was registered on February 8, 2007.

Perhaps Media Defender won't use its own name on the registrar the next time around, but it just goes to show the lengths at which the MPAA is willing to go, to fight piracy.


This really is disgusting. Spyware is not a valid way to fight piracy.

It'll just piss off people more who wouldn't have been deterred in the first place.

I would put my vote in "bastards" but I feel it isn't strong enough to mirror my first reaction "mother fuckers."

Now that I think about it, wouldn't a website set up by the MPAA, even a puppet website, that offers free, full-length movies mean that any movies downloaded from there were done so legally? Unless the site had a disclaimer that "downloading these movies is illegal," that is the argument I would make if they went after me.

I also applaud The Pirate Bay for once again sticking it to the man.

It is questionable that evidence provided from this source would be admissable in any court.

Of course, my opinion is that you wouldn't have this problem if you didn't download movies illegally.

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/07/04/mpaas-media-defender-sets-up-fake-site-to-catch-pirates/




This really is disgusting. Spyware is not a valid way to fight piracy.
Heh, clever, but it mostly just makes me more dedicated to ripping off the MPAA.

Downloading and piracy are the natural reaction to a monopoly trying to price-fix. Consumers simply won't pay the price they are demanding. Instead of altering their prices to reflect the demand, they decide to try to further fix the market.

This is just disgusting.

Spyware is not a valid way to fight piracy.
You would think they would have learned that lesson from the Sony rootkit and Starforce debacles, of course this is the MPAA, and RIAA, we are talking about here...

The MPAA needs to inbrace the new Tec not fight it. If they would work as hard in making downloading music and movies cheeper and easier then maybe they would not have these problems.

It is questionable that evidence provided from this source would be admissable in any court.

Of course, my opinion is that you wouldn't have this problem if you didn't download movies illegally.

QFT.

The MPAA needs to inbrace the new Tec not fight it. If they would work as hard in making downloading music and movies cheeper and easier then maybe they would not have these problems.

And then, the movie makers and actors would get paid.... how?
The movie studios would make a profit.... how?

Of course, if we want to make it so unprofitable that they cease making movies the way we want them -- with kick-ass special effects, big name movie stars, etc., that will really make downloading worthwhile.

:rolleyes:

The MPAA needs to inbrace the new Tec not fight it. If they would work as hard in making downloading music and movies cheeper and easier then maybe they would not have these problems.

Absolutely. A low-cost distribution system that requires very little physical infrastructure and no involvement with any middlemen is what most any industry has wet dreams about every night. I don't understand why the MPAA and RIAA haven't embraced this wholeheartedly, because it makes perfect business sense to do so. Furthermore, the ability of infinitely reproduce a product at virtually no cost whatsoever is so incredibly attractive. It's pure profit, even if they were to charge, say, three bucks a download.

QFT.



And then, the movie makers and actors would get paid.... how?
The movie studios would make a profit.... how?

Of course, if we want to make it so unprofitable that they cease making movies the way we want them -- with kick-ass special effects, big name movie stars, etc., that will really make downloading worthwhile.

:rolleyes:
I would assume the same way they do now: promotions and merchandise. :rolleyes:
Oh yeah, and people going to see it in the theatre. I refuse to believe that the people downloading stolen movies hurts the theatre industry as watching a movie in a theatre is wholly different than at home on tv. This hurts the resell of the movies on DVD because people are tired of getting ripped off with price fixing.

If I'm not mistaken Spyware is illegal. It counts as unauthorized access, unless the license states explicitly what it's doing.

Of course, if we want to make it so unprofitable that they cease making movies the way we want them -- with kick-ass special effects, big name movie stars, etc., that will really make downloading worthwhile.

:rolleyes:

You assume too much about what we want. I would gladly trade in kick-ass special effects and big name actors for intelligent and interesting films. Not that those options are mutually exclusive, but the major studios seem to operate as if they were.

If you have to download a program to pirate thing it's obviously full of spy-ware anyway. But these people are getting really desperate.

If you have to download a program to pirate thing it's obviously full of spy-ware anyway. But these people are getting really desperate.

There are good bit torrent clients out there that don't use spyware. Azureus is one.

You assume too much about what we want. I would gladly trade in kick-ass special effects and big name actors for intelligent and interesting films. Not that those options are mutually exclusive, but the major studios seem to operate as if they were.
All the "old" people at the work 4th of July party yesterday were making that point. Good storylines and acting got updated to no one cares about storylines or acting with huge effects.

There are good bit torrent clients out there that don't use spyware. Azureus is one.

Yes, but anybody with half a brain would take precautions with an unknown program.

All the "old" people at the work 4th of July party yesterday were making that point. Good storylines and acting got updated to no one cares about storylines or acting with huge effects.
One of the things I loved about Die Hard 4 was that the big-time special effects were used IN ADDITION to good casting, solid writing, and a plot that doesn't collapse if you breath on it. It's not a Great Film by any stretch, but it's a solid movie because it doesn't just use big kabooms as a crutch for total lack of acting, scripting, or plot. They also make an effort to have INTERESTING action scenes, instead of just really big ones with so much CGI that your eye is overwhelmed.

That's what annoys me about a lot of current movies. They pour money into the flicks to make them shiny and nice looking on the surface, but the actual substance is totally absent. That's why I'm not willing to pay $10.50 for a damn movie ticket very often these days...I don't want to encourage them to make more of these crap movies.

All the "old" people at the work 4th of July party yesterday were making that point. Good storylines and acting got updated to no one cares about storylines or acting with huge effects.
Indeed! I want someone to make 'Seeing' of Jose Saramago into a film! it's fascinating it's hillarious and there is just one explosion and no other form of violence in the entire book. Everything else was story!

All the "old" people at the work 4th of July party yesterday were making that point. Good storylines and acting got updated to no one cares about storylines or acting with huge effects.

I blame George Lucas. He needs a beating.

Yes, but anybody with half a brain would take precautions with an unknown program.
do not assume brains from those people, who know jack shit about computers and do not want to. There is a scaringly large group of people who'd click on anything shiny.

One of the things I loved about Die Hard 4 was that the big-time special effects were used IN ADDITION to good casting, solid writing, and a plot that doesn't collapse if you breath on it.
Of course this is if you forget the plot is about a bunch of hackers who are trying to blow up the US.

Of course this is if you forget the plot is about a bunch of hackers who are trying to blow up the US.
Well sure, it collapses if you give it a slight jostle with your elbow, but I still maintain that you can safely breathe on it.

One of the things I loved about Die Hard 4 was that the big-time special effects were used IN ADDITION to good casting, solid writing, and a plot that doesn't collapse if you breath on it. It's not a Great Film by any stretch, but it's a solid movie because it doesn't just use big kabooms as a crutch for total lack of acting, scripting, or plot. They also make an effort to have INTERESTING action scenes, instead of just really big ones with so much CGI that your eye is overwhelmed.

That's what annoys me about a lot of current movies. They pour money into the flicks to make them shiny and nice looking on the surface, but the actual substance is totally absent. That's why I'm not willing to pay $10.50 for a damn movie ticket very often these days...I don't want to encourage them to make more of these crap movies.

If you don't fork over the cash to see their shit movies they become convinced you're downloading them instead.

It never occurs to them that if they made a flick worthing paying to see people would shockingly pay to see it. Otherwise you're better off waiting til it's on cable.

Well sure, it collapses if you give it a slight jostle with your elbow, but I still maintain that you can safely breathe on it.

Let me add "blow up the US through hacking."
Don't breathe too hard.

If you don't fork over the cash to see their shit movies they become convinced you're downloading them instead.

It never occurs to them that if they made a flick worthing paying to see people would shockingly pay to see it. Otherwise you're better off waiting til it's on cable.
They'll either continue to be stupid and go out of business eventually, or they'll wise up and start working with the market instead of trying to fix it.

Either way, I'm still downloading movies for as long as the prices fail to fit the product.

I happily pay full price to see movies that I believe are worth it. If they want my money, they should either make better movies or charge less for crappy ones.

I'm probably wrong, but isn't this GROSSLY illegal?

Let me add "blow up the US through hacking."
Don't breathe too hard.
Meh. It was plausible enough to permit suspension of disbelief. If you're looking for anything more from a movie, then why are you watching an action flick?

Suck my balls MPAA.

I'm probably wrong, but isn't this GROSSLY illegal?
Hasn't stopped the MPAA yet, or anyone else for that matter.

If you don't fork over the cash to see their shit movies they become convinced you're downloading them instead.

It never occurs to them that if they made a flick worthing paying to see people would shockingly pay to see it. Otherwise you're better off waiting til it's on cable.

*standing ovation*

Of course, my opinion is that you wouldn't have this problem if you didn't download movies illegally.

In my country downloading movies is legal. It is the distribution without the copyright holders consent which is not.

So... they would place illegal spyware on my pc for acting lawful, while breaking the law in multiple ways themselves.

It is questionable that evidence provided from this source would be admissable in any court.

Of course, my opinion is that you wouldn't have this problem if you didn't download movies illegally.

Then again, if movie makers made decent movies you wouldnt feel the need to download them and actually support the industry.


And as for supporting the industry. A bloated pile of garbage.. with over paid actors... why? They do nothing useful in the world why give them such a life.

Piracy is a wonderful thing...I have 13,000 mp3/videos to prove it...i'm sorry that some famous person now doesn't get to have 4 lambo's and instead they can only afford 2...boo hoo..

And as for supporting the industry. A bloated pile of garbage.. with over paid actors... why? They do nothing useful in the world why give them such a life.

If that were true, you would not want the movies.

I don't see the point in dowloading movies. Watching die hard 4 (for instance) on your shittly little computer screen, will be hundreds of times worse then watching it in the cinema.

Piracy is a wonderful thing...I have 13,000 mp3/videos to prove it...i'm sorry that some famous person now doesn't get to have 4 lambo's and instead they can only afford 2...boo hoo..

Yeah god knows the production staff doesn't get any pay. :rolleyes:

I should download movies from such sites. They may try to sue me, but they shall lose, always.

I should download movies from such sites. They may try to sue me, but they shall lose, always.

The suing is not the problem (for me at least). The systeminstability caused by illegal spyware is.

The suing is not the problem (for me at least). The systeminstability caused by illegal spyware is.Well, that's a problem too.

But they can't sue me.:)

And then, the movie makers and actors would get paid.... how?
The movie studios would make a profit.... how?

Of course, if we want to make it so unprofitable that they cease making movies the way we want them -- with kick-ass special effects, big name movie stars, etc., that will really make downloading worthwhile.

:rolleyes:
The same way they do now. All that would change is the distribution system--downloads instead of packaging dvds with promotional material, etc. The profits might be slightly lower per unit, but they'll make up for it with lower costs per unit. The people who are in the greatest danger of going under from the change in distribution aren't the movie companies--it's the theaters. The more convenient it is to see films at home, the less the casual viewer is going to go out to see a movie.

Yeah god knows the production staff doesn't get any pay. :rolleyes:

Or the administrative assistants, physical production, warehousing employees, sales clerks, local franchisers or countless other individuals whose livelihoods depend upon the music industry.

Then again, if movie makers made decent movies you wouldnt feel the need to download them and actually support the industry.




You're trying to rationalize an act. If you didn't like the films, then you wouldn't download them in the first place, instead you're just a common teenage shoplifter whining about how "boohoo the world is so unfair! I have to pay money for stuff! I'm stickin' it to the man!"

Or the administrative assistants, physical production, warehousing employees, sales clerks, local franchisers or countless other individuals whose livelihoods depend upon the music industry.
Prove that downloading movies hurts the theatre industry - which is where the movie makes back its money.

Only a small portion of movies have bootlegs out before the movie releases, and they are cheap camera copies. Downloading movies hurts the rip off DVD industry. If you could even make the argument that it even hurts anyone at all.

Or the administrative assistants, physical production, warehousing employees, sales clerks, local franchisers or countless other individuals whose livelihoods depend upon the music industry.

Their jobs are obsolete.

You're trying to rationalize an act. If you didn't like the films, then you wouldn't download them in the first place, instead you're just a common teenage shoplifter whining about how "boohoo the world is so unfair! I have to pay money for stuff! I'm stickin' it to the man!"

I agree in principle. But thats not going to stop me downloading music. ;)

Fuck principles, free music is free music.

Or the administrative assistants, physical production, warehousing employees, sales clerks, local franchisers or countless other individuals whose livelihoods depend upon the music industry.
And how the fuck did this become about the music industry, in addition to my last post.

The RIAA is ripping people the fuck off, the end.

Prove that downloading movies hurts the theatre industry - which is where the movie makes back its money.

Only a small portion of movies have bootlegs out before the movie releases, and they are cheap camera copies. Downloading movies hurts the rip off DVD industry. If you could even make the argument that it even hurts anyone at all.

I'm focusing on the downloading of music, not movies.

And how the fuck did this become about the music industry, in addition to my last post.

Because I damn well please.

The RIAA is ripping people the fuck off, the end.

Boo-hoo! I have to pay for music! Boo-hoo!

I'm focusing on the downloading of music, not movies.
Which led to my post on this page..

The RIAA is ripping people off - the band and the consumers and the workers.
What franchisers are hurt by people downloading music? I can't think of any franchise stores that solely sell music.
Sales clerks? Oh yeah, those positions are in short supply :rolleyes:
Physical production? That would be what?

You're going to have to elaborate on how downloading music hurts the industry, much less these specific parts of it.

Entrapment much?

"Hey want some free shit?"
"Yeah sure."
"GET ON THE GROUND SCUMBAG!!"

Which led to my post on this page..

The RIAA is ripping people off - the band and the consumers and the workers.
What franchisers are hurt by people downloading music? I can't think of any franchise stores that solely sell music.
Sales clerks? Oh yeah, those positions are in short supply :rolleyes:
Physical production? That would be what?

You're going to have to elaborate on how downloading music hurts the industry, much less these specific parts of it.

It decreases demand for legitimate products, and those responsible for the production of legitimate products, and all the cogs in the chain that brings CD's to stores.

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/07/04/mpaas-media-defender-sets-up-fake-site-to-catch-pirates/

This really is disgusting. Spyware is not a valid way to fight piracy.

Dude, it's like the quote in Pantless's sig, except for movies. "You can't have zero piracy or you'll make the experience of consuming music so painful you'll have zero industry."

The RIAA is ripping people off - the band and the consumers and the workers.

But they do so by choice of the band and workers. The ones that produce in other words.
Who I do think should have more rights than the ones who merely consume.

Which led to my post on this page..

The RIAA is ripping people off - the band and the consumers and the workers.
What franchisers are hurt by people downloading music? I can't think of any franchise stores that solely sell music.
Sales clerks? Oh yeah, those positions are in short supply :rolleyes:
Physical production? That would be what?

You're going to have to elaborate on how downloading music hurts the industry, much less these specific parts of it.

Well apparently music is one of the UKs major exports, and is good for the economy. So at least for the UK it might lower our revenue a tad.

Boo-hoo! I have to pay for music! Boo-hoo!
I have no problems with paying for music. I have problems paying exhorbent amount for music, especially bad music. Why should I pay $15 for a CD I want one song from, or even CDs I only like two or three songs from? Why would I? I want only the songs I like. Before iTunes, the only real way to get just those songs was steal them or find a friend with the CD. That is what the RIAA likes to glaze over - the assertion that people downloading the music would have even bought the CDs with the music on them in the first damn place.

And it is called free publicity. I have bought CDs by groups I like. How did I know I liked those groups? I downloaded the music. Without pirating the industry wouldn't have sold at least a dozen CDs (plus two CDs from groups the RIAA doesn't cover because they indie produce). How much money did the industry lose from the CDs I didn't buy of music I have pirated (I make no claims as to still having this music)? Zero. I had and have no intention of buying the CDs because I don't like enough of the songs on them to justify paying 10 to 15 dollars.

I have no problems with paying for music. I have problems paying exhorbent amount for music, especially bad music. Why should I pay $15 for a CD I want one song from, or even CDs I only like two or three songs from? Why would I?

Because the people who produced the cd want you to buy it that way.
Hey - noone said that people that make stuff worth having have to be smart or nice.

And what about rare CDs that people are trying to sell at prices nearing 100 dollars on eBay and Amazon?

If I'm not mistaken Spyware is illegal. It counts as unauthorized access, unless the license states explicitly what it's doing.no it's not. else all those spyware/malware distribution sites would be shut down.

In my country downloading movies is legal. It is the distribution without the copyright holders consent which is not.

So... they would place illegal spyware on my pc for acting lawful, while breaking the law in multiple ways themselves.and how does one prove that you got that movie from an authorized distributor and not someone who did NOT have the holder's consent.

and if you downloaded the spyware into your pc, then you basically gave it permission for the installation. Just like you can invite people into your house, but if one of them is an off duty police officer and you do something illegal, its not an unlawful search.

Prove that downloading movies hurts the theatre industry - which is where the movie makes back its money.

Only a small portion of movies have bootlegs out before the movie releases, and they are cheap camera copies. Downloading movies hurts the rip off DVD industry. If you could even make the argument that it even hurts anyone at all.actually alot of movies, actors/actresses and those behind the scenes gets a percentage of the DVD sales. I remember when Disney re-released "Snow White". The Voice Actors/Actresses were pissed that they didn't get a cent from those sales because such payments were not in their contract.

So it's not just the bootlegs that get out before the movie release, but any bootleg.

Entrapment much?

"Hey want some free shit?"
"Yeah sure."
"GET ON THE GROUND SCUMBAG!!" wrong. as Neo Art will tell you, it's not entrapment if they make a site and you go there and download their stuff.

now if they consistently sent you emails leading you to their site... ;)

And what about rare CDs that people are trying to sell at prices nearing 100 dollars on eBay and Amazon?

I'd bet that an enterprising marketer with one of the big companies could make a nice little niche enterprise for their bosses by scanning that sort of info and then re-releasing those cd's on demand. It wouldn't satisfy the purist collector, but the person who just wants the songs might be willing to pay for a clean version of them, and the costs would be minimal.

and how does one prove that you got that movie from an authorized distributor and not someone who did NOT have the holder's consent.

That is irrelevant. The one distributing the movie is at fault. The one receiving is not, even if the distributor is know to have no permission from the copyrightholder.
It does make the use of torrents and most p2p programs for downlaoding illegal though, sicnce those in general disallow leeching.

and if you downloaded the spyware into your pc, then you basically gave it permission for the installation. Just like you can invite people into your house, but if one of them is an off duty police officer and you do something illegal, its not an unlawful search.
If the policeofficer does not identify himself as such, proceeds to search all cupboards and closets without permission and then secretly sends a report to his boss he would both get fired and jailed.

Because the people who produced the cd want you to buy it that way.
Hey - noone said that people that make stuff worth having have to be smart or nice.
Then I don't have to buy it.
Are toy companies going to go around shutting down yard sales or places that give away toys that people don't want? No. It's stupid.
Sure, some people who buy toys there might not buy toys from the store, but can they guarantee they were going to do it in the first place? No. And that is where the MPAA and RIAA fail. There is always a third party distributor that will (re)distribute the stuff in such a away that they won't be getting the proceeds.

Then I don't have to buy it.
Are toy companies going to go around shutting down yard sales or places that give away toys that people don't want? No. It's stupid.

Depends who owns those toys. If you stole them from a shop and then give them away for free the toymakers might just get upset ;)

Depends who owns those toys. If you stole them from a shop and then give them away for free the toymakers might just get upset ;)
That's something different altogether.

That's something different altogether.

The laws of many countries disagree. So do many of the music and moviemakers.
Why does your opinion outweigh theirs ?

Depends who owns those toys. If you stole them from a shop and then give them away for free the toymakers might just get upset ;)

But that's not what we're talking about here.

A more apt example:

If your neighbor bought a new (insert awesome car here), you wouldn't steal it. But if he asked if he could burn you a copy, you'd be interested.

But that's not what we're talking about here.

A more apt example:

If your neighbor bought a new (insert awesome car here), you wouldn't steal it. But if he asked if he could burn you a copy, you'd be interested.

Again: the law and makers of the stuff you wish to copy disagree with your statement.

Neo Art will tell you, it's not entrapment if they make a site and you go there and download their stuff.

now if they consistently sent you emails leading you to their site... ;)

I'm only familiar with drugs and prostitution when it comes to entrapment, and New Jersey's law system. But it's usually as such:

Officer approaches man
"Hey want some coke?" (Entrapment)

Man approaches officer
"Yo man let me get 3grams of your best shit." (Not entrapment)

Here it just seems like the website invites you into doing something illegal. You would go to the website in the same way you would enter a park, but somewhere on the page it must say "Get free downloads - register here".

The webnet makes law pretty hazy.

and if you downloaded the spyware into your pc, then you basically gave it permission for the installation. Just like you can invite people into your house, but if one of them is an off duty police officer and you do something illegal, its not an unlawful search.


Of course, they didn't say it was spyware. Would you imply that spreading viruses should be legal since people gave it "permission" to fuck with your files since your downloaded it with your consent?

Again: the law and makers of the stuff you wish to copy disagree with your statement.

But again: No one stole anything

The laws of many countries disagree.
Only related to the next sentence so I will start there.

So do many of the music and moviemakers.
Oh I bet they do. Like I bet they did when the VCR was created and people could record movies and shows straight from their tv. Like I bet they did when the TiVo came out and people could not only record stuff but take out the commercials. These people throw a god damn fit every time a new technology comes out that could conceivably put a dent in their revenue and kill them off, but hey, what do you know, they are still around making millions upon millions bitching about the next tech innovation.


Why does your opinion outweigh theirs ?
As a consumer, as a voter, and as some one not driven by a profit margin and without a history of "the problem," yes, yes it does.

Stealing and piracy may not be mutually exclusive but they damn sure arn't the same thing.


PS. Do you see the big game companies up in arms about piracy? I don't recall Blizzard or anyone going around trying to sue people for pirating their games.

But that's not what we're talking about here.

A more apt example:

If your neighbor bought a new (insert awesome car here), you wouldn't steal it. But if he asked if he could burn you a copy, you'd be interested.

Only part true. Fair use is limited, and while I thought Napster had a case in extending the argument to include P2P services, the courts disagreed. (They had to torture logic to do so, but they did.) But even so, Fair Use never allowed a person to make unlimited copies of something and distribute them.

Of course, they didn't say it was spyware. Would you imply that spreading viruses should be legal since people gave it "permission" to fuck with your files since your downloaded it with your consent? who do they go after, the fucker who created the virus or all those who spread it?

But again: No one stole anythingactually, you 'stole' a copy someone's intellecual property via a process that the person who paid for the 'fair use' of said copy took advantage of in the duplication/distribution of said copy of intellectual property.

actually, you 'stole' a copy someone's intellecual property
I don't even want to have to start in on that...

who do they go after, the fucker who created the virus or all those who spread it?

I was asking if you think they should be able to get away with spreading viruses since people had to knowingly to click it to get it in the first place. As with this spyware. They're both malware; yet the MPAA gets away with it.

But again: No one stole anything

Are you claiming that if you buy a dvd or cd you actually own the material on it ? That if I were to buy a cd of Britney Spears I would become the owner of the song - and that Britney would have to pay *me* every time she sings ?

I admit the idea is appealing. Pity the lawmakers do not see it that way.

Again: the law and makers of the stuff you wish to copy disagree with your statement.

And they all realise that it's for 100% ecenomical/ pragmatic reasons, and absolutely nothing to do with an absurd idea that it's actually stealing.

But again: No one stole anything

They stole the product of someone's creativity and labor. They most certainly stole something.

actually, you 'stole' a copy someone's intellecual property via a process that the person who paid for the 'fair use' of said copy took advantage of in the duplication/distribution of said copy of intellectual property.

I'm fairly sure cars don't come with a policy against copying them.

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."

Robert A. Heinlein

The music and movie industries are simply ignoring a potential new means of distribution. Rather than adapt their methods to new technologies they attempt to suppress their use. This is plain foolishness. All that has resulted is others have been the first into exploit the technology. In this case, no corporation was willing to risk their capital to turn file sharing into a means for them to profit. Now, through their own short sightedness, they are left scrambling to deal with with the aftermath. Even in the face of companies such as I-tunes they continue to resist the changes which started a decade ago and are now commonplace.

Oh I bet they do. Like I bet they did when the VCR was created and people could record movies and shows straight from their tv. Like I bet they did when the TiVo came out and people could not only record stuff but take out the commercials. These people throw a god damn fit every time a new technology comes out that could conceivably put a dent in their revenue and kill them off, but hey, what do you know, they are still around making millions upon millions bitching about the next tech innovation.actually because of the invention of the VCR, the copywrite statement was created. another factor was that stations that show movies and tv shows now put their logos on the show to not only identify where it came from, but also that it's a copy. same with most DVD copying software.

PS. Do you see the big game companies up in arms about piracy? I don't recall Blizzard or anyone going around trying to sue people for pirating their games.well, until those torrent sites and other download media require a 25 part alpha numeric KEY to access that movie or mp3 from their site... ;)

and now days, some softwares have a limited load count. each time you load that program, it auto registers via the web and when that count is reached, then you have to call the company to get the security key to continue.
or if you don't register within a set time limit, the program locks and won't run.

Are you claiming that if you buy a dvd or cd you actually own the material on it ? That if I were to buy a cd of Britney Spears I would become the owner of the song - and that Britney would have to pay *me* every time she sings ?

I admit the idea is appealing. Pity the lawmakers do not see it that way.

No, that's not it at all. You are the owner of the data on the disc, not the song itself.

Oh I bet they do. Like I bet they did when the VCR was created and people could record movies and shows straight from their tv. Like I bet they did when the TiVo came out and people could not only record stuff but take out the commercials. These people throw a god damn fit every time a new technology comes out that could conceivably put a dent in their revenue and kill them off, but hey, what do you know, they are still around making millions upon millions bitching about the next tech innovation.

And get legal compensation for it.

As a consumer, as a voter, and as some one not driven by a profit margin and without a history of "the problem," yes, yes it does.

Why ? You are not producing anything. You are also not trying to change the law through voting. You are just being a parasite.
I do the same thing btw.

PS. Do you see the big game companies up in arms about piracy? I don't recall Blizzard or anyone going around trying to sue people for pirating their games.

LucasArts does. Extremely so.
Blizzard knows it makes more from the sale of manuals and so on and is simply smarter ;)

No, that's not it at all. You are the owner of the data on the disc, not the song itself.

Not even that. You merely own the right to use that data in certain ways.

They stole the product of someone's creativity and labor. They most certainly stole something.
Nothing is stolen. It is still available for some one else. If you want to make a more correct statement, it would be "illegally copied." And let's not get into this because the artists don't own the right to their music anyway. When they sign on they probably sign the same waiver people at big corps sign: any and all intellectual property created by that person while under the contract becomes the sole property of the employer. I certainly have no problem sticking it to the man.

No, that's not it at all. You are the owner of the data on the disc, not the song itself.

You don't even own that much, you have merely purchased the rights to use a certain product in certain ways.

Not even that. You merely own the right to use that data in certain ways.

The above statement is subject to enforcement and on-disc copyright protections or lack thereof... more likely the lack thereof.

Why ? You are not producing anything.
Assumption

You are also not trying to change the law through voting.
Assumption.

You are just being a parasite.
Asshattery.

LucasArts does. Extremely so.
A game company that is a game company, not an extension of an everything else company. George Lucas is Nazi with the rights to Star Wars.

Blizzard knows it makes more from the sale of manuals and so on and is simply smarter ;)Exactly. Promotion and marketing.
But still. I don't recall some one like NCSoft doing it. I wouldn't put it past EA but I havn't heard of any specific incidents..

well, until those torrent sites and other download media require a 25 part alpha numeric KEY to access that movie or mp3 from their site... ;)

Actually not all games, in fact quite a few, do not require a CD key to be installed (I know several of ones I've purchased lately have not). And it's fairly easy to get past that step.

Nothing is stolen. It is still available for some one else. If you want to make a more correct statement, it would be "illegally copied." And let's not get into this because the artists don't own the right to their music anyway. When they sign on they probably sign the same waiver people at big corps sign: any and all intellectual property created by that person becomes the sole property of the owner. I certainly have no problem sticking it to the man.

Something is stolen!

Stealing does not necessarily mean that you are depriving another individual of their legitimate use of an object, merely that you are depriving another individual of the rightful fruits of their product. If it's the corporations who own it by virtue of contract, then so what? You're still stealing.

You sound increasingly like a whiny little teenager.

well, until those torrent sites and other download media require a 25 part alpha numeric KEY to access that movie or mp3 from their site... ;)
Sid Meiers games specifically had the key removed. (Which is actually kind of pissed me off because now I can't put my Civ games in Steam)

and now days, some softwares have a limited load count. each time you load that program, it auto registers via the web and when that count is reached, then you have to call the company to get the security key to continue.
or if you don't register within a set time limit, the program locks and won't run.The big do-everything companies like Sony and LucasArts. Specifically game creating companies? Unlikely.

The above statement is subject to enforcement and on-disc copyright protections or lack thereof... more likely the lack thereof.

Excuse me ?
It is simply a case of you bought X. Not Y or Z. Those are extra.
It is like buying the tires for a ferrari and then claiming the ferrari, the garage it was in and the girl that was lying on the hood are also yours now as long as noone stops you.
In practice - true. Legally - not true.

QFT.



And then, the movie makers and actors would get paid.... how?

:rolleyes:


Yea, like someone who make ten million+ a year needs to worry about money.

I voted for the borguies option.

The above statement is subject to enforcement and on-disc copyright protections or lack thereof... more likely the lack thereof.

We wouldn't need the stinking copy protection if parasites would stop stealing music. All pirates manage to do is make the consumption of music harder for those of us who decide to remain within the bounds of the law.

Something is stolen!

Stealing does not necessarily mean that you are depriving another individual of their legitimate use of an object, merely that you are depriving another individual of the rightful fruits of their product. If it's the corporations who own it by virtue of contract, then so what? You're still stealing.

You sound increasingly like a whiny little teenager.
Which of course makes the point invalid, huh, you senile old codger? :rolleyes:

The big do-everything companies like Sony and LucasArts. Specifically game creating companies? Unlikely.
games are not the only software out there. ;)

We wouldn't need the stinking copy protection if parasites would stop stealing music.
We wouldn't need the copy protection if the industry realized they arn't losing money because of it and are losing money because CDs are overpriced and the copy protection is driving off customers because copy protection often prevents the product from working on certain players.

All pirates manage to do is make the consumption of music harder for those of us who decide to remain within the bounds of the law.
Ehhhhh, wrong. Pirates do nothing but pirate, the idiots in charge who still live in the past make the consumption of music harder for everyone and therefore drive more people to easier and more simpler pirating.

Which of course makes the point invalid, huh, you senile old codger? :rolleyes:

The point is invalid in and of itself, it's incidental that it's also an argument used by every single teenage hack who gets caught shoplifting.

games are not the only software out there. ;)
Ahh, good point. The big corporation software entities and some of the small sized ones can get dodgy.

We wouldn't need the stinking copy protection if parasites would stop stealing music. All pirates manage to do is make the consumption of music harder for those of us who decide to remain within the bounds of the law.

How does it make consumption of music harder for you? Since you're buying the CD legally, what does it matter if there's stricter copy protection on it. You're not going to copy it, right?

Is it stealing if the owner at the record store gives you a CD for free?

No.

The only thing it's "stealing" is customers. Which isn't a crime.

Excuse me ?
It is simply a case of you bought X. Not Y or Z. Those are extra.
It is like buying the tires for a ferrari and then claiming the ferrari, the garage it was in and the girl that was lying on the hood are also yours now as long as noone stops you.
In practice - true. Legally - not true.

You exaggerated to a point where I can not consider this argument valid.

How does it make consumption of music harder for you? Since you're buying the CD legally, what does it matter if there's stricter copy protection on it. You're not going to copy it, right?

Because copy protection often has an impact on the ability to play on certain media players. Because my otherwise previously existing concept of fair use is impeded out of fear that I will stick it on LimeWire. Copy protections are a pain.

You exaggerated to a point where I can not consider this argument valid.

Yawn. Fine.
You bought X. Not Y or Z. Those are extra. Happy ?

How does it make consumption of music harder for you? Since you're buying the CD legally, what does it matter if there's stricter copy protection on it. You're not going to copy it, right?

But it may not work in my car cdplayer anymore.
It is also possible I can not use my right to backup the data.

The only thing it's "stealing" is customers. Which isn't a crime.

It's depriving someone of the due proceeds of the consumption of their product.

It's depriving someone of the due proceeds of the consumption of their product.

Thats just another way of saying what I said.

We wouldn't need the copy protection if the industry realized they arn't losing money because of it and are losing money because CDs are overpriced and the copy protection is driving off customers because copy protection often prevents the product from working on certain players.

Entirely correct. Unfortunately they are stupid.

But it may not work in my car cdplayer anymore.
It is also possible I can not use my right to backup the data.

Which has happened to me at least once.

Or how about iTunes copy protected MP4 file format? I have to go through an entire backdoor process to make it playable on my MP3 player.

The point is invalid in and of itself, it's incidental that it's also an argument used by every single teenage hack who gets caught shoplifting.
Go back to yelling at kids on your front porch, shoplifting != piracy. Shoplifting is literally depriving some one of money they would have made. Piracy is theoretically depriving people of money they might have made. There is no guarantee a pirate would have bought the item in the first place; therefore, no one is actually being deprived of money.

If they decide to steal it instead of pirate it, actual merchandise is being removed from the shelves costing both the distributor and company money for an actual product that is no longer on the shelves for some one to pay for.

Who is literally losing money if some one pirates a single song, or even the entire CD? No one because no physical product goes missing. However, I don't agree with pirating full CDs though. If you like it enough to pirate the whole thing, go buy the god damn thing on iTunes.

Entirely correct. Unfortunately they are stupid.
Which is my entire point.
Angry old codgers are afraid of this new fangled technology so try and shut it down with their idiot technology.

Because copy protection often has an impact on the ability to play on certain media players. Because my otherwise previously existing concept of fair use is impeded out of fear that I will stick it on LimeWire. Copy protections are a pain.

And yet piracy is still increasing at large rates even with stricter DRM...

I've had enough knocking my head against the wall with morons whose actions are making my life harder. Feel free to go to hell you all, I'm done with your crap.

But it may not work in my car cdplayer anymore.
It is also possible I can not use my right to backup the data.

Isn't backing up data making an unauthorized copy of it?

I've had enough knocking my head against the wall with morons whose actions are making my life harder. Feel free to go to hell you all, I'm done with your crap.

Do you work in the music industry?

And yet piracy is still increasing at large rates even with stricter DRM...
That is because DRM causes piracy. DRM protected CDs often do not work on some CD readers because of the protection. Pirated music/dvds, on the other hand, will have had the DRM either removed or cracked by the dedicated cracker or hacker groups making a burned CD much more widely compatible.

Isn't backing up data making an unauthorized copy of it?
If I recall correctly, at least all music has a clause that says one copy may be made for personal use as a backup copy.

I've had enough knocking my head against the wall with morons whose actions are making my life harder.
Ignorance.

Isn't backing up data making an unauthorized copy of it?

Not if it is explicitly allowed by law, no.
As I said - my country punishes the distribution of the material. I can make seventeen million copies of a copyrighted cd if I wish, just as long as noone else gets them.

If I recall correctly, at least all music has a clause that says one copy may be made for personal use as a backup copy.


Doesn't that mean you can't put songs from a cd onto an mp3 player, because you are making three copies.

QFT.



And then, the movie makers and actors would get paid.... how?
The movie studios would make a profit.... how?

Of course, if we want to make it so unprofitable that they cease making movies the way we want them -- with kick-ass special effects, big name movie stars, etc., that will really make downloading worthwhile.

:rolleyes:

If you think that movies are all about that, then I'm realy sorry for you.:(

:mp5: HOLLYWOOD

Doesn't that mean you can't put songs from a cd onto an mp3 player, because you are making three copies.

You could destroy one copy (i.e. the one on your pc) I assume.

Yeah god knows the production staff doesn't get any pay. :rolleyes:

Someone has to take a hit for the team...

no it's not. else all those spyware/malware distribution sites would be shut down.
snip

Depends some have been, and some haven't been it is a real gray area made even worse by the fact that many many of them are international

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/07/04/mpaas-media-defender-sets-up-fake-site-to-catch-pirates/
This really is disgusting. Spyware is not a valid way to fight piracy.
Just wait until the scourges of the internets hear this...
They are SO asking for mass DOS attacks.

I think I am a pretty good example of a pirate.
I download music or videos that I want to watch, but which I do not want to watch badly enough to pay for the CD or DVD. Music or movies I find interesting might be worth a listen or watch (i rarely watch a movie more than once) I download because it is worth the time it takes to download it, but not worth the money to purchase. Pirated material thus actually represents no loss whatsoever.

On the rare occasion that I really like a song or two from some band, I will actually buy their CDs and might want to go see them in concert if possible. The music, which cost them nothing for me to get a copy of, could thus cause sales of CDs and tickets.

If music or videos were available from a good online source for cheap (like iTunes, but I dont want to deal with that crap - just a plain universally accessible format), I would buy it from the legitimate source simply to ensure that it is very high quality, complete without errors, and free of any potential viruses. Old songs could go for a few cents, with newer songs charging a little more, perhaps scale the price to the bandwidth that song is taking up.

That would be the proper way to handle the new technology - make it more accessible to more people. Do high volume with low charges (negligible costs mean that it would be a huge profit margin) and most people will buy it legitimately rather than bother to search for a potentially crappy copy

Not that iTunes helps with piracy of single songs too much. Due to it's bs proprietary Apple format crap, it isn't worth it to buy a single song because the best way to get it into a usable format is burn a CD.

no it's not.
JuNii it actually is... In the US that is.

else all those spyware/malware distribution sites would be shut down. It's because they are all located overseas, we can't touch them because there is no international Spyware law.
The majority of phishing, spyware, and other stuff are located in Russia and China. We can't do jack.
(For example the CoolWWWsearch Hjacker is based in a Russian website, because it's in Russia they cannot be proscuted therefore they continue to send out their spyware without fail. ****ing scum they are.)

and if you downloaded the spyware into your pc, then you basically gave it permission for the installation. BUZZZ.
Wrongo, if it does something that ISN'T stated in the User agreement then it is infact illegal. If it does not say "We will search your computer for any illegal content and report it to _____" then it is illegal.

I'm really confused by what they were attempting to do here.

Was it -
a) allow users to download movies for free and then prosecute them?
b) use spyware to find unauthorised copies of movies
c) allow users to upload movies and then prosecute them?

a) seems pointless as they were obvious acting with the permission of the copyright holders. Therefore such downloading was entirely legal. If they weren't then they've opened themselves up to entrapment or prosecution for distributing copyrighted materials without permission.

b) I'm pretty sure they would have covered their arse by putting in the EULA what the software would do, but I presume it would be hidden deep in the EULA. But how could they prove that it was an unauthorised copy? Unless it was a cinema recording or from a preview DVD then the user could just claim it was a backup copy. Plus the company would also have to prove they hadn't fabricated the evidence - very hard to do unless the defendent's computer had been confiscated before the HDD could be wiped.

c) This would appear to be their best option. All you would need is a tickbox and a disclaimer saying they weren't responisble if you uploaded copyroghted content and that weren't allowed to. And that they would check all content before allowing to be shared to make sure they were not complicit in any copyright violations.

I'm really confused by what they were attempting to do here.
I think c) and d) they are gathering data about potential sources of information - about the people who can be then coerced to testify against bigger targets.

Thanks to this thread, I will not be a victim of this cruel trick. I would be the kind of person who would try an ddownload stuff, get caught, and be pissed off
:sniper:

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/07/04/mpaas-media-defender-sets-up-fake-site-to-catch-pirates/




This really is disgusting. Spyware is not a valid way to fight piracy.

Spyware pisses me off. I don't like that a program in my computer can upload/download stuff without my consent skynet style.

Spyware pisses me off. I don't like that a program in my computer can upload/download stuff without my consent skynet style.

At least spyware hasn't asploded us. Though it's only a matter of time. Spyware is everywhere.


Kinda like the mods :eek:

At least spyware hasn't asploded us. Though it's only a matter of time. Spyware is everywhere.


Kinda like the mods :eek:

Fris is an evil, self aware computer system?

*hides*

I was thinking more, "We are the Mod, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile."

And, of course, the obligatory "T'hell with the MPAA"

Fris is an evil, self aware computer system?

*hides*

:eek:

Does this mean that Fris is skynet? Fris is gonna asplode the world!?

I was thinking more, "We are the Mod, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile."

And, of course, the obligatory "T'hell with the MPAA"

It's immoral what they are doing. They are catching a crime by commiting a crime.

It's immoral what they are doing. They are catching a crime by commiting a crime.I dunno if they are committing a crime though. It's not their fault if people are agreeing to contracts that can be legally enforced without reading them first.

I dunno if they are committing a crime though. It's not their fault if people are agreeing to contracts that can be legally enforced without reading them first.

I always thought entrapment was illegal. Then again, I'm not sure what counts as entrapment and what doesn't now that I think about it. Vice squads do their business, which would fall under my understanding of entrapment.

:confused:

I always thought entrapment was illegal. Then again, I'm not sure what counts as entrapment and what doesn't now that I think about it. Vice squads do their business, which would fall under my understanding of entrapment.

:confused:

Can private companies entrap someone? Or is entrapment just for police?

*awaits lawyers*

That's only legal because they can lobby for it.

I always thought entrapment was illegal. Then again, I'm not sure what counts as entrapment and what doesn't now that I think about it. Vice squads do their business, which would fall under my understanding of entrapment.

:confused:

No they walk the line they are forced not to solicit first, they can appear as wanting to provide a service but they actually let the perp make the request without solicitation

It is a fine line and they walk it very carefully

Can private companies entrap someone? Or is entrapment just for police?

*awaits lawyers*

I think it's anyone. *is talking out of ass*

*awaits Neo Art*

Although now I can't stop thinking about how vice squads are legal.

*fires up Azureus and seeds several files* :D

No they walk the line they are forced not to solicit first, they can appear as wanting to provide a service but they actually let the perp make the request without solicitation

It is a fine line and they walk it very carefully

Ah. That makes complete sense. Yay for interwebs!

No they walk the line they are forced not to solicit first, they can appear as wanting to provide a service but they actually let the perp make the request without solicitation

It is a fine line and they walk it very carefullySo as long as they don't market their service then they would be legal?

Of course, if I were them I would almost certainly attempt to use guerilla/viral marketing campaigns.

and if you downloaded the spyware into your pc, then you basically gave it permission for the installation. Just like you can invite people into your house, but if one of them is an off duty police officer and you do something illegal, its not an unlawful search.

Nuh uh. Not if the spyware here doesn't announce itself. Otherwise Sony would not have lots its DRM rootkit case.

Using your example, it would be closer if you invite a bunch of friends, and one of them is an undercover cop who goes around searching your stuff and bringing them to light although he wasn't legally allowed to do so in the first place.

who do they go after, the fucker who created the virus or all those who spread it?

So you would agree to the courts shutting down MPAA's bait site?

Apparently the MPAA has already shut it down. That is, as soon as they discovered some individual was on to them as the webmasters.

Apparently the MPAA has already shut it down. That is, as soon as they discovered some individual was on to them as the webmasters.

Dur, of course. It'd come back and bite them in court if they tried to sue if it was known. They'll just come back with a different site.